World Government: good or bad?

[Phage]

I believe in world government as long as there are checks and separation of powers. I believe that it would be a good thing and that is where we are headed. A thousand years ago the idea of an EU would be as fantastic as the existence of faries, but it happened. LIkewise the idea of all people in the US area of north america having a nation where no states fought and there was no war for almost 100 years on US soil seemed beyond lunacy. But cultural evolution tends to take some surprising terms. Inferring from the past to the future then is no big step on this matter.

I would be against dictatorship though as that is easily abused. Even with safe guards, I doubt they will be enough, as a dictator simply has too much power.

I was thinking more a democratic meritocracy. Where political officials are brought in on an adoptive, appointed and elected basis. Perhaps half would be adopted or apointed the basis of record and tests and half elected. Or perhaps people will need a license to vote, perhaps even with more votes being granted the more knowledge you have on the issue. Like an economist will have more vote on economic issues.

That way the people have power, but not absolute power. As I do not trust absolute power, even in the hands of majority.

[Dude_Doc]

No. I am against world government, whatever ideology. Humans have a tendency of becoming corrupt, not just because there usually is much money to "collect", but the power, the "feeling" that you somehow are "better" than others. Sure, this is the new age/millenium/era. 20th century was a run of ideologies, now, it's about putting together people under one rule, union or whatever. It is not entirely impossible that someone, in the next 50 years (no Edric, not George Bush), will try to unite the world

[Caid Ivik]

No more restrictions, maybe less, Egeides. Comparing market law to criminal law isn't well suited, we can't think only by the worse way. But it is like a bee hive, it will have its place and will bring some fruit, but if you'll play too much with it, it will attack. Corporations with free market (as today) don't NEED politics, they have enough income with usual activities. They have enough work with riding the juggernaut of the firm, why should they have same problem with something even bigger, the state? Well, don't take Russia as an example ;D

Russel was a hardcore socialist, so such demagogical statements are expected from him. With UN of my view, there won't be preemptive strikes like Iraq needed. There would be no chance for Saddam to take power. Attack on Poland wasn't preemptive, so comparing it to Iraq is rather...russelistic. But maybe there has to be some way first to eliminate the fact of "leading by stronger". Strong should be the core of Imperium. Maybe a monarchy would solve the problem of nationalities, best of family of some neutral state. Maybe someone from Switzerland, like Habsburgs...

[Egeides]

My exemple about preemptive strike didn't apply precisely to Poland. Perhaps it was Techekoslovakia (isn't it your country?) or else... don't remember. "Let's attack before they take over us" is pretty hitlerish...

Corporations with free market (as today) don't NEED politics, they have enough income with usual activities. They have enough work with riding the juggernaut of the firm, why should they have same problem with something even bigger, the state?

Because it is PROFITABLE. Simply. Why do you think they lobby so much even when they're free? They even say "free market is good" and then ask for subventions "for a service to the country"...

With UN of my view, there won't be preemptive strikes like Iraq needed. There would be no chance for Saddam to take power. Attack on Poland wasn't preemptive, so comparing it to Iraq is rather...russelistic. But maybe there has to be some way first to eliminate the fact of "leading by stronger". Strong should be the core of Imperium. Maybe a monarchy would solve the problem of nationalities, best of family of some neutral state. Maybe someone from Switzerland, like Habsburgs...

From what I recall, the Habsburg, as any other monarchy, were not very pro-enlightenment or very favourable to letting people having a nice life... They were more about bringing wealth to the Habsburg. Do you believe monarchy in Europe were working better than the actual systems?

[Caid Ivik]

Czechoslovakia (since 1993 parted to Czech Republic, or Bohemia, and Slovakia, just for you to know ;) ) wasn't attacked. By Munich Treaty Germans annexed czech border area with strong german population, led by fanatical demagogue Henlein. On 14th march western allies agreed with Hitler, that they won't intervene, if they'll annex remains of CSR. Slovak nationalists pushed Hitler to leave Slovakia as quite souverenne separate state, so Hitler annexed only Czechs. Without war. As well as without any reason, just because "there are many Germans".

Lobby is an usual thing. Like advertisment. I can say it also unfair to put posters on every visible wall, quite annoying. Free market is profitable to all, if we would restrict negotiations or put 100% tax, then nobody would do it.

