December 4th, 2010, 09:36 PM
World Government, Improbable or Inevitable?
This is a subject I never get tired of. I personally think that barring any major world catastrophe, such as another world war, climate change, asteroid strike, ice age, super volcano,,,etc. It's inevitable.
If that does happen, does anybody care to speculate on what the most likely form that government will take? (Democratic, Corporate, Dictatorial or something else)
World government, for sure. In my mind, the true question is... On which world?
Is that your way of saying, “improbable” despite the conditions I interjected?Originally Posted by inow
Actually I lean towards being a pessimist and really think a major disaster of some kind will happen first, but I like to dream that we humans will do better. I do like to check myself and find out what others think.
A trend of life has been for self-sustaining orders to emerge, which the parts can't fully understand or appreciate. I reckon this already well underway, ordering human activity beyond individual comprehension. A reductionist would say the emergent orders are "dumb" because they're just collections of parts acting rationally in their own interests. Like biology is just chemistry is just physics. A hard rule of emergence is that no part can appreciate the whole.
I'm kinda saying the next "governments" will not be understood as such by us, but they will govern us.
I guess I did ask for this didn't I?
Necessary, but improbable.
So you don't think it will be democratic. I get that.
If you analyze European feudal systems, it becomes apparent that, in many cases the king of a country like say England, was simply the most powerful lord. There was not really a formal hierarchy system in place as such. The other lords followed him because they had no choice. If he pushed them too far, then a combination of them might band together and oust him, but then they'd have to trust whichever of their peers took his place to do a better job.
My theory is that the USA's position right now is basically like that. We are currently the most powerful lord in a world wide system that basically amounts to being a huge anarchy, with lordships everywhere, but no common unifying leadership over them all.
If the world really hates us for any reason, it's probably just because we won't step up and lead. We keep objecting that we're not their police force, or their mommy, or whatever,..... and really that is the responsibility that comes with power. It's like if Superman decided not to fight crime.
I think you hit the nail on the head for the most part. I think we are trying to be policeman at least in neighborhoods where we might be able to get away with it.
The problem I have with that is I don't mind paying for police protection in my neighborhood, but I do mind paying for it in somebody else's neighborhood.
No, I mean it's necessary to keep democracy, but it's unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.So you don't think it will be democratic. I get that.
I think democracy is only possible between groups that have agreed not to kill one another. In feudal Europe, say England, lords within the same country would fight and kill each other all the time over land claims. The king's role was only a little bit more than as a mediator that could facilitate agreement sometimes, about some rules. Now... imagine a president or prime minister trying to fill that same role under those circumstances?No, I mean it's necessary to keep democracy, but it's unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.So you don't think it will be democratic. I get that.
That's basically what the UN is. It's a prime minister/congress system trying to play the role of a king. Nobody hardly respects it because it can't even mobilize its own military. It can pass resolutions, but it can't enforce them, so basically it's got the same status as a whiny child.
“Whiny child” I like that, it really fits the spot. What about big money getting big enough to just be controlling everything under the table? Chairman of the world, out of sight but still pulling the strings.
It depends on if you think big money would ever behave in a responsible manner. If it just goes around making messes and expecting everyone else to pick up after it, then it will be worse than anarchy. Far worse.
Actually I was thinking about big money emerging to run the world more like a well run corporation. However big corporations are rarely well run, I guess that's out.
Well who knows? Some common enemy might materialize and force the world to unite under one government in order to defeat it. Not sure what that common enemy might be. Perhaps international criminal organizations, maybe some economic disaster or the good old stand by alien invasion.
Necessary and inevitable.
I foresee a free-market, social democratic world government in the future. Whether it's 500 years away or 2000, who can tell?
Ultimately, I think it will occur to humankind that arbitrary political boundaries in the absence of stark cultural differences (which I assume will be smoothed via increased trade, freedom, and mobility) is unacceptably inefficient and that a central governing world state will be the outcome. I think we are seeing the start of such an entity in terms of how we are dealing with international realism: the UN, NATO, NAFTA, EU, etc.
The problem is getting a corporation to accept a wide enough scope of responsibility. A rug maker, for example, focuses on making rugs. The chemical waste made in the process ceases to be their concern the moment the rug is done being made, unless somebody forces them to treat waste disposal as if it were part of the rug production process.Actually I was thinking about big money emerging to run the world more like a well run corporation. However big corporations are rarely well run, I guess that's out.
Corporations spend just as much effort passing the buck as they do on streamlining their own processes to make them more efficient. Getting someone else to pay for something is the ultimate "Efficiency" in that game.
Too bad it can't be a common goal instead.
Well who knows? Some common enemy might materialize and force the world to unite under one government in order to defeat it. Not sure what that common enemy might be. Perhaps international criminal organizations, maybe some economic disaster or the good old stand by alien invasion.
The corporate structure and business model could be structured to run and take care of world business. Then instead of taxing people it could just make a profit.
Too bad it can't be a common goal instead.
Improbable (at least for a long time) and unnecessary.World Government, Improbable or Inevitable?
All human development is based in fact that some nations are different from others.
Bigger, usually, doesn`t mean better.Making everyone closer to average and flattening of differences will slow down the progress.
If the world government is set up to better the lives of all humans on the planet. What do you have to complain about? As far as peoples differences go, maintaining different cultures could be built in to the government, similar to the way we have a bill of rights. Bigger may not always be better, but it could be way better in this case. Can you imagine no more war, a lot less starvation and a policy to guarantee education for everyone. Also your argument about making everybody average is totally ridiculous. It couldn't possibly happen.
In any event not having to support a large military in most of the worlds countries would save a lot in manpower and resources that could be put to better use, and countries that are duplicating each others research could free up a lot of talent to work on other high priority projects and actually increase our overall progress and advancement.
Stanley is right that you still need competition in order to keep that business from stagnating. What you're proposing is effectively not much different from Communism. Same problem. No competition = no quality.
