Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Accomplished-Wall801 t1_irj0h1v wrote

I also wonder about this. I think the very premise of the nation state will have to change. Political systems have always evolved to meet economic needs, the nation state now a few hundred years old was designed to meet the needs of industrial capitalism.

For majority of countries it wasn’t the best experiment. But now, undoubtedly, new systems of governance will emerge to meet surveillance capitalism. Will they be fairer or much worse? Depends.. I can see your dark scenario playing out sure. I’ve heard folks say the future is cities self-governed not countries but I need to explore it more to understand the idea.

33

FourthmasWish t1_irj4ntu wrote

This is pretty much what I've been (armchair) researching for at least a decade. What systems and infrastructure are outdated given our modern population, technological leaps, and the normalization of precious resources across the planet.

If automation proliferates commercially before it can be downregulated by the government (in a bid to limit public access) there's a solid basis for a bottom up energy and sustenance infrastructure which imo is THE solution.

Imagine a low-cost garden shelf that self manages light, moisture, and soil according to the species of plant and requires no intervention beyond "reloading" soils and seeds for new plants after it harvests them. With one or more in a home a family could be one big step closer to food security. Automation can eventually reduce the cost of living to basically nothing, with very high RoI for everyone involved. Low cost of living also = more free time = more creative and scientific advancements.

The real big stink is that automation in capitalism bottoms out the value of labor (productivity), which has already been divorced from wages since the 70s. There is nothing cheaper than a machine running 24/7 with no concern for weekends, breaks, bonuses, or ethical practices. Likewise, there's little incentive for a government to allow their largest bargaining chips (power over the distribution of shelter, energy, and sustenance) to dissolve, even if it drastically reduces public stress (thus lowering crime rates as needs are met).

21

FiFoFree t1_irjdq4j wrote

I agree on most of these points. It's like we're headed towards a fork in the road:

On the one hand, if AGI is expensive, then that empowers centralized bodies like governments and corporations. On the other, if AGI is inexpensive, then that empowers decentralized bodies, such as individuals and communities.

Plus, there's the question of agency and the diminishing returns of intelligence. If you have all the intelligence in the world but have limited ability to interact with the world, you only have so much agency. Nanotech enters the discussion here, but it's in such an early stage of development that we really have no idea what will be possible over the next decade or two, just like people in 2000-2010 had no idea what was coming in the 2020s for AI.

6

Lawjarp2 OP t1_irj1ze2 wrote

I agree that the current political systems are not suitable. My concern is that people have no leverage in a world with AGI. Cities themselves make no sense in a world where people have no need to work. Why live in a small space in a cramped City when you can live anywhere you want?

Smaller countries might actually help. Giving hope that if any one goes rogue everyone else can quickly squash it. On the flip side, a very large rogue country can quickly overpower smaller ones. Wars are where rights are lost and this time they may never come back.

9

VanceIX t1_irj85w7 wrote

Even with AGI dense infrastructure is just more efficient than spread out infrastructure. Cities with experience automation on a scale and speed far faster and greater than rural areas.

3

Lawjarp2 OP t1_irja4un wrote

True. But would most people consider living in a nice suburban home or a tiny box apartment. With infinite labour does it even matter if it's a little less efficient.

3