I want to maximize my chances of living forever by motivating humanity to immediately coordinate as a singleton society that agrees to rules enforced by a single world government.

Nation states and corporations are the most powerful entities in the world today. These groups have provided some of us with a standard of living that humans 500 years ago could not even imagine. But our prosperity came at the cost of things like war, corruption, and inequality. Our current planet has countries competing for resources and corporations competing for profits. This environment is not stable enough to handle our exponentially improving technological capabilities.

The world government I'm imagining:
* Grants all humans equal rights, acknowledging that we are all products of randomness. Defectors will not be punished, just isolated.
* Implements scalable solutions to provide post-scarcity standards of living for everyone.
* Performs controlled, iterative testing of competing ideas.
* Records all data about space and time in a single Global Database, open for anyone to read.
* Uses axiomatic logical reasoning to decide on laws. The axioms are maintained collectively. Laws are enforced using Global Database records as evidence.
* Uses energy lost to entropy as the fundamental currency of the economy. Profit does not exist.

We can spread ideas at the speed of light. The viability of unification could be gauged on the order of days with some sort of viral Internet campaign. What if everyone on Earth (with Internet access) answered the question: "would the world be a better place if we all agree to form a world government next Monday?". The viral campaign must be simple and easy to engage with in order to maximize the number of participants.

The hope is that when enough people agree that a singleton could be better than what we have right now, they can work together to peacefully self-organize. Perhaps start by developing the software system that allows our species to collaboratively converge on some moral axioms.

So, humans of Earth: Would the world be a better place if we all agreed to form a world government next Monday? Please elaborate.


New Answer
Ask Related Question
New Comment

3 Answers sorted by

In it's nature centralization leads to more maze levels. As long as you don't have an AGI that manages your whole system you will have humans making decisions and those who are better at seeking power for themselves on average will get more power in your system and thus be able to direct resources. 

To me it looks like you haven't thought about who actually makes the decisions. You  didn't specify who decides which ideas actually get tested.

The hope is that when enough people agree that a singleton could be better than what we have right now, they can work together to peacefully self-organize.

In the past we already had people who believed it would be best if large parts of the world united under their rule. This typically led to wars.

It seems likely that most humans don't share your goal of having you live forever.  Some of them may want themselves to live forever, but many just want More Stuff in the short term, and see your goals as antithetical to theirs.

I prefer smaller and more fragmented governments, as they allow these conflicts of goals to play out on smaller stages where I have some influence.  Bigger, more powerful, more coordinated groups (which by definition aren't perfectly aligned with me, or with any individual) are much harder to oppose or correct on topics where I disagree.

2 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 12:05 PM

Here are some of the negative responses I anticipate. Try not to read them until you've thought about/posted your answer to the question.

I am posting these as evidence that I have given the problem a nontrivial amount of thought. Some of these statements are false. Others are true, yet their truthiness is not enough to stop me from believing that this is indeed the best path forward.


## This is impossible, so don't waste your time dreaming about it.
This is science fiction/utopian/idealistic.

Look at Brexit and Republicans.

Evolution programmed us to assemble into small groups and fight others. We can't overcome our programming.

The most wealthy/powerful people in the world would face a reduction in standard of living, so they will never let this happen.

Humans are incapable of making sudden/massive changes to their political systems. AGI will develop much faster than humanity can coordinate, so it doesn't matter what we do.

Even if everyone in the world agrees, no one can/will do anything about it.

## No, the world would not be better
This would be communism. It's never worked before.

This would be a totalitarian dystopia. I would hate to be controlled by the government to this level.

Whatever group of people who is in charge of maintaining the axioms will design the system to benefit themselves more than others.

Sudden, massive changes in policy are not safe. There is a high chance we converge on an incorrect policy that reduces the quality of life of everyone.

By isolating defectors, you are limiting their rights. This contradicts your supposed goal of granting all humans equal rights.

Unifying as a species marginalizes our cultural differences, which should instead be preserved and celebrated.

The proposed Global Database is a violation of my right to privacy.

It is against our nature to unify. Why should we defy our nature?

Axiomatic logic is not powerful enough to express the complexities of moral values.

Energy/entropy are not general enough to replace the dollar.

The logical conclusion of optimizing for minimization of entropy increase is to eradicate all life.

Humans without self-interest/group-interest will not be as innovative. We will decay.

The viral campaign only accounts for the opinions of people with Internet access. You will never acquire consensus from every human.

This proposal seems very human-centric. What about the animals, plants, and the planet?

Have you ever heard of game theory? Defectors will always find ways to exploit cooperative setups.

## You suck
You are a selfish psychopath that wants to live forever, you don't actually care about humanity.

Your writing is incomprehensible. You use too many technical words without explaining what they mean.

Your writing is too vague. You complain about abstract problems and provide no concrete solutions.

If you thought about these, and some of them are really obvious while others are just bizarre, why didn't you attempt to address any of them in your post?

New to LessWrong?