My thinking is that I wouldn't mind the government claiming ownership of all natural resources, then just charging a rent/usage/extraction fee to corporations that wanted to profit by using those resources. I see no reason for resource ownership to be privatized, as there is no way to do so more or less efficiently. Extracting raw iron, for example, can be done more efficiently if multiple extracting companies are competing, but merely owning the iron vein? A monkey could do that job.
I agree about the competition. It has to somehow be built in to the government so it continuously works in the best interest of all humans.
Haven't there been think tanks set up to do just that (I mean work on world government format)? Any idea on how to access that data and take a look at the current thinking on that subject? I'm sure it would be quite interesting and would make a great topic for a new thread.
Would you agree that China should dictate to Americans what to do just beacuase China is bigger?Could you define borders and limits of World government powers?Should it be elected?Should every person in the world have right to vote or there should be one vote from each country?How do you think world goverment is able to eliminate starvation and wars?If it will guaranty food to each person what to do to people who want to have 50 children and give zero production output?Bigger may not always be better, but it could be way better in this case.
Yes I agree those are all good questions. I didn't promise it would be easy or painless and like most governments it will probably leave most people unsatisfied with the compromises it makes when formulating it's policy decisions. I especially don't think a country like the USA which provides a fairly high standard of living to it citizens is going to find it very easy to give away anything to a world government. As to your comment about people who produce zero but want 50 children. I'm going to have to insist that scientists develop a vaccine against human pregnancy to be administered to everyone until they meet the qualifications to receive the antidote.
I really hate when the first big controversial decision is going to be so very unpopular at least until it works so very well people will wonder why it wasn't done sooner. What do I mean by qualifications?
Couples wanting children would have to be legally married or paired. They would have to meet minimum knowledge about being in a successful relationship and child rearing. Also, prove they can financially support a family.
I don't think it's to much for a society to expect and insure the best start in life for every child born. I'm sure everywhere in the world being a wanted child born into a productive family that knows how to best care for and raise you is 1000% better than the way we do it now.
Ideally, we would treat world governments in the same way as how the USA treats its member states. They're states, not countries. China would be kind of like California, Texas, or New York.
That right there is the fundamental problem with democracy. Everyone wants that. The government constantly has to apologize for failing to give it to them.what to do to people who want to have 50 children and give zero production output?
Great! What about adopting Sharia law?
Seriously, do you really believe that people will accept this? What do you plan to do with people who will have children anyway? How do you define the "minimum knowledge about being in a succesful relationship", what the hell is that supposed to mean anyway? etc.
The solution is much simpler - reduce poverty, everything else will follow.
People often don't want to do whats best for them or others. So we make and pass laws. Did you miss that part about a vaccination against pregnancy? If you want a child simply meet the basic requirements. I really don't know what that minimum knowledge would be, but I'm sure the experts could come up with something and if it needed any tweaking from time to time, no problem.
Hey! If every child born was a wanted child, I could live with that. However, I take exception to all the unwanted children being born, most of them to women that are still children themselves. If you want to drive a car you are required to pass a knowledge and skills test and prove fiscal responsibility. Do you consider having a child to be less important than that, just because people will be upset. Give me a break.
Next I would like you to tell me when you expect our world population to reach numbers that are unsustainable? What you don't know? Can you come up with a good guess? Don't forget about our climate getting warmer, we might have new coast lines shrinking our living space sooner than we all expect. How many of those dead beat criminals do you want running around when that starts happening?
We need a world government that's not afraid to kick some butt when it's needed or were just not going to survive in any kind of shape to make life worth living.
No, I didn't, but I found it too silly to deserve response.
Yes, it's all so simple! (How old are you?)
Never.
Thats right, we need a great government like this one.
@ Twit of wit
I'm sure we can come up with something better than that. I'm really not into reliving any bad history and I'm not into creating any bad history either.
When you said never. That was rather abrupt, could you expand on that a bit please? I personally believe we are headed for a population crash that's going to make extinction look good. I'm sure you can make an argument that we will solve our energy problems. Right now that's looking a bit iffy, but who knows it's possible. But even if we ween ourselves off gasoline, we still have a whole economy based on oil and the products it supports. I guess we can learn to do without? Or can we? A big chunk of our food production is dependent on those products. All of our infrastructure is dependent on those products. The cities we live in are dependent on those products. But that's okay, because we in the USA will be able to hold out much better than the rest of the world, right? But I guess they will go down quietly without bothering us any, right.
Funny you should ask me how old I am? Here's a hint, I won't live to see any of that doom and gloom I've been spouting. Oh well! We were all born to die sooner or later.
What you will get is first of all is acusation in racism.In some countries missianaries are trying to spread condoms to prevent farther spread of HIV.Local population throw condoms in garbage and see in those trials no more than ``an attempts of evil white racists to reduce our birthrates``.I'm going to have to insist that scientists develop a vaccine against human pregnancy to be administered to everyone until they meet the qualifications to receive the antidote.
It seems that some countries are seeing overpopulation and extremely high birth rates as a weapon against of developed countries.Woman is our main weapon - openly say leaders of such countries.
Only one possible principle of joint goverment that I see, is example similar to Austo-Hungary when weaker nations agree to accept patronage of more developed countries.It may work,for example,for some Eastern Europian countries where corrupted government is main obstacle of development.In this case a nation may accept compete administration from abrod.History will show if more examples of such deliberate colonisation are possible.
I have no doubt that you are right and for that very reason it would be very helpful to have developed an airborne delivery system for mass inoculation of the population.
Disclaimer: This scenario I've outlined assumes the human race will have it's back up against the wall for survival and drastic measures will be enacted and enforced. From what I know of human nature, people just don't respond until a disaster is already happening or has happened. In this case that will most likely be to late for most of humanity. I will admit that humanity could recover, but second time around they won't have the advantage of all the resources that got used up the first time around.
So why do you call for creating a totalitarian world government, genocide etc??
@ Twit of wit
I'm sure we can come up with something better than that. I'm really not into reliving any bad history and I'm not into creating any bad history either.