Well, Habsburgs were just an example, because they were from neutral land. That's why they led Holy Roman Empire for such long time. Nobody thought they may have nationalistic tendencies. Making the UN a constitutional monarchy, it would make some "lighthouse", how written in House Corrino...

[Phage]

Well what worries me is that we are getting more and more technologically advanced, with larger populations and ever shrinking amounts of rescources. We have Nukes and are becoming interdependent. If the US or Europe for example had an economic collapse, everyone would follow. If India and Pakiston nuked eachother, that could bring in China and THAT could bring in everybody.

This scenerio also makes for a bad combinations, increasing power, increasing needs and decreasing rescources...wars are made of such things.

We can only survive so long as a species with separate states, that can use violence and war to settle policy and are not united. At some point we will be on borrowed time. In some ways we already are. Sooner or later we will have to unite, to get more organized. Because we cannot afford an economic collapse, a world war or too much enviromental degredation.

Perhaps though when AI matures we won't have to worry about that as they will have all the power. We will at that point just have to cross our fingers and hope we programmed ("raised") them right. If we do, we are likely saved. If we don't adios.

[Caid Ivik]

AI isn't humanity. It would be always a machine. With shrinking resources it is a big problem. But I wouldn't see it so hard. Most consumerist states have decreasing population. Poorer states gave births like insane, but also many of them die too quickly. Very close is point of stabilisation, when will the humanity again fall to normal number. If we won't have enough food then, we may have technology to find another source of energy. Maybe device, which would change solar energy to nutritions. Cyberpunk's not dead...

[Dude_Doc]

Just a note: 4 people are born every second around the world. Although, do also consider how many dies everyday. I think I read somewhere that in 2150, Japans population would "decrease", because less are born there.

An A.I. could not control the human race. To control us would be to "know" us, to know what we want and how to control our race (hehe, quoted from Deus Ex). No, really, an A.I. is just that, a machine who can think for itself.

Anyways, the best suggestion I can come with is that we made a sort of "United Nations" to be united in crisis, but independent in economy, politics etc.

But, as they said in Deus Ex (don't mention it), "as long as technology has a global reach, someone will have the world in his palm".

[Phage]

Consumerist states do not have a shrinking population, they have shrinking population growth rates.

Secondly just because AI is not human or does "know" us, (though I do not believe this entirely impossible) that is irrelevent.

We do not understand chimps, we are not chimps, yet we can easily control chimps. AI could therefore just as easily manipulate us, if not more so. Think of how much we rely on machines, think of corporations and money. AI would be essential to corporations and governments, making huge profit and being granted more and more control. AI could use money, funding and clout to easily turn us against eachother or manipulate us. Trying to guard AI with humans then is like trying to keep a prisoner of war detained with armed chimps.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Armed chimps...... Now that gives me a idea....

*Planet of the apes theme song*

What would happen if all humans were assimilated into a borglike creature.

A living computer organism.

The computer would know our needs and etc.

But I still think it's impossible for a computer to have his own mind.

It could have his own mind, but with limits.

[Dude_Doc]

But I still think it's impossible for a computer to have his own mind.

It could have his own mind, but with limits.

Never say impossible. There is no limits (well, no limits yet), in our universe. We thought machines wouldn't me much more than television or radio, but look at us today. Think of how your grandchildren will laugh at you when you tell them about your computer, what games you play etc. Pretty funny thought, actually. It's like imagening your grandparents tell you about how they played Counter-Strike, or Doom 3, LoL.

Consumerist states do not have a shrinking population, they have shrinking population growth rates.

That's what I meant, sorry.

We do not understand chimps, we are not chimps, yet we can easily control chimps.

Chimps are a "lesser" creature than humans. They do not have greed, they don't rob banks, or use oil, or trade or simillar things. Humans do. You see, chimps may be aware of their own existance, but they do not "contain" things humans do.

The whole thing is that I don't know how an A.I. would react the first time it is activated. Humans think of themselves, then, an A.I. would require to think of itself too. This means "will", the hunger for something, maybe like the movies (Terminator, Matrix etc), to destroy the human race because we have control of a "mind" that is "greater" than all other minds on Earth (remember, a computer can store everything in smallest detail, humans often forget, or loose interest, which makes "the machines" "supperior" than us).

The A.I. can also become friendly, help us, and perhaps like you said, control the world for us.

Maybe you meant a robot-like rule? As I see it, robots and A.I.'s, is that a robot do not think, it acts on the programs installed. Those programs do have a limit, so if you ask a robot something it can not bypass or answer, it simply don't have data enough.

