I haven’t seen your particular flavor of the argument that actively genociding your population to reclaim the resources they consume is incentivized, but the basic structure of this argument usually goes by the name of “gradual disempowerment” or similar and has been written about many times.
I myself have written a less extreme version of this scenario in my essay Varieties of Doom, describing it as my modal scenario.
I think that on inertia alone if nothing else it seems unlikely that states will actively genocide their own populations to reclaim the resources, but I agree with the basic idea that on the current trajectory the biggest threat looks like states being in a situation where any resources they put into human welfare are resources that don’t go into autonomous weapons and supercomputers, and that this doesn’t require ASI.
Probably the biggest counterweight to something like this is that drones aren’t actually better strategic weapons than nukes, they’re just better on an individual battle basis than guns. So great powers that don’t have as many resources to put into drones can still retaliate with nuclear weapons against aggressors. Between this and the precedent of the Ukraine war, this could itself be a source of X-Risk in that it implies if you don’t want to be in this particular multipolar trap your nation must acquire nuclear weapons.
Yeah it’s similar to gradual disempowerment except I’m arguing it will be a race rather than gradual. Whereas in the past genocide was negative ROI, as soon as we get mass joblessness, it’ll flip to positive ROI for the first time ever. And then like any good investment the incentives will turn it into a race especially with winner takes all.
Disempowerment in the limit is basically genocide so yeah that part is the same. I guess I’m arguing we’ll reach the limit though. All land and resources will be redirected and any food and water will go to exports or other applications. So people will basically be displaced and starve. And maybe if we’re enough of a hassle in terms mounting resistance, it might turn into an active genocide with drones or viruses
Good point about nukes. I imagine though the first nations to reach this level will all already be nuclear powers.
I haven’t seen your particular flavor of the argument that actively genociding your population to reclaim the resources they consume is incentivized, but the basic structure of this argument usually goes by the name of “gradual disempowerment” or similar and has been written about many times.
https://borretti.me/article/no-one-escapes-the-permanent-underclass
https://borretti.me/article/when-the-future-doesnt-need-us
I myself have written a less extreme version of this scenario in my essay Varieties of Doom, describing it as my modal scenario.
I think that on inertia alone if nothing else it seems unlikely that states will actively genocide their own populations to reclaim the resources, but I agree with the basic idea that on the current trajectory the biggest threat looks like states being in a situation where any resources they put into human welfare are resources that don’t go into autonomous weapons and supercomputers, and that this doesn’t require ASI.
Probably the biggest counterweight to something like this is that drones aren’t actually better strategic weapons than nukes, they’re just better on an individual battle basis than guns. So great powers that don’t have as many resources to put into drones can still retaliate with nuclear weapons against aggressors. Between this and the precedent of the Ukraine war, this could itself be a source of X-Risk in that it implies if you don’t want to be in this particular multipolar trap your nation must acquire nuclear weapons.
Thanks for the links!
Yeah it’s similar to gradual disempowerment except I’m arguing it will be a race rather than gradual. Whereas in the past genocide was negative ROI, as soon as we get mass joblessness, it’ll flip to positive ROI for the first time ever. And then like any good investment the incentives will turn it into a race especially with winner takes all.
Disempowerment in the limit is basically genocide so yeah that part is the same. I guess I’m arguing we’ll reach the limit though. All land and resources will be redirected and any food and water will go to exports or other applications. So people will basically be displaced and starve. And maybe if we’re enough of a hassle in terms mounting resistance, it might turn into an active genocide with drones or viruses
Good point about nukes. I imagine though the first nations to reach this level will all already be nuclear powers.