Developed countries have fertility rates already below 2. Most other countries have fertility rates slightly above 2. Only several very poor countries have fertility rates significantly higher, but they also have high mortality and high rates of HIV. The world average is around 2.5 and constantly declining. No reason to panic. If you think it's not enough then try to do something to fight poverty in Africa.
I'm not sure. I don't know what you are waiting for, everyone else is trying to lower their dependence on oil.
YOU in the USA. (I'm an insomniac.)
Wrong. You will be among the worst hit, exactly because you are so much dependent on oil.
Racism has no scientific basis. When you think about races you mean few genetic traits that happen to be clearly visible. But there are much more traits that are not visible and their distribution is very different. Your racism just proves how stupid you are.
@Twit of wit
Totalitarian seems a bit harsh and genocide is definitely not what I was advocating, by setting up a system to make sure every child gets the best start in life.So why do you call for creating a totalitarian world government, genocide etc??
I think the last estimate I heard about world population was by 2050 we will be at about 9 billion. But that is not the only factor involved in determining what's to much for the world to support. I'm not the only one to believe that world population is being held artificially high due to our oil based economy. Oil as a resource is being used up. The human population is in equilibrium with the resources we are able to make use of and when that number one resource is gone that equilibrium is going to be readjusted, ready or not.Developed countries have fertility rates already below 2. Most other countries have fertility rates slightly above 2. Only several very poor countries have fertility rates significantly higher, but they also have high mortality and high rates of HIV. The world average is around 2.5 and constantly declining. No reason to panic. If you think it's not enough then try to do something to fight poverty in Africa.
In my opinion, to late to little, but may put off the real bad time to come a few years.I'm not sure. I don't know what you are waiting for, everyone else is trying to lower their dependence on oil.
We have something in common. I'm an insomniac who lives in the US.YOU in the USA. (I'm an insomniac.)
Maybe, but have you considered what kind of damage to the rest of the world the USA with a fully panicked population might do?Wrong. You will be among the worst hit, exactly because you are so much dependent on oil.
One of the problem towards world government is that humanity in whole and especially it`s social structure is evil.Therefore adding of evils will just lead to the one larger evil.If there is some hope for humanity it lays not in integration (of evils) but in greater and greater differentiation (of good from evil).
Not sure how you define evil. I really don't like that word because of the religious connotations. Also I have to disagree with your assessment of government. Just about everything you have and are is because of our human social structure. But if you want there's probably some place you can go where you can plan your next kill so you can eat and then if you have time maybe worry about shelter. Some place that can be defended and also keep you dry and warm. But if it's that good somebody will try and take it from you. Excuse me for wanting the good things in life that being a part of society helps provide.
It seems that for now world leaders succeded in creating of such vacine (or very similar and efficient methods) against of developed people and nations rather than developing (who really need it).I don`t see what prevents Europian countries,for example,regulate it`s population with help of artificial reproduction (surrogasy) rather than taking in uneducated and hostile immigrants.I have no doubt that you are right and for that very reason it would be very helpful to have developed an airborne delivery system for mass inoculation of the population.
Nothing religious.Key words here are slavery and corruption.Oppression of weaker by stronger which is now our natural law.I thik only hope here is creation of human societies and later countries which would be based on personal (good) qualities selection.Such qualities as intelligence,common sense and wormheartness.Not sure how you define evil. I really don't like that word because of the religious connotations.
1)Earth resources arn`t limitless.2)Bare propositions are miningless.3)Lots of people are hopeless.The solution is much simpler - reduce poverty, everything else will follow.
When I made this suggestion I am making an assumption that whatever form of world government we might have will be fair and will apply all laws equally to all peoples of the world.
Well yes, we've had a lot of practice with governments of all kinds. We should be getting better at it. I always say if what you are doing is not working, don't keep doing it hoping for a different result.Nothing religious.Key words here are slavery and corruption.Oppression of weaker by stronger which is now our natural law.I thik only hope here is creation of human societies and later countries which would be based on personal (good) qualities selection.Such qualities as intelligence,common sense and wormheartness.
I really like simplicity, however there is nothing simple about reducing poverty, especially in the world we have today. I'm sure if I say it's not going to happen anytime soon, that it will not be a big surprise to you.The solution is much simpler - reduce poverty, everything else will follow.1)Earth resources arn`t limitless.2)Bare propositions are miningless.3)Lots of people are hopeless.
Just in case you are not trolling:
It's not a bit harsh, it'snot harsh enough. Sterilizing all people and giving them antidote only if they surrender to your rule is coercion so extreme that even North Korea or stalinist Russia would be utopian states in comparison.
It is. Your main target would be extremely poor people who could never meet your standards in their life. You are certainly not the only person who hates poor people, I would like to her from you why.
No. But if I think about it I'm not worried, I guess they will blame taxi drivers or somethig like that.
It is. Just give them the money you would use to develop your weapon.
I don't see how it could help. Fertility in Europe is low because people don't want children, not because they can't have them.
1. That's why we should do it.
3. Because they are poor.
World government should be fought against, current governments of the world are not democratic as it is and sometimes too large and detatched.
What we need is local transparent democratic governments representing the local population, but sharing and cooperating on a voluntary basis in federated and world initiatives.
My position is human survival comes before so called individual rights. However, I'm not really denying anybody the right to have a child, but I am suggesting the conditions they have to meet first. Is it to much to ask that every child born be a wanted child?
I don't hate poor people. The government would have to have services that would allow everybody that wants a child to qualify. Qualifying would have to be set up to be in context with the local community in which the applicant lived.Your main target would be extremely poor people who could never meet your standards in their life. You are certainly not the only person who hates poor people, I would like to her from you why.
It's not meant to be used as a weapon, but to greatly enhance the human condition here on Earth.It is. Just give them the money you would use to develop your weapon.
Maybe you have good reason to be paranoid, but please don't suspect my motives as being anything but in the best interest of the human race (all of us on this world).
