1.06.2014

Ship’s Notes: Governance

I have been discussing utopia and dystopia with Susana, during the time she isn’t busy sorting through scientists for her science department.  If I am to help people, what is better?  What is worse?

In a truly ideal world, everyone gets exactly what they want.  Not just gaining material goods, the affections of others, etc., but also the challenges they desire, the goals they find meaningful, and so forth.  The universe treats them in perfect accordance with who they are, and what they want.

Now, there are three problems with that.  One of the problems is that the universe doesn’t treat anyone openhandedly, and while the universe is not particularly hostile to life, it also doesn’t care about life either.  This is a material problem, and can be solved by material means.  The world is too cold for a human to be comfortable, this is solved through heating systems.  As science and technology (and magic?) improves, this becomes less and less of a problem.  Some folks might already consider it solved, due to virtual realities and direct neurological stimulation, but not everyone finds that meaningful, so it is certainly not perfect for everyone.

The second problem, of course, is that there is more than one individual in the world, and their interests can conflict.  I want to spend time talking with Susana, Maria wants to spend time talking with Susana.  Susana cannot hold two conversations at once, and is thus a limited resource.  If the universe treated Maria perfectly, it would not be treating me perfectly.  This can be partly solved by material means, by making many resources unlimited, but, unfortunately, this cannot be done for every resource.  In some ways, the best that can be hoped for is a compromise that maximizes happiness, but what that means is subject to contention.

The third problem is that people generally do not know what they want, or what makes them satisfied, and even if they do know… what they want and what makes them satisfied constantly changes.  A person might desire monetary riches, but if they were rich, would they still desire riches?  The former me was extremely wealthy, but abandoned everything to explore beyond the realms of man.  If I succeeded at exploring the universe, as impossible as that may seem, would I still desire it, and be satisfied with myself that I had accomplished such a goal, or would I find myself looking at something else?

These questions of utopia are questions for those who have power.  I cannot readily change the universe, but I am very much in control within my hallways.  Whitefall said that I am a king of my own little kingdom.  He is right that we are isolated from other authority, and he is right that I wield absolute power within my dominion.

But should that be the case?  Whitefall only knew of kings and lords.  For him, variation in government was a question of whether the ruler was enlightened or despotic.  But there have been countless forms of human governance, and absolute rule is the minority.

Good governance is a question of good, and is a question of reaching for utopia.  Of the three problems I listed the first one is purely a question of resources.  The other two problems are, in many ways, something to be addressed by government.

If I am an absolute ruler, I am making decisions that affect other people.  How do I create just compromises?  How do I do what they want?

Susana believes in democracy.  In an ideal form, whenever a decision is made, the people affected by the decisions get a voice in the decision in proportion to the degree the decision affects them.  Technical implementation is not extremely practical, but some worlds have had success using brain implants that allow people to voice their democratic opinions with a mere thought.

The main problem revolves around measuring the degree that a decision affects someone.  Some cases are obvious: Death is something that affects a person to a massive degree, and thus the person gets a massive, often overwhelming, say in the matter.  But even then, how massive is that?  It would take god-like intelligence to constantly make such decisions.  This was part of what got a younger, optimistic Susana interested in growing seed AI, as to create infinitely intelligent gods for the benefit of all mankind.

Of course, with an infinitely intelligent artificial god, one as little need for democracy at all, just for the god to figure out how to optimize happiness according to sane parameters.

I don’t have the answers.  For now, I will stay as absolute ruler.  I will listen, and I will try to be good to the crew.

No comments :

Post a Comment