An A.I., on the other side, would've think for itself, draw conclusions etc. Just like the human brain does. If you ask it something it doesn't know, an answer would probably be "I don't know", or "interesting question, I'll look into it" or something like that, instead of "data insufficent".

Think of how much we rely on machines, think of corporations and money.

Indeed. The more technology there is in our everyday life, the more corporations, and government have control over people. But I don't see what it is so neccesary to have the A.I. What if it became a renegade, for example? It wouldn't be much use for the corporation then...

[Sardauker-Kirov]

But I still think it's impossible for a computer to have his own mind.

It could have his own mind, but with limits.

Never say impossible. There is no limits (well, no limits yet), in our universe. We thought machines wouldn't me much more than television or radio, but look at us today. Think of how your grandchildren will laugh at you when you tell them about your computer, what games you play etc. Pretty funny thought, actually. It's like imagening your grandparents tell you about how they played Counter-Strike, or Doom 3, LoL.

But those are games and are controlled by million of 'scripts'

"If = Player hits self, else if = Player hostile { return state {attack}"

And yes, we do not know what for technology we may develop in the near future.

Scientists call everything impossible what they see in games like Unreal, Deus Ex.

Maybe there will be alien races that has weapons that we cannot match with our logic and laws of physics.

[Caid Ivik]

As I think about it, it won't be a best idea to bet much on technology. Here we are big technocrats, but that's only thing of Europe and North America, maybe Far East as well. But more than half of the population doesn't even know what might computer be and I doubt it will ever do know.

[Dude_Doc]

But those are games and are controlled by million of 'scripts'

"If = Player hits self, else if = Player hostile { return state {attack}"

Scripts only apply to robots. Scripts are equal to border. The human mind is still, for a larger part, unknown to us. An AI is just that. A created brain. If our minds would have a "script"-like thing, then we wouldn't be in the place we are today (computers, planes, houses etc). So, I quess we will all have to wait until the human brain is "decrypted", so that we can copy it and create AI.

Another hard question is, when AI is invented, do we have to simulate the birth of the AI? Like a baby is born? Do we have to teach it how to talk, play, math etc in the same order we learned? How will it react if we just turn it on? There is many questions, but hopefully, I will "experience" AI in my life, so to say.

But I am 90% sure that I will "witness" robots, like a kind of "janitor-machine" lol...

Scientists call everything impossible what they see in games like Unreal, Deus Ex.

Well, yes, most people do. I think it is because they have not very much interests in "entertainment" in a scale like we do.

Maybe there will be alien races that has weapons that we cannot match with our logic and laws of physics.

There is 70 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 known stars to us. That's 10 times all the sand on all beaches and deserts on Earth. Scientists even say that there may be infinite starts out there. Even if we devided that number, wouldn't one of those stars at least have a civilization who did not develop in the rate we did? I think it is quite possible.

Some atheists I've talked to say "If there is no aliens in the universe, then God exists".

Then, what if there is another intelligent race out there, but who are so far away, that if they would send a transmission, it would reach us by the time all start had gone out, or the universe collapsed. Pretty interesting thought.

As I think about it, it won't be a best idea to bet much on technology. Here we are big technocrats, but that's only thing of Europe and North America, maybe Far East as well. But more than half of the population doesn't even know what might computer be and I doubt it will ever do know.

The whole world knows about technology. They know when they see it on TV, hear it on radio, or even witness it in reality. We are going into the new age now, the nano-age/machine-age. Hell, you can even buy nano-pants today!

(NOTE: Nanotechnology is all about small machines, constructing, repairing etc on a microscopic scale.)

[Dude_Doc]

Here they are, the nano-pants:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/07/18/popsci.nantech.pants/index.html

[nemafakei]

When people say democratic, of what are they thinking?

It'd be nice to know whether you mean Democratic as in:

- Representative democracy, with elected parties (Proportional Representation)

- Representative democracy, with elected politicians for given seats (First-past-the-post)

- Anyhting in which the general populace contributes to governance (i.e. not a tyrrany or similar)

- A president chosen by the electorate

- Hierarchical systems where local elections are voted for by the electorate and appointment made thereafter.

