the future of the state
 

This is another one of those speculative threads. I'm starting with the assumption that democratic states will attempt to function in the same capacity that they have been functioning for as long as any of us have been alive (no major revolutions cause any discontinuous change in government).

Now -- what are the ramifications of the fact that technology is increasing exponentially with time? Here are a couple scenarios.

The AC scenario: Exponential techology increase means that there will be an "intelligence explosion" at some point in the 21st century. Humans will be able to engineer themselves in ways that eliminate the stupidity that results in much criminal behavior and poverty. With "enhanced humans," the phrase "If men were angels, no government would be necessary" becomes practically realized and government becomes manifestly unnecessary and asymptotically approaches being dismantled completely as time and technology progress.

The massive state scenario: Exponentially increasing technology means an exponentially increasing power of the individual. Since some individuals will choose bad behavior, we need tighter and tighter control of people to ensure that nothing REALLY bad can happen (i.e. more world trade center type events spawn more and more "department of homeland security" type organizations and associated laws). Asymptotically, all behavior is monitored by the state, because a single slip-up has the potential to cause so much damage.

Obviously, these two scenarios are polar opposites, and we've not seen one of these win out yet. Our current system is dominated by compromise on individual issues, with the pendulum swinging back and forth. But this can't always be the case -- due to the power of exponential growth, it seems to me that one trend will eventually come to dominate the other -- probably sooner than most people think (some might argue that the "massive state" scenario is already beginning to win).

So -- what will the role of government be in the distant technological future (which may not be too distant in the real-time future)? Which trend must win out?

Re: the future of the state
 

The massive state scenerio seems like the obvious one to me. Excluding cases of revolution has there ever been a state that has stayed the same size or shrunk over an extended period of time?

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
The massive state scenerio seems like the obvious one to me. Excluding cases of revolution has there ever been a state that has stayed the same size or shrunk over an extended period of time?

[/ QUOTE ]
Historically that may be true, but we're only very recently beginning to see massive technological change within the time frame of a single human's lifespan. So the implications of the trend I'm referring to are only just beginning... I'd be delighted if someone could lay down a convincing general principle that would select one of these trends to dominate. Obviously I'd much rather the AC scenario win asymptotically, but it's not immediately clear that it must.

Re: the future of the state
 

I think there is a ton of noise and, if we're assuming that either condition would be stable once arrived at, the best you can do is try to estimate probabilities. On a galactic/universal scale it seems like, from an evolutionary point of view, the AC scenario wins out because when you get to the uber-totalitarian state you pretty much stifle all further technological progress, even if you've reached a locally stable point. The free societies will continue to progress and ultimately win out, not very reassuring given my human-centric point of view though.

Keeping it continuous though seems like a pretty severe restriction. I don't mean to dodge your question, but it's a hard question! I've been saying for years that we're going to be immortal or extinct as a species by the year 2080. I think functional extinction is much more likely than massive state in the long run, and that extinction is probably a 2 to 1 favorite over immortality.

Re: the future of the state
 

I agree that an evolutionary perspective might be useful -- in an era of exponential growth, efficient growth is everything if you don't want to be rendered obsolete by the competition. Massive states, though, tend to be inefficient and stifle innovation, so the AC scenario wins unless rampant individuals periodically disrupt society enough to more than make up for the state handicap.

More thought needs to be put into this question, I think -- it seems extremely important, and a compelling basic principle/answer could be extremely motivational for the winning side. Who wants to be an advocate for principles that are destined to be squashed by technological progress?

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is another one of those speculative threads. I'm starting with the assumption that democratic states will attempt to function in the same capacity that they have been functioning for as long as any of us have been alive (no major revolutions cause any discontinuous change in government).

Now -- what are the ramifications of the fact that technology is increasing exponentially with time? Here are a couple scenarios.

The AC scenario: Exponential techology increase means that there will be an "intelligence explosion" at some point in the 21st century. Humans will be able to engineer themselves in ways that eliminate the stupidity that results in much criminal behavior and poverty. With "enhanced humans," the phrase "If men were angels, no government would be necessary" becomes practically realized and government becomes manifestly unnecessary and asymptotically approaches being dismantled completely as time and technology progress.