On a more personal note, may I ask you why you have never started your own thread on this forum? I find it hard to believe anybody that enjoys participating in this forum wouldn't have topics they would like to explore with others. It's not that tough and what's the worst that can happen? Nobody responds or somebody calls you a troll. You just get over it and move on. Anyway, I will be interested in your first thread and it will change your experience on this forum.
Perhaps, like me, Twit of Wit is happy to make observations, but feel they have little original to introduce that would merit a thread. My part here is reactive, not proactive.
Federated (I like that) reminds me of Startrek. That's a great ideal, but I don't think we can get there from where we are right now. Do you mind if we go through a few steps that will put our world social structure in the right frame of mind for that to happen first?
"unwanted" means that the parents don't want it. So you want to enact a draconian law to prevent people from doing what they don't want to do? That makes no sense. Just keep contraception and abortion legal and addordable to everyone and let people decide what they want.
Damn! I never would have guessed. But whatever makes you happy. I'm only suggesting that hosting your own thread is a very different feeling than just responding. First of all it puts you into a different frame of mind, because you are always on the lookout for that perfect topic and when you find one, you then wonder if anyone else will find it of sufficient interest to comment on. Next if people do comment on it, it becomes your obligation to respond and sometimes that's not as easy as you might expect. If you don't respond there's a good chance your thread will die a premature death. If you respond badly, you might get a bloody nose and your thread will still die a premature death. Anyway all I can say is nothing ventured, nothing gained and as with Twit I'd be very interested in your first thread if you ever do one. With your experience on this forum, I'd bet a first thread (Topic) on your part would draw a lot of interest. I'm not sure what the record for the longest first thread is, but I'll bet you could give it a run for the money.Perhaps, like me, Twit of Wit is happy to make observations, but feel they have little original to introduce that would merit a thread. My part here is reactive, not proactive.
Okay Twit, after we save the human race we'll put to a vote."unwanted" means that the parents don't want it. So you want to enact a draconian law to prevent people from doing what they don't want to do? That makes no sense. Just keep contraception and abortion legal and addordable to everyone and let people decide what they want.
Completely agree.Creating of good World government=World conquest.World government should be fought against, current governments of the world are not democratic as it is
Only brute force could stop animals from their wicked practices.
You are writing an obvious eyewash.There is always some people (even amongst native Europeans) who want to have as much children as possible.This is just question of sponsoring.If you will ask me why goverment should sponsor somebody having 100 children, I will ask you why should it sponsor hostile immigrants and countless pensioners who were not able to produce any children?I don't see how it could help. Fertility in Europe is low because people don't want children, not because they can't have them.
"Do you mind if we go through a few steps that will put our world social structure in the right frame of mind for that to happen first?"
IMO the first step is to achieve transparent democracy in a number of countries and survive potential backlash from crypto-oligarchs/elite/bankers/etc (subversion/corruption/coup d'etat/invasion), including the US which is at his point appears very hard to achieve in the near future for a number of reasons (concentration of power, directly and indirectly controlled media (propaganda), clueless uninformed public, hierarchy in organizations, rogue secret operations, systemic corruption/MIC, zionist corruption/AIPAC, etc)
Sweet word. To me the presence of such(crypto-oligarchs) is apparent. For an initial power structure crypto-oligarchs make sense, but shouldn't they eventually evolve into an open totalitarianism? It's not as if the shepherd need's to hide from the sheep?crypto-oligarchs
From reading all your responses I get a strong feeling that any kind of government created and run by humans is not to be trusted. Quite frankly I sympathize with that feeling. No government that starts out bad ever turns out good and no government that started out good ever seems to stay that way. In the USA when you listen to people talk about an election, more often than not they plan to vote against a man or a party rather than vote for someone. The fact that all elections involve a lot of mud slinging also says something about our system.
I do have a suggestion that will be quite controversial and technologically we aren't yet able. But we might be able sooner than we all think, so I would like to hear how others might feel on this subject.
Most or at least a sizable number of scientists believe that we will create a sentient self aware machine, computer or robot if you will, sometime in the twenty first century and if humanities best interest were built into it, would it not make the best choice to run the world government?
I really don't want to hear a rehash of all the doom scenarios that have been sensationalized in the movies.
Personally,my feeling is that claims of creating something rudely mechanical and concious at the same time is widely exagerated.I`m very sceptical on that matter.First of all it`s very difficult for me to imagine how something as complicated as human brain will be created by technical means.I can`t even imagine technology which will allow to do it.Secondly, even if we would have technology of creating something that complicated, we will run into clearly philosophical imposiblity to continue because humans can`t competely understand it`s own nature.It`s like tryng to pull itself from a bog for your own hair.Something alive could comletely realize only something smaller than it is but never something equel to itself or something bigger (more commplicated).Most or at least a sizable number of scientists believe that we will create a sentient self aware machine, computer or robot if you will, sometime in the twenty first century and if humanities best interest were built into it, would it not make the best choice to run the world government?
After all, moral qualities of A.I. will depend on people who will create it and on their desire to make it good or evil.I have great douts that world leaders will allow it to be created ``good`` beacause they will quickly realize revolution to follow.
What difference does make ``good`` A.I. in comparison to ``good`` people?Only that it`s non-organic?If world leaders will allow moral A.I. to rull all,why don`t they allow moral people to do the same?
While no one can know for sure that something that does not currently exist ever will exist, for the purpose of my inquiry I'm going to assume it will.
I disagree with that statement completely. Also, it's quite probable that when a machine becomes self aware it will be as much a surprise to us as it is to the machine. An intelligent self aware machine would be a new life form and it would deserve our respect as a sentient being.Secondly, even if we would have technology of creating something that complicated, we will run into clearly philosophical impossibility to continue because humans can't completely understand it's own nature. It's like trying to pull itself from a bog for your own hair. Something alive could completely realize only something smaller than it is but never something equal to itself or something bigger (more complicated).