- Any combination of or variation on the above, or something else

[Sardauker-Kirov]

But those are games and are controlled by million of 'scripts'

"If = Player hits self, else if = Player hostile { return state {attack}"

Scripts only apply to robots. Scripts are equal to border. The human mind is still, for a larger part, unknown to us. An AI is just that. A created brain. If our minds would have a "script"-like thing, then we wouldn't be in the place we are today (computers, planes, houses etc). So, I quess we will all have to wait until the human brain is "decrypted", so that we can copy it and create AI.

Another hard question is, when AI is invented, do we have to simulate the birth of the AI? Like a baby is born? Do we have to teach it how to talk, play, math etc in the same order we learned? How will it react if we just turn it on? There is many questions, but hopefully, I will "experience" AI in my life, so to say.

But I am 90% sure that I will "witness" robots, like a kind of "janitor-machine" lol...

Scientists call everything impossible what they see in games like Unreal, Deus Ex.

Well, yes, most people do. I think it is because they have not very much interests in "entertainment" in a scale like we do.

Maybe there will be alien races that has weapons that we cannot match with our logic and laws of physics.

There is 70 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 known stars to us. That's 10 times all the sand on all beaches and deserts on Earth. Scientists even say that there may be infinite starts out there. Even if we devided that number, wouldn't one of those stars at least have a civilization who did not develop in the rate we did? I think it is quite possible.

Some atheists I've talked to say "If there is no aliens in the universe, then God exists".

Then, what if there is another intelligent race out there, but who are so far away, that if they would send a transmission, it would reach us by the time all start had gone out, or the universe collapsed. Pretty interesting thought.

As I think about it, it won't be a best idea to bet much on technology. Here we are big technocrats, but that's only thing of Europe and North America, maybe Far East as well. But more than half of the population doesn't even know what might computer be and I doubt it will ever do know.

The whole world knows about technology. They know when they see it on TV, hear it on radio, or even witness it in reality. We are going into the new age now, the nano-age/machine-age. Hell, you can even buy nano-pants today!

(NOTE: Nanotechnology is all about small machines, constructing, repairing etc on a microscopic scale.)

A robot that has a cloned human's brain could function.... but just the thought of it makes me sick.

But I guess we'll have to wait for a couple of hundred years and see what 'humanity' can bring us.

Scientists need to open their minds and stop looking things in the human logic way.

Maybe there are planets that doesn't even follow the basic activities of a planet.

And maybe even creates 'pulses' of energy that kills a human on touch without a explanation.

We do not know if the galaxy is infinite, maybe it's a globe just like earth and if you keep flying into one direction, you come back to earth.

So maybe there are 'other' galaxy globes that can be accessed by 'something'

*Gets dizzy of the huge amount of star numbers*

*BAAAARF*

Nano technology could be the ultimate solution against health/computer problems.

Just imagine, nano-robo healing your wounds rapidly.

Or if your computer is burned out or even damaged by something.

Nano bots will computers like a human body heals his own wounds.

[Edric O]

No more restrictions, maybe less, Egeides. Comparing market law to criminal law isn't well suited, we can't think only by the worse way. But it is like a bee hive, it will have its place and will bring some fruit, but if you'll play too much with it, it will attack. Corporations with free market (as today) don't NEED politics, they have enough income with usual activities. They have enough work with riding the juggernaut of the firm, why should they have same problem with something even bigger, the state? Well, don't take Russia as an example. ;D

What do people with power always want? MORE POWER.

Your argument is ridiculous, Caid. You're saying that if we give corporations absolute economic power, they'll just decide to be *nice* and not take any political power along with it. ::)

That's like saying "let Hitler have Austria and Czechoslovakia, so that he'll decide to be *nice* and not take the rest of Europe along with them". ::)

[Dude_Doc]

Scientists need to open their minds and stop looking things in the human logic way.

It don't work that way. Scientist must look on things in the logical way, because logic is the closes to "truth" science can come to.

We do not know if the galaxy is infinite, maybe it's a globe just like earth and if you keep flying into one direction, you come back to earth.

Scientist are pretty sure our galaxy isn't a globe.

Nano technology could be the ultimate solution against health/computer problems.

Just imagine, nano-robo healing your wounds rapidly.

Yes, it is quite logical that nano-bots, after using "them" in other places, will be used in medical and surgical ways. Ever seen "Virtuosity" (Denzel Washington starring)? They "built" a "person" with nano-bots. Imagine the possibilities.

Or if your computer is burned out or even damaged by something.

Nano bots will computers like a human body heals his own wounds.