The massive state scenario: Exponentially increasing technology means an exponentially increasing power of the individual. Since some individuals will choose bad behavior, we need tighter and tighter control of people to ensure that nothing REALLY bad can happen (i.e. more world trade center type events spawn more and more "department of homeland security" type organizations and associated laws). Asymptotically, all behavior is monitored by the state, because a single slip-up has the potential to cause so much damage.

Obviously, these two scenarios are polar opposites, and we've not seen one of these win out yet. Our current system is dominated by compromise on individual issues, with the pendulum swinging back and forth. But this can't always be the case -- due to the power of exponential growth, it seems to me that one trend will eventually come to dominate the other -- probably sooner than most people think (some might argue that the "massive state" scenario is already beginning to win).

So -- what will the role of government be in the distant technological future (which may not be too distant in the real-time future)? Which trend must win out?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that they are polar opposites. Their end points are indistinguishably close on a circle. The only difference is whether they approached that point clockwise or counter-clockwise.

Overall I think you are over-estimating the impact of technology on individual power, however.

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is another one of those speculative threads. I'm starting with the assumption that democratic states will attempt to function in the same capacity that they have been functioning for as long as any of us have been alive (no major revolutions cause any discontinuous change in government).

Now -- what are the ramifications of the fact that technology is increasing exponentially with time? Here are a couple scenarios.

The AC scenario: Exponential techology increase means that there will be an "intelligence explosion" at some point in the 21st century. Humans will be able to engineer themselves in ways that eliminate the stupidity that results in much criminal behavior and poverty. With "enhanced humans," the phrase "If men were angels, no government would be necessary" becomes practically realized and government becomes manifestly unnecessary and asymptotically approaches being dismantled completely as time and technology progress.

The massive state scenario: Exponentially increasing technology means an exponentially increasing power of the individual. Since some individuals will choose bad behavior, we need tighter and tighter control of people to ensure that nothing REALLY bad can happen (i.e. more world trade center type events spawn more and more "department of homeland security" type organizations and associated laws). Asymptotically, all behavior is monitored by the state, because a single slip-up has the potential to cause so much damage.

Obviously, these two scenarios are polar opposites, and we've not seen one of these win out yet. Our current system is dominated by compromise on individual issues, with the pendulum swinging back and forth. But this can't always be the case -- due to the power of exponential growth, it seems to me that one trend will eventually come to dominate the other -- probably sooner than most people think (some might argue that the "massive state" scenario is already beginning to win).

So -- what will the role of government be in the distant technological future (which may not be too distant in the real-time future)? Which trend must win out?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that they are polar opposites. Their end points are indistinguishably close on a circle. The only difference is whether they approached that point clockwise or counter-clockwise.

Overall I think you are over-estimating the impact of technology on individual power, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I'd hope neither of these extreme scenarios would win.

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that they are polar opposites. Their end points are indistinguishably close on a circle.

[/ QUOTE ]
This explains a lot of your posting, I suppose, if you can't distinguish a centrally controlled surveillance society from a completely voluntary one in which the role and utility of government has become essentially obsolete.

Re: the future of the state
 

It's a bit hazy just HOW good the technological advancements you speak of are. But I'll grant that when you boost effectiveness of information and communication technology you will also logically increase the size of a society you can transform without 'much trouble' to a minarchist or voluntary model.

For supercities I think you would need extreme advancements to leave a state model entirely behind though.

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
For supercities I think you would need extreme advancements to leave a state model entirely behind though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Based on the Walled City situation I don't think you can avoid a state for the purposes of town planning and garbage collection.

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For supercities I think you would need extreme advancements to leave a state model entirely behind though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Based on the Walled City situation I don't think you can avoid a state for the purposes of town planning and garbage collection.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to analyze this based on any particular city constructin -- I'm much more interested in the general trend of humanity. In the context of massive gains in technology, do humans (or post-humans) tend to become less stupid and more self-regulating, or more dangerous and essential to regulate? In the asymptotic limit, surely one trend must eventually win out decisively -- I can't imagine a world of super intelligent post-humans that are literally forever obsessed with semi-but-not-really limited government federalism. Either liberty will become a first principle, or it will become too costly and meaningless.