I'm pretty sure no machine intelligence will have anything close to human emotions. But I'm equally sure that it will have to follow core programing the same way we have instinctual responses. But without many decades of research and study it's hard to predict the reality of actual machine intelligence.After all, moral qualities of A.I. will depend on people who will create it and on their desire to make it good or evil. I have great doubts that world leaders will allow it to be created “good” because they will quickly realize revolution to follow.
What difference does make “good” A.I. in comparison to “good” people? Only that it's non-organic?
One thing I do know is no machine will ever have a reason to become corrupt and as long as they need us to create new machines they will have a vested interest in making sure humans are kept safe and reasonably happy.If world leaders will allow moral A.I. to rule all, why don't they allow moral people to do the same?
Some scientists already tried to create philosophical stone and eternal engine but run into some problems.While no one can know for sure that something that does not currently exist ever will exist, for the purpose of my inquiry I'm going to assume it will.
Some scientists of our time already ``seriously predicted`` that one teraflop of computer power is roughly equal to human brain power and neurons could be easily modulated on computers.So when we will reach one teraflop breakthrough they said we will have human immortality,digitalizing personalities,concious A.I. and similar staf.
Currently most powerfull world supercomputer acheives 2 thousands teraflops!And what?Do you think that if many reallyserious scientists would believe in A.I. they would not insist to use such supercomputers for something more interesting that weather forecasts and stars in galaxies calculations?Nobody now have even idea how human brain is working!I don`t advise you to believe easily to different scientists who want to receive grants for their researches and sell their bestsellers being envy to Isaac Azimov.
As I unerstood from you postings you mean something that does`t have any emotions or feelings of human kind.But in that case your A.I. should be completely dumb.How could it unerstand human needs if it doesn`t unerstand human emotions?
If there is people in this world that are very honest and non-corrupt,what advantage A.I. will have before them?I think it`s much easier to create a human with help of selection or genetic engineering who would have increasingly high moral values than starting from A.I.Also problem is not in corruption solely but in its magnitude.If some president only sins are getting 10 million dollars in doutfull way is one thing but killing of millions is different.One thing I do know is no machine will ever have a reason to become corrupt
Necessary and inevitable.
If we (Europe and the US) are smart we'll push for it so the end result is representative, honors the huge range of cultures and acts to nurture prosperity, human rights, and act as an safety net in response to disasters.
@ Stanley514
You are asking a lot of questions that I find impossible to answer. I don't know what a true sentient AI machine will be like or how much influence humans will be able to have on it.
What I do know is computing power is on the verge of taking a major leap forward. Something about using the spin states of electrons which will have more than just on and off states or 1's and 0's. This will mean processors that can move and process data more like a real brain and make our fastest computer now seem like a slow model T against a Ferrari. Whether that will lead to a true AI I can't say. But it is an indicator advancing computer power is not slowing down any.
Who's to say that intelligence itself isn't on it's own evolutionary path and that it's natural course is from bio-life to machine life? But that's a topic for another sub-forum and off topic for this thread.
I think if self aware AI is achieved that it will have many advantages over humans when it comes to making the necessary choices needed for human survival and advancement and shouldn't be overlooked as a tool to that end.
Short and to the point and well said. I think you are right. We set up the principles and rules which we will operate under and allow others to join when they become willing to work within those guidelines. If what we are doing is working well, we shouldn't have any trouble attracting followers.
To understand human needs A.I. should understand human emotions.To understand human emotions only way is to have such emotions itself.What you will get ultimately in this way (theoretically) is just a human with an "iron" body.For example you unexpectadly getting iron body instead of organic.What difference does it make from political point of view? You may not need organic food or even shelter but still may not refuse from desire of material property and power.I don't think that you will succed in keeping A.I. inocent forever.Ultimately it will decide to try all human emotions on its own and will have to make choice between good and evil.I think if self aware AI is achieved that it will have many advantages over humans when it comes to making the necessary choices needed for human survival and advancement and shouldn't be overlooked as a tool to that end.
Maybe not so much harsh as simply incorrect. A state isn't automatically totalitarian merely because it denies a single right that some other states may grant freely. There are countries where heroine and cocaine are legal drugs. I bet they think the USA is really draconian for outlawing that as well?Just in case you are not trolling:
It's not a bit harsh, it'snot harsh enough. Sterilizing all people and giving them antidote only if they surrender to your rule is coercion so extreme that even North Korea or stalinist Russia would be utopian states in comparison.
Losing the right to reproduce freely would hurt a lot of peoples' feelings, but hardly affect the world's quality of life. We already have all kinds of restrictions on who can adopt children. How is restricting who can bear children so different from restricting who can adopt them?
Again, not very different from adoption laws. Why shouldn't child bearing be something you have to earn the same way as you earn a nice house, or a good retirement plan?It is. Your main target would be extremely poor people who could never meet your standards in their life. You are certainly not the only person who hates poor people, I would like to her from you why.
It's because they're not just undereducated, people in third world cultures have a lot of vestigial cultural beliefs they aren't willing to abandon in order to conform to the findings of modern science. It's about a gazillion times harder to teach someone who has already been mis-educated than it is to teach someone who's still a blank slate.1. That's why we should do it.
3. Because they are poor.
It's a problem in the first world too. There have been some pretty big court battles over whether creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the public schools, all left over from old traditions that don't want to die. The difference is that, in the first world, the means to combat this are already in place. (The freedom of religion, in particular, which stops them from being able to be militant about their views.)
Objectively,I can`t competely agree, because European countries already became quite cultural and civilazed and developed vigorously even in the times when evolution theory was not yet became widely known.And religion had strong influence in society.Even contra,it seems that religion plaid rather positive role in Europian societ,y because Europe didn`t have to import immigrants from abrod and had good fertility rates.Darvin`s theory on other hand has so much misunderstandings that there realy could be open talks on it inforcement in schools.If different countries stay on different ladders of development doesn`t mean that religion is bad at all.It's a problem in the first world too. There have been some pretty big court battles over whether creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the public schools, all left over from old traditions that don't want to die.
