Turns out Soviet mathematicians had similar ideas
> Economic reform became a pressing need in the mid ’50s, after Stalin’s rule had
left the country in shambles, the chain of supply and the agricultural sector nearing
collapse and a serious risk of another major famine looming. Amidst a very rapid
expansion of the techno-scientific sector, from the early successes of the Soviet space
program to the first large developments of computer systems and automation, several
competing proposals for economic reforms were presented that promoted the idea of
a “computational solution” to the severe mismanagements of the planned economy.
> The original plan of the cybernetics approach was to implement a decentralized
computational system, capable of processing feedbacks in real time and handle the
simulation of complex dynamics. In terms of providing a scalable computational
model, they mostly focused on Kantorovich’s linear programming, which seemed the
most promising mathematical tool at the time. As we mentioned, the scalability
of Kantorovich’s valuations is subtle, and we will discuss a possible more modern
approach to scalability in the next section of this paper. However, the most important
aspect of this proposal was the main idea of a cybernetic computational network and
its role at implementing a decentralized autonomous computational mechanism for a
communist economic system that would not require any centralized planning.
Since we've built up large storage of nuclear weapons, the clock is ticking. Even if the chance of one crazy guy coming to power in one of the governments that can nuke the planet is 0.01% per year, after a few thousand years it will approach dangerous levels...
And I'm not just talking about nukes, but about other potentially mankind ending threats like superviruses, hauling large asteroids onto earth, etc. The more technology we discover, the more methods to end each other's existence. Also, as technological progress continues, so does the spread of these technologies over the world. Smaller and smaller groups get access to them and with the larger number of groups, the likelihood that one of them wants to end all life on earth increases.
Preventing us from inventing these things would require halting and reversing progress in most scientific domains, a pretty sad idea. You can't have nuclear reactors without the danger that someone uses the knowledge of the people who built it to build nukes (I know the two are not the same but so often you hear countries claiming their nuclear program is civilian while in reality it isn't). You can't build rockets without the danger that they might be converted into ICBMs. You can't do advanced biology without understanding infection well enough to know which changes might make an infectious agent more easy to spread, more deadly, etc. You can't do asteroid mining without giving the mining company the power to misdirect the asteroid from an assigned target area to inhabited areas.
So one should rather manage the existence of these technologies instead. No organization ran by humans can reduce the chance of one of these fermi filters from going off well enough to stop them being a threat over extremely long time scales. Only computers can achieve that. I imagine building a computer that is tasked to prevent humans from intentionally destroying large subpopulations of their own. One would have to give it absolute power so that it can ensure this, but one should instruct it to otherwise let humans figure out their governance on their own.
Structures where humans are involved are simply too fragile over the long term.
We don't solve the problem of nukes by limiting who has access to them. We solve the problem of nukes by moving beyond them and making them obsolete, e.g.
> A defensive shield, commonly referred to as simply a shield and sometimes as a Holtzman shield, was a protective energy field that could surround the person who wore it. 
We can start by making bullets obsolete and then slowly move up to nukes.
They only got a few months into it before the CIA in their own words couldn't tolerate the potential of a "successful socialist experiment", and installed Pinochet.
It's unfortunate that the only vaguely socialist governments capable of withstanding the immediate total war inflicted on them by the capitalist powers are the authoritarian ones.
And that is to say nothing of the fact that a space program is very, very different than a national economy.
And it's not like the entire population of Chile was employed, and it's not like that 1 million in the Apollo program accounts for spouses and children.
They're for sure on the same order.
Chile was never going to orchestrate its entire economy with punch cards and 300 baud phone couplers.
Right back at you.
It doesn't have to be perfect, just better than the alternative, which was 1960s Chilean forecasters working in their firms individually with next to no data.
One, you put a whole hell of a lot of people out of work (they’re like ~roughly 20% of the Econ)
Two, it’s too damn efficient. Government needs to be slow and frustrating. You don’t want to have lightning fast change. Natural change follows generational change... which is why you don’t want a world of super centenarians...
Efficient government is a double edged sword. Sure, it can be efficient and save money.... it can also be efficient about the bad things (imagine efficient govt coupled with Stalin or Mao to get a picture).
So, yeah.... No!
Inefficient governments leave you alone more.
Am I making a category error(as in not even wrong!) when i miss mentions of
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viable_system_model and
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation ?
Furthermore: Just because some countries have absurd health-scare systems, doesn't mean it has to be so. That is one single aspect, many other countries with 'markets' have implented in better, less scary ways.
Also: Instead of electing smooth talkers, horror clowns and other sociopaths one could opt for a mandatory lottery akin to jury duty/lay assessors/judges, thereby denying them planned paths to power, and simply less wasted energy because lack of campaining. IMO it couldn't be worse than it is now.
Anyways, this is all way above the realities of real life(TM), human nature, and the disruption/distributed denial of service by advertisment, disinfo and outright fraud our minds are.
I'll tick this off with