Re: the future of the state
 

Metric,

I was referring to Kowloon Walled City, the only anarcho-capitalist territory that has existed afaik.

Re: the future of the state
 

Most likely enhancement will be available only for a minority who then decide on the scenario for the rest. I would be surprised if they didn't want at least some level of control.

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
Metric,

I was referring to Kowloon Walled City, the only anarcho-capitalist territory that has existed afaik.

[/ QUOTE ]
You'll have to forgive my cluelessness...

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most likely enhancement will be available only for a minority who then decide on the scenario for the rest. I would be surprised if they didn't want at least some level of control.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't imagine this would be an asymptotic scenario -- enhanced overlords ruling over regular humans. At best, it would be a short phase when the enhancemet technology happens to be particularly expensive.

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most likely enhancement will be available only for a minority who then decide on the scenario for the rest. I would be surprised if they didn't want at least some level of control.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't imagine this would be an asymptotic scenario -- enhanced overlords ruling over regular humans. At best, it would be a short phase when the enhancemet technology happens to be particularly expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

And do you think there will only be a one and only technology?

Re: the future of the state
 

If you haven't read it, read Brave New War by John Robb. This gets into ideas of 4th generation warfare from John Boyd as well as decline of the state issues like Van Creveld. He discusses technology and empowered individuals and the trends that will cause; also looks at many of the things going on now to discuss how states can fail. I think we are already seeing some. I have Van Creveld's "Decline of the State" set to read and I haven't yet. That is another one to look at. In any event I think things will go more to the AC end of the spectrum.

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you haven't read it, read Brave New War by John Robb.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read this (yet) but I have talked to John Robb before (its been several years, back when he was briefly in the software business) and I can unconditionally recommend anything he writes. He's easily the smartest person I've ever personally talked to.

Re: the future of the state
 

criminal behavior and poverty are caused by stupidity?

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
criminal behavior and poverty are caused by stupidity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. Stupidity isn't really the right word. Unsophisticated time preferences.

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
He's easily the smartest person I've ever personally talked to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am deeply offended.

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
criminal behavior and poverty are caused by stupidity?

[/ QUOTE ]

They correlate with IQ to a pretty high degree.

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
criminal behavior and poverty are caused by stupidity?

[/ QUOTE ]

They correlate with IQ to a pretty high degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
criminal behavior and poverty are caused by stupidity?

[/ QUOTE ]

They correlate with IQ to a pretty high degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow

[/ QUOTE ]

Criminal behavior certainly does, particularly here in America, and in most of the west.

While there are some dumb laws, they aren't heavily or overly enforced, and generally the laws that are enforced are enforced because you're either doing something that is going to hurt you or someone around you, hence, people who participate in criminal activity are generally on the low end of the IQ scale, not that the IQ scale matters anyway.

Now, poverty, that's a completely different animal. Poverty can be purely based on stupidity, on a combination of stupidity and circumstance, or purely on circumstance, so it's very difficult to say that IQ is closely related to poverty.

Re: the future of the state
 

survey says.......slavery is your #1 answer!!!!Totalitarianism or anarchy seem to be the only final solutions. I feel that humanity started at anarchy, the right, and is moving constantly left toward totalitarianism.

Re: the future of the state
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
criminal behavior and poverty are caused by stupidity?

[/ QUOTE ]

They correlate with IQ to a pretty high degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow

[/ QUOTE ]

Criminal behavior certainly does, particularly here in America, and in most of the west.

While there are some dumb laws, they aren't heavily or overly enforced, and generally the laws that are enforced are enforced because you're either doing something that is going to hurt you or someone around you, hence, people who participate in criminal activity are generally on the low end of the IQ scale, not that the IQ scale matters anyway.

Now, poverty, that's a completely different animal. Poverty can be purely based on stupidity, on a combination of stupidity and circumstance, or purely on circumstance, so it's very difficult to say that IQ is closely related to poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

not wow that there is correlation between people arrested for or involved in crime. do you really think this implies: [ QUOTE ]
criminal behavior and poverty are caused by stupidity

[/ QUOTE ] ???