I do not demand any answers from you personaly,this forum is designed for many people.Still I would be very surprised if creation of consious non-organic beings would signify the end of corruption by itsels.Human corruption is not based on the fact that we are organic.Animals are also organic, but they have no corruption.People are also not the same-some of them are corrupted,some not.So it`s closer to Hamlet`s free will of choice.You are asking a lot of questions that I find impossible to answer.
Right, but I was just giving Darwinism as an example of a case where science arrives at a conclusion, but people refuse to accept it for cultural/religious reasons. It used to be worse. Galileo had quite a time.
What I'm trying to say is that sometimes people just get so set in their ways they won't learn. It doesn't matter how much education you provide if they won't accept it. Some people think the public schools are the "white man's education", and that they're making a huge statement of protest by refusing to learn anything, then.... go figure..... they stay poor. Imagine that.
@ Stanley
That's somewhat true, however if you are responding to some thing I wrote, I do feel some obligation to respond. Next, if you ask a question or make comments about something that no one can know the answer for sure, you may cause the thread to die prematurely. An example of such a question would be your post, Co-op vs. private etreprises efficiency . It didn't get any responses for a reason.I do not demand any answers from you personally, this forum is designed for many people. Still I would be very surprised if creation of conscious non-organic beings would signify the end of corruption by itself. Human corruption is not based on the fact that we are organic. Animals are also organic, but they have no corruption. People are also not the same-some of them are corrupted, some not. So it`' closer to Hamlet's free will of choice.
As far as corruption goes, well humans are very complex animals that will act in whatever ways they perceive to be in their best interest, and for many humans taking a bribe or selling private information is considered worth the small risk of getting caught. A AI machine will not have any fears or loved ones that can be threatened, also won't care about money or possessions. It would be free to make the best choice based on the facts alone.
I would be glad to know what this reason is.I can`t foresee level of knowledge ofAn example of such a question would be your post, Co-op vs. private etreprises efficiency . It didn't get any responses for a reason.
people on this forum.
I don`t know how to prove it to you,but to me idea of dumb computer who rules the world seems completely meanengless.It`s taken purelly from Isaac Asimov stories.Does it mean that people shoud refuse from democracy and allow Multivac to contradict their own wishes?Or it should serve just as guarantor of democracy and keep eye on real freedom of votes?
People are creative beings and constantly develop.Who will program Multivac to be updated with information?I`ll give example: some group of powerful criminals have developed a terrible weapon with which they threat to the world - a black hole vortex.But Multivac doesn`t know anything about black hole vortexes because it is not in programing! Therefore it makes conclusion that there is no danger and people should do nothing to prevent a threat.As a result criminals destroy large part of the world and conquir the other part.If there should be a technicians who will update Multivac programing what will prevent technician by name Johns to program Multivac that he,Jones, should rule the world becuse he has some paranormal abilities?
In one word to deal with inventive criminals Multivac sould be more creative than any person in the World and more inventive than all people together.It means it should be a god-like!
Or maybe you will answer me this question: should all the burocracy and police and parliament be eliminated and Multivac should rull and run absolutely everything or it should just control human burocrats and prevent corruption?
It's not a matter of proof. When an if a sentient super AI comes into being, it will be in the boat the same as the rest of us. It will have to prove itself capable or it will never be in a position to govern humans. It's as simple as that.
Where do you come off even suggesting humans would let a dumb computer rule us? A super intelligent being is exactly that, for all to see and know. Now hook it up to the Internet and see how much it will know. Also the idea that it will have no emotions is fine with me, because I will never have to worry about it getting pissed off.
Aside from it's initial core programing I expect it to learn and expand it's knowledge like the rest of us (only millions of times faster than we do). It will certainly be able to protect itself from criminals and other unauthorized humans. I am talking about it's programming, which it will be able to preform it's own maintenance and upgrades. (Remember it will be a sentient being with rights the same as the rest of us.)
Well maybe not quite the same, but close enough for government work. (pun intended)
Save from what?
Wrong. Most scientists would disagree.
No, it isn't, but people must in general agree that the law is just. Murder is not wrong because it's against the law, it's against the law because people agree it's wrong.
And yes, the USA drug laws ARE draconian and they do more harm than good.
The feeling of being opressed would hurt the quality of life very badly.
In which country you have to earn the right to own a nice house?
It's more a sign that the USA is slowly deteriorating into a third world country...
How can such machine rule the world to make people as happy as possible if it doesn't understand what "happy" means?
@ Twit of wit
Maybe because it's ruling in a partnership with humans, and in this partnership each brings to the table what they each do best. Besides that when was the last time you were aware of a government making the people happy?How can such machine rule the world to make people as happy as possible if it doesn't understand what "happy" means?
The advantage of humans is that they have critical thinking.It means they could make difference between lies and truth with certain degree of probability.To understand it you need to understand human phychology and intention to cheat.If Multivac would not understnd human emotions it could be easily cheated.For example some bad guys will organaize information warfare and overhelm Multivac with wrong information.Human would quckly recognize a trick but for a computer it will be just question of quantity of information sources which all could be false.Aside from it's initial core programing I expect it to learn and expand it's knowledge like the rest of us (only millions of times faster than we do).
Wherever there would be information link between Multivac and humans this link itself could become corrupted.Which doesn`t make a great difference from any other type of government.
If Multivac would be programed for self upgrades whould it be programing for self increase in size?If yes,what will prevent Multivac from turning all the Eart crust in its own body e.g. unstopable growth?
I believe that non of purely social problems such as corruption or lust for absolute power could be solved with purely technical means such as creation of non-organic concious beings.This is just phenomenons of different dimensions.
@ Stanley514
When a super intelligent self aware machine comes online, if I were you I wouldn't show disrespect by referring to it as Multivac, but that's your choice.
I forgot to mention one more advantage of human over computer.The first one can`t be easily programmed.If a computer will rull the world one lucky hacker could become the next emeror of the world.
