What you have stated seems to make solid sense. But it isn't our world today
as its currently constituted amongst nation states and ethnic groups. I
surmise that the format for such a civilizational order, as you have listed
in your post, suggests massive changes in global human society, pre-occuring
this development.
Your post is prefigured in Hans Moravec's Robot, in the paragraphs titled,
"The Death of Capitalism," in which Moravec predicts the collapse of
traditional capitalism through the application of advanced robot technology
(what else?). Moravec envisions the nations of the world be transfigured into
tribal units, as the great cities decline and the populations are
distributed, and supplied by good and serviced literally piped in, or
produced in situ.
I respectfully maintain (not that anyone seems to care ;-) ) that this
epoch is definitively NOT here yet, and its dangerously premature, and
potential damaging to our national/global economy. Not everyone will see
things as you do and even game theory is not based on anything that excludes
Reciprocity and Mutuality. Your goal and rule-set is admirable, but if Saddam
decides to pee in the soup while you employ your meta-goals, we all could
get screwed. We need new technologies in-hand, for something as you have
described to work.
cyixiong@yahoo.com forthrightly opined:
:::1) Communities cannot detain people who wish to leave
2) They can restrict the people they take
3) Those who choose to stay or enter without permission will subject
themselves to the internal rules of the community (such as
punishment)
4) Communities cannot interfere in the affairs of the other communities
who
signed this treaty
Given this, no dictator can rule his or her own people without having
concern about them because these people can always choose to
go to another community. Meanwhile, it does not deprive others of the choice
to join, say, this dictatorship because of certain
(perceived) advantages that we might not consider rational (such as for
religious reasons).
Such a world would provide vastly more choice for all people than say, one
dominated by socialist sentient AI (I mean this in a
positive way!) or a world dominated by an anacho-capitalist society. We
should not assume that people will have the same goals as us
(such as the pursuit of self-interest) or even that they have no goals at
all, but to provide them with choices such that they can
choose their own path.
This could stop a lot of conflicts from happening because if people can live
the way they disire, then presumely they would not need
to fight for their "cause" whether we consider these rational or not. The
exception, of course, lies with those whose ideologies
require them to enslave or at least "take over the world". This could cause
some problems until a system exists to keep them in
check (or wait until most people venture space leaving these people with a
sparsely populated planet Earth).::::
I suggest considering this approach of "many ideologies, many societies"
over alternative approaches that champion any one of the
proposed social systems. No shoe can fit everyone and we should learn that
the easy, rather than the hard way.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:31 MDT