My feeling is that if human civilization advances to the point where we can explore outer space in earnest, it will be because humans have become much more cooperative and pluralistic than presently existing humans.
I agree with the main point of your article but I think this is an unjustifiable (but extremely common) belief. There are plenty of ways for human civilizations to survive in stable, advanced forms besides the ways that have been popular in the West for the last couple centuries. For instance:
A human-chauvinist totalitarian singleton.
An “ant-colony” civilization where cooperation and altruism are made evolutionarily stable by enforcing genetic uniformity for humans.
A human civilization presided over by a Friendly AI that secretly exterminates all other life to protect humanity from future alien AI threats.
A global state forms, or one cooperative pluralistic state predominates, but by the time the state’s influence reaches the extraterrestrials, the lack of negative feedback that the state would have obtained if it had had rivals has caused its truth-maintenance institutions to fall into disrepair, with the result that without intending to do so, the humans destroy the extraterrestrials, similar to the way the U.S. is currently unintentionally making a mess of Iraq by believing its own internal propaganda about the universal healing power of free elections, civil rights and universal sufferage.
It turns out (surprise!) that cooperation on the national scale and pluralism are not efficient means of organizing a state that the only reason they are so highly regarded at present is that we are in a period of unusual and unsustainable wealth-per-capita and that professing cooperative and pluralistic values are a good way for individuals and organizations (like NGOs) to impress others and persuade others of their worth as potential friends. When the Hansonian Dream Time ends, i.e., when Malthusian limits reassert themselves and the average life is again lived at the subsistence level, individuals who persist in spending a significant portion of their resources impressing others in this way die off, and those who are left are the ones who realize that coercion, oligarchy and intolerence have again become the only effective long-term means by which to organize a human state.
Human civilization continues to become more cooperative and pluralistic, with the result that those who chafe at that are more likely to venture into space so that they can found small societies organized around other ideals, like exploitation and human-chauvinism. (The pluralistic societies allow that because they are, well, pluralistic.) And those already living in space are more likely to reach the stars first.
National states continue to compete with each other, rather than forming into a single global state. Most of the states continue to become more cooperative and pluralistic, but one state adopts the ethic of aggression against all other states and national expansion, which causes it to reach the stars first.
National states continue to compete with each other, rather than forming into a single global state. Most of the states continue to become more cooperative and pluralistic, but one state adopts the ethic of aggression against all other states and national expansion, which causes it to reach the stars first.
The terrestrial aspect didn’t work when the Nazis tried it.
This is no guarantee that it couldn’t work on a second try, but such a policy is defection on such a massive scale that there’s likely to be a grand alliance against it.
It seems to me that putting military empires together had gotten steadily more difficult, possibly because of the diffusion of technology.
Also, the risks (of finding oneself up against a grand alliance) and the costs of defection might be such that no sensible leader would try it, and if the leader isn’t sensible, they’re likely to have bad judgment in the course of the wars.
Territorial expansion didn’t work for the Nazis because they didn’t stop with just Austria and Czechoslovakia. The allies didn’t declare war until Germany invaded Poland, and even then they didn’t really do anything until France was invaded.
It seems to me that the pluralistic countries aren’t willing to risk war with a major power for the sake of a small and distant patch of land (and this goes double if nuclear weapons are potentially involved). They have good reason for their reluctance—the risks aren’t worth the rewards, especially over the short term. But an aggressive and patient country can, over long time periods, use this reluctance to their advantage.
For example, there’s the Chinese with Tibet and the Russians more recently with South Ossetia.
The USSR also got away with seizing large amounts of land just before and during WWII, mainly because the Allies were too worried about Germany to do anything about it. I concede this was an unusual situation, though, that’s unlikely to occur again in the foreseeable future.
I was addressing the idea that a nation could greatly increase its wealth through conquest. Nibbling around the edges the way China is doing, or even taking the occasional bite like the USSR (though that didn’t work out so well for them in the long run) isn’t the same thing.
China’s been using that strategy for a very long time, and it’s netted them quite a large expanse of territory. I would argue that China’s current powerful position on the world stage is mainly because of that policy.
