hal@finney.org wrote:
> Suppose we don't have a libertarian or private-law world as we move
> forward. Can the modern liberal democracy work in a transhuman world?
> How would we deal with the tremendous potential increase in diversity,
> with a corresponding spread in ability levels? ... How do those who
> cherish the equalizing efforts of western governments propose to address
> these changes?
When evolution adds substantial new functionality, it seems to prefer to add
on new modules rather than radically change old ones. As brains got smarter
new brain systems were wrapped around the old ones. When we got culture,
brains stayed pretty much the same while culture evolved. In the evolution of
social systems, we have retained much of our old social systems, including
clans, religions, and kings. We didn't get rid of kings right off - rather we
added on democratic systems and slowly gave them more powers. Radical
revolutions were the exception, not the rule.
Democratic political systems are deeply embedded in our society, and change
relatively slowly. So if a fast changing world of AIs, uploads, etc. evolves,
we might just leave existing political systems in tact and add on new systems
capable of changing more rapidly to respond to circumstances.
For example, meat humans might be the only ones that count for democracy, but
more and more autonomy might be granted to corporations or other organizations
within which AIs and uploads deal with each other. If those organizations
are what more and more drive the economy, the slower democracy of meat humans
would wisely back off.
Another possibility is giving votes in proportion to wealth. Sweden actually
once had a house where votes were counted that way. Less egalitarian perhaps,
but more robust to diversity.
I also propose futarchy (http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.html) as a way to
allow democratic style governments to adapt much more quickly to a changing
world.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:34 MDT