What exactly is the relevant distinction with state control of nuclear weapons, from the perspective of liberty?
We won’t ever wind back to a singleton-lite controlling controlling all post-1950 technology (it’s just an analogy) but we could end up in a situation where the singleton-lite controls e.g. all post-2040 technology.
So, that “singleton-lite”, is it going to be a human? A group of humans? In this case I’m curious how do you think that singleton-lite will evolve in time (“power corrupts” comes to mind).
Also, shouldn’t we call it a “global dictatorship enforcing its monopoly on high technology”, then?
One, what is the mechanism by which this singleton-lite can be removed from power and dismantled? In contemporary democracies governments come and go; constitutions (and even EU treaties) can be changed and amended by the will of voters. How will that work in your case?
Two, the singleton-lite will have a huge power advantage: it will have sole access to high technology and the rest of the world will not. What will be there to counterbalance its reach and its power?
The level of control you are giving to this singleton entity is nightmarish. You are talking about an all-powerful autocratic entity that has absolute authoritarian control over the entire human populace. For relevant examples of how well this has fared in the past, including humanitarian costs, look at communist states of the 20th century, in particular the early Soviet Union and revolutionary China. Fun times.
What you describe is seriously one of the most evil state of affairs I can imagine being constructed today. Denial of access to technology, particularly the development of new technologies, will retard progress in medical science, stagnate our economy, and restrict basic freedoms to such a degree as would be required to maintain the police state.
Sure, you are free to ignore me. But you should expect exactly this sort of response anytime you advocate for draconian authoritarian states. Freedom ain’t free; it is bought at the cost of eternal vigilance and a willingness to defend basic liberties from those who would seek to deny them. People who have lived through these terrors in the 20th century know just how real and non-academc this is.
I said “we can imagine X,” not “we should strive to create X.”
I objected to descriptions like “dictatorship,” “autocracy,” and “authoritarian” because those are words with actual meanings which don’t necessarily apply to the institutions under discussion. For example, a democracy may pass and enforce laws without becoming a dictatorship.
What exactly is the relevant distinction with state control of nuclear weapons, from the perspective of liberty?
We won’t ever wind back to a singleton-lite controlling controlling all post-1950 technology (it’s just an analogy) but we could end up in a situation where the singleton-lite controls e.g. all post-2040 technology.
So, that “singleton-lite”, is it going to be a human? A group of humans? In this case I’m curious how do you think that singleton-lite will evolve in time (“power corrupts” comes to mind).
Also, shouldn’t we call it a “global dictatorship enforcing its monopoly on high technology”, then?
I don’t see why it would be a dictatorship any more than any government is a dictatorship.
Two questions, then.
One, what is the mechanism by which this singleton-lite can be removed from power and dismantled? In contemporary democracies governments come and go; constitutions (and even EU treaties) can be changed and amended by the will of voters. How will that work in your case?
Two, the singleton-lite will have a huge power advantage: it will have sole access to high technology and the rest of the world will not. What will be there to counterbalance its reach and its power?
The level of control you are giving to this singleton entity is nightmarish. You are talking about an all-powerful autocratic entity that has absolute authoritarian control over the entire human populace. For relevant examples of how well this has fared in the past, including humanitarian costs, look at communist states of the 20th century, in particular the early Soviet Union and revolutionary China. Fun times.
What you describe is seriously one of the most evil state of affairs I can imagine being constructed today. Denial of access to technology, particularly the development of new technologies, will retard progress in medical science, stagnate our economy, and restrict basic freedoms to such a degree as would be required to maintain the police state.
I have objections to this comment, but I don’t think that continuing this conversation in this medium is likely to be the best use of our time.
Sure, you are free to ignore me. But you should expect exactly this sort of response anytime you advocate for draconian authoritarian states. Freedom ain’t free; it is bought at the cost of eternal vigilance and a willingness to defend basic liberties from those who would seek to deny them. People who have lived through these terrors in the 20th century know just how real and non-academc this is.
I said “we can imagine X,” not “we should strive to create X.”
I objected to descriptions like “dictatorship,” “autocracy,” and “authoritarian” because those are words with actual meanings which don’t necessarily apply to the institutions under discussion. For example, a democracy may pass and enforce laws without becoming a dictatorship.