Of course, if space colonization gets underway relatively soon, then the nibbling strategy is nearing the end of its usefulness. On the other hand, if it take a couple hundred more years the nibbling can still see some real gains, relative to more cooperative countries.
I agree with the main point of your article but I think this is an unjustifiable (but extremely common) belief. There are plenty of ways for human civilizations to survive in stable, advanced forms besides the ways that have been popular in the West for the last couple centuries. For instance:
A human-chauvinist totalitarian singleton.
An “ant-colony” civilization where cooperation and altruism are made evolutionarily stable by enforcing genetic uniformity for humans.
A human civilization presided over by a Friendly AI that secretly exterminates all other life to protect humanity from future alien AI threats.
Indeed. Others:
A global state forms, or one cooperative pluralistic state predominates, but by the time the state’s influence reaches the extraterrestrials, the lack of negative feedback that the state would have obtained if it had had rivals has caused its truth-maintenance institutions to fall into disrepair, with the result that without intending to do so, the humans destroy the extraterrestrials, similar to the way the U.S. is currently unintentionally making a mess of Iraq by believing its own internal propaganda about the universal healing power of free elections, civil rights and universal sufferage.
It turns out (surprise!) that cooperation on the national scale and pluralism are not efficient means of organizing a state that the only reason they are so highly regarded at present is that we are in a period of unusual and unsustainable wealth-per-capita and that professing cooperative and pluralistic values are a good way for individuals and organizations (like NGOs) to impress others and persuade others of their worth as potential friends. When the Hansonian Dream Time ends, i.e., when Malthusian limits reassert themselves and the average life is again lived at the subsistence level, individuals who persist in spending a significant portion of their resources impressing others in this way die off, and those who are left are the ones who realize that coercion, oligarchy and intolerence have again become the only effective long-term means by which to organize a human state.
Human civilization continues to become more cooperative and pluralistic, with the result that those who chafe at that are more likely to venture into space so that they can found small societies organized around other ideals, like exploitation and human-chauvinism. (The pluralistic societies allow that because they are, well, pluralistic.) And those already living in space are more likely to reach the stars first.
National states continue to compete with each other, rather than forming into a single global state. Most of the states continue to become more cooperative and pluralistic, but one state adopts the ethic of aggression against all other states and national expansion, which causes it to reach the stars first.
The terrestrial aspect didn’t work when the Nazis tried it.
This is no guarantee that it couldn’t work on a second try, but such a policy is defection on such a massive scale that there’s likely to be a grand alliance against it.
It seems to me that putting military empires together had gotten steadily more difficult, possibly because of the diffusion of technology.
Also, the risks (of finding oneself up against a grand alliance) and the costs of defection might be such that no sensible leader would try it, and if the leader isn’t sensible, they’re likely to have bad judgment in the course of the wars.
Territorial expansion didn’t work for the Nazis because they didn’t stop with just Austria and Czechoslovakia. The allies didn’t declare war until Germany invaded Poland, and even then they didn’t really do anything until France was invaded.
It seems to me that the pluralistic countries aren’t willing to risk war with a major power for the sake of a small and distant patch of land (and this goes double if nuclear weapons are potentially involved). They have good reason for their reluctance—the risks aren’t worth the rewards, especially over the short term. But an aggressive and patient country can, over long time periods, use this reluctance to their advantage.
For example, there’s the Chinese with Tibet and the Russians more recently with South Ossetia.
The USSR also got away with seizing large amounts of land just before and during WWII, mainly because the Allies were too worried about Germany to do anything about it. I concede this was an unusual situation, though, that’s unlikely to occur again in the foreseeable future.
(Edited for spelling)
I was addressing the idea that a nation could greatly increase its wealth through conquest. Nibbling around the edges the way China is doing, or even taking the occasional bite like the USSR (though that didn’t work out so well for them in the long run) isn’t the same thing.
China’s been using that strategy for a very long time, and it’s netted them quite a large expanse of territory. I would argue that China’s current powerful position on the world stage is mainly because of that policy.
Of course, if space colonization gets underway relatively soon, then the nibbling strategy is nearing the end of its usefulness. On the other hand, if it take a couple hundred more years the nibbling can still see some real gains, relative to more cooperative countries.