I think computers will become "smaller" in the future. No, not the screen or the keyboard. But the cards etc. Even if we like our cards in our computers, they are still far from "adequate". One little mistake, and the card is reduced to a metal piece, only to be thrown in the trash-can.

My future-suggestion, is that when nano-tech reaches computerization, one should build "nano-cables". By this I mean that instead of buying cards or games, you "download" them trough this cable. The nano-machines, altough not moving as quickly as one would think, would arrive and "install" themselves into the computer.

I also think games, movies and music will soon go "online". I mean, sure, I think there will be "units" (CD's etc) to store the info on, in case the computer decides to go kaputt, but instead of go and buy it, you download it. I mean, I think downloaders and the music companies will start to negotiate soon of how to do with the downloading. Albums will probably disappear. People will be given that chance to pay for each song (well, there will probably be exclusive prices if you want to buy a bunch instead of only one) when they download it. Which will mean people will actually pay for things they really do like, instead of buying one CD where two or three songs were really worth their money.

There is so much more. I could probably go on forever...

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Scientists need to open their minds and stop looking things in the human logic way.

It don't work that way. Scientist must look on things in the logical way, because logic is the closes to "truth" science can come to.

We do not know if the galaxy is infinite, maybe it's a globe just like earth and if you keep flying into one direction, you come back to earth.

Scientist are pretty sure our galaxy isn't a globe.

Nano technology could be the ultimate solution against health/computer problems.

Just imagine, nano-robo healing your wounds rapidly.

Yes, it is quite logical that nano-bots, after using "them" in other places, will be used in medical and surgical ways. Ever seen "Virtuosity" (Denzel Washington starring)? They "built" a "person" with nano-bots. Imagine the possibilities.

Or if your computer is burned out or even damaged by something.

Nano bots will computers like a human body heals his own wounds.

I think computers will become "smaller" in the future. No, not the screen or the keyboard. But the cards etc. Even if we like our cards in our computers, they are still far from "adequate". One little mistake, and the card is reduced to a metal piece, only to be thrown in the trash-can.

My future-suggestion, is that when nano-tech reaches computerization, one should build "nano-cables". By this I mean that instead of buying cards or games, you "download" them trough this cable. The nano-machines, altough not moving as quickly as one would think, would arrive and "install" themselves into the computer.

I also think games, movies and music will soon go "online". I mean, sure, I think there will be "units" (CD's etc) to store the info on, in case the computer decides to go kaputt, but instead of go and buy it, you download it. I mean, I think downloaders and the music companies will start to negotiate soon of how to do with the downloading. Albums will probably disappear. People will be given that chance to pay for each song (well, there will probably be exclusive prices if you want to buy a bunch instead of only one) when they download it. Which will mean people will actually pay for things they really do like, instead of buying one CD where two or three songs were really worth their money.

There is so much more. I could probably go on forever...

Yes, but what if there is something that can't be explained with our logic. And that goes completely against the opposite for example.

A super rare energy source that can only be touched with specific DNA code.

Or whatever...

Scientists are sure for that maybe, but their 'lack' of proof isn't for sure.

But we have to find out later if we ever get space travel.

The list of possibilities of Nanotech is virtually millions of miles long.

And hopefully, 'capitalism' will never ever abuse this discovery.

[Dude_Doc]

And hopefully, 'capitalism' will never ever abuse this discovery.

Don't get your hopes up, nano-tech has possibilities that can be used in the "system", or against it. We'll all just have to see.

[Acriku]

Kirov, now you're just making things up :P

Using logic is a process of rationality, not a way to explain things like "rare energy only respondent to specific DNA codon arrangements" because that is not irrational. Fish swimming around in space, now that's irrational.

[Dude_Doc]

Cheeses, nano-tech are starting to appear everywhere! It's the: "Invasion of small robots"!

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/07/24/nanotech.products.reut/index.html

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Kirov, now you're just making things up :P

Using logic is a process of rationality, not a way to explain things like "rare energy only respondent to specific DNA codon arrangements" because that is not irrational. Fish swimming around in space, now that's irrational.

And your point is?

I would laugh my ass off, if we encounter a Protoss or Skaarjlike race with weapons that surpasses present humanity's technology.

And if a Saiyan race that makes use of 'energy' that science failed to believe in.

I would laugh my LUNGS out. :D

[Acriku]

Maybe Japanese people steal their ideas from aliens ;)