Also, in attempt to eliminate corruption you would need to have not only cyberbrain but also robotic police,robotic burorocracy and so on.Because if the latest still remain humans corruption will just swith to their side.If contemporary corruptioners do not affraid wrighten law why should the be scarried of Multivac?
Hierarchy and secrecy have plague humanity for centuries, I dont see the benefit of a world governement in the first place and certainly not a computer running a world governement. Running routine operations that have no political implications nor any contoversial elements, yeah, but not a Government.
We need to get away from a representative that takes decisions without the consent of people, and thats even worst on a global scale, because you need to take into account the people, we need a government of,by,for the people, and people from different regions have different preferences, values and culture.
We can benefit from computers to assist communication and cooperation, and handle routine operation that are subject to vast conccensus.
Also note that computers follow rules and data, so who decides which rules are to be selected and which data is to be considered. Pertinent information can be secret, propaganda can be spread, even would-be hard data(statistics) can hide or distort the truth and be misleading.
I also perceive the danger of misuse for manipulation. In ancient times religion was a tool to manipulate populations, you could say "hey its not me its the invisible man in the sky that says you should bend over" but you would risk having the same thing with cyber-experts replacing priests saying "hey its not me, its the computer that says you should bend over, its the optimized solution calculated beyond the ability of a mere mortal's intelligence, so bend over".
We need to move away from opaque hierachy and global dominance, and move towards open and direct democracy with local open-participative and transparent governance and global transparent cooperation, global governement is Not cooperation its hierarchy applied on a greater scale.
@ icewendigo
It continues to amaze me how so many of you continue to miss the point I've been trying to make. With the right form of world government, the advantages far out weigh any dis advantages and if we gain a powerful ally in the form of a super intelligent AI, it would certainly be a waste of talent to not use it.Hierarchy and secrecy have plague humanity for centuries, I don't see the benefit of a world government in the first place and certainly not a computer running a world government. Running routine operations that have no political implications nor any controversial elements, yeah, but not a Government.
The world government that I am talking about will not replace the current local governments. It will simply take over the functions that are common to all nations such as security, disaster planning and coordinating relief and recovery operations, making and enforcing some laws that would be of common benefit to the world as a whole.We need to get away from a representative that takes decisions without the consent of people, and that's even worst on a global scale, because you need to take into account the people, we need a government of,by,for the people, and people from different regions have different preferences, values and culture.
Again here I'm not talking about a mere computer, but a new machine life form that will call Earth it's home just like we do. It will bring a lot to the table and be a very strong partner in advancing the quality of all our lives. Why would we be so stupid as to exclude it from participating in a world government?We can benefit from computers to assist communication and cooperation, and handle routine operation that are subject to vast consensus.
Also note that computers follow rules and data, so who decides which rules are to be selected and which data is to be considered. Pertinent information can be secret, propaganda can be spread, even would-be hard data(statistics) can hide or distort the truth and be misleading.
I also perceive the danger of misuse for manipulation. In ancient times religion was a tool to manipulate populations, you could say "hey its not me its the invisible man in the sky that says you should bend over" but you would risk having the same thing with cyber-experts replacing priests saying "hey its not me, its the computer that says you should bend over, its the optimized solution calculated beyond the ability of a mere mortal's intelligence, so bend over".
Inflammatory words like “global dominance” reflect fear based on ignorance of what would be the reality of a world government. I think it's clear that we will either have a working world government or we as a species will not progress to a point where we can get off this world and establish viable habitats that will help insure that we don't go the way of the dinosaurs. You know the concept of putting your eggs in more than one basket.We need to move away from opaque hierarchy and global dominance, and move towards open and direct democracy with local governance and global cooperation, global government is not cooperation its hierarchy applied on a greater scale.
The nice thing about silicone is that it doesn't stand up to a Louisville Slugger. Smash univac, Viva la resistance!
Sorry but Ive not read the full description, what is this "right" form of government? How does such a world government operate? What are the advantages and disadvantages?"you continue to miss the point I've been trying to make. With the right form of world government, the advantages far out weigh any dis advantages"
What does that mean? Who decides what level of priority these are and what level of ressources/time/man-hour are allocated to them? Who decides what policies will be used to face these priorities? Is it vonluntary, or determined in some way? What if a region wants nothing to do with the laws to be applied to the world, how do you enforce these laws? What do you mean by security? If the US decides to bomb pakistan, what happens, does the world security force plan a coup d'etat, or retaliatory strikes, or starts getting volunteers for a landing on the beaches of forteress amerika? And who decides and how? How are the laws introduced and what parameters are used to state if they apply to a given country or not?"It will simply take over the functions that are common to all nations such as security, disaster planning and coordinating relief and recovery operations, making and enforcing some laws that would be of common benefit to the world as a whole."
(Quote belongs to ``twit of wit``)If you think it's not enough then try to do something to fight poverty in Africa.
I whish to know how much of your personal income did you spend to help poor people and how many years did you spend living in Africa to help poor there.If you have nothing in response do not teach others with ``morals`` here.
What kind of diseaster prevention or security help could provide backward countries to developed?They are themself great security threat and deseaster!It will simply take over the functions that are common to all nations such as security, disaster planning and coordinating relief and recovery operations
What is concerning developed countries I didn`t hear that something prevent them to do such cooperation right now.
@ icewendigo
Well if I knew the answers to those questions, I could probably quit my day job and find something that pays better. What I do know is that in the here and now what we have is not working very well. We have a world with an inflated population based on an oil economy that's going to run out in a few decades. That's not a good outlook for us. Next, what about global warming? How many more decades do we have before the tide comes in on a major segment of out population? Do you think any one government or group of governments that we now have will be able to deal with those problems? With those two problems alone, we will be so busy trying to keep from drowning that we sure as hell won't have time for a space program. So you can forget about humanity spreading out to the stars. Do I really need to talk about advantages?Sorry but I've not read the full description, what is this "right" form of government? How does such a world government operate? What are the advantages and disadvantages?
I don't know who or what, does that mean we shouldn't start some kind of cooperative planning. When I talk of a world government I mean something the majority of other countries will agree upon and take part in and also share in those advantages I mentioned. Security means just what you think it does. The combined military of all member nations would be under direct control of the world government. Please don't argue that that will never happen as I know what the odds are. Does that answer your question of US bombing Pakistan?What does that mean? Who decides what level of priority these are and what level of resources/time/man-hour are allocated to them? Who decides what policies will be used to face these priorities? Is it voluntary, or determined in some way? What if a region wants nothing to do with the laws to be applied to the world, how do you enforce these laws? What do you mean by security? If the US decides to bomb Pakistan, what happens, does the world security force plan a coup d'etat, or retaliatory strikes, or starts getting volunteers for a landing on the beaches of fortress amerika? And who decides and how? How are the laws introduced and what parameters are used to state if they apply to a given country or not?
Just because I know what needs to happen doesn't mean I know how it will happen or even if it will happen.
Not sure where you got that quote, but it doesn't belong to me, and I don't remember seeing it. When you specify a quote, please indicate who you got it from.
Well,most of people who have lot of money usually try to spend them on luxury goods.The concept of luxury and prestige are not quite animalistic.For example, they are associated with concept of beauty (beauty woman, beauty car, beauty house) and technological admiration (high quality car,high quality computer).An animals have no concept of beauty,because it`s not important for survival.(If people would be like animals they would prefer a tank over Mercedes.) Although, I do not claim that all rich people would be able to invent concept of beauty themself, unless they would be tought by artists.I`m not sure if I need to trust more than human to some cyberbrain which has no unederstanding of what is beauty and what is ugly.I`m sure that without it it would be inferior to human by defenition.Also in intent to develop, any creature need to have motives to do it.History shows that without motive concious beings do not like to develop.Because cyberbrain still would be a material creature its evolution will go rather human ways.As far as corruption goes, well humans are very complex animals that will act in whatever ways they perceive to be in their best interest, and for many humans taking a bribe or selling private information is considered worth the small risk of getting caught.
It was not ment to teach morals, it was an advise how to stop the explosive population growth there. Poverty = children.
Are you sure?How than you explain poor Eastern Europe which has no different birthrate from Western Europe and booming post war U.S. from which babyboomer came from?And Saudi Arabia which has fertility rates not smaller then surrounding poor countries regardless its oil riches?It was not ment to teach morals, it was an advise how to stop the explosive population growth there. Poverty = children.
I think it comes down a lot more to control of and access to birth control for women than income.
I was a assuming that no such law would be passed unless a majority of the people had agreed to it, and if they ever become educated enough, then I think they probably will.No, it isn't, but people must in general agree that the law is just. Murder is not wrong because it's against the law, it's against the law because people agree it's wrong.
And yes, the USA drug laws ARE draconian and they do more harm than good.
The idea of a world government is for the majority to agree and then force the minority to conform, just like with any other law. (There are a small minority of people who don't think murder is wrong also, it's just a very small portion of the population.)
Any restriction can make a person feel oppressed. What makes a restriction placed on reproduction special compared with other restrictions?
The feeling of being opressed would hurt the quality of life very badly.
Um.....most countries. If you don't have enough money then you can't buy the house.In which country you have to earn the right to own a nice house?
I think I see what you're getting at, but you're splitting hairs. Putting a law in place that requires a couple to pay a certain large sum of money to the government in order to be granted a "birth license" would serve essentially the same purpose as simply requiring them to demonstrate they had money in the bank. Maybe the government could take the money they paid and hold onto it until they child's 18th birthday, then give it to the child as a college fund?
No, they will recognize it's not necessary.
How is that relevant to birth control? And you are wrong, it would be created by countries voluntarily joining it, not by conquest.
Of course, but you don't need any special permission from the government.
[quote="Stanley514"](Quote belongs to ``twit of wit``)If you think it's not enough then try to do something to fight poverty in Africa.
"I whish to know how much of your personal income did you spend to help poor people and how many years did you spend living in Africa to help poor there.If you have nothing in response do not teach others with ``morals`` here."
I think this statement shows you might not clearly get what others are saying when refering to systemic issues. I dont dig for change in my pocket nor go volunteer to the local hospital, yet the society i live in provides health care to its citizens and no one goes bankrupt because of medical bills(compared to the us). Asking someone if they personally give money or time for uhc or else their position on the systemic aspect is somehow presented as invalid, appears to be a position of bad faith or misunderstanding.
Our current system makes war, famine, poverty a reality. It is a systemic problem, saying Burt Muston on banana street didnt give to charity is missing the systemic big picture. This is the reality, giving money or not is irrelevant. If war makes Halliburton billions it is able to use millions to favor war, it is one of many conflicts of interest inherent to our corrupt economic system. It appears normal because we are used to it, the same way Romans may have tought that having people butcher each other as entertainment in colliseum or owning slave was quite normal, we are used to war, famine and poverty, but it need not be this way.
You understand that this isn't so much about population control as it is about controlling who raises those kids, right? The ability to give them enough to eat should be a prerequisite.No, they will recognize it's not necessary.
We already have laws on the books that will seize a child from an abusive parent. Why not laws that seize that same child from a deadbeat? Or better yet: laws that save them the trouble of growing up as foster kids "in the system" by never letting them be born into that household to begin with?
Maybe each state/country would have to enter into the world government voluntary, but after the world government is created, the population law would be by majority vote, or at least by some kind of congress.
How is that relevant to birth control? And you are wrong, it would be created by countries voluntarily joining it, not by conquest.
Individual parents would not have the option to obey it or not obey it.
So, you haven't heard of zoning laws?
You need state permission to build a house. Having a child yourself is like building a house, not buying a house. If you buy it well.... that would be analogous to adopting someone else's already born child with their permission.
| « Legalising cannabis: the economic argument | London student protest/riots.... » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
