Gustave5436
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,319
AGI would make all hitherto existing or theorized mechanisms of governance obsolete.
World Peace or World Domination?
- Thread starter Tani Coyote
- Start date
AGI would make all hitherto existing or theorized mechanisms of governance obsolete.
amadeus
Serenity now
World domination, since I get more out of it... presuming in this scenario I will not be assassinated or something. I'm not entirely sure I'd want to dominate the entire world, though... a developing country would more than suffice, as I might actually be able to improve conditions in the country (as well as my own)...
But if I were the globe's unquestioned ruler, what's to say that society wouldn't crumble? I don't think I have the capacity to sustain the entire world, even if I rule it ruthlessly with millions of devoted followers.
But if I were the globe's unquestioned ruler, what's to say that society wouldn't crumble? I don't think I have the capacity to sustain the entire world, even if I rule it ruthlessly with millions of devoted followers.
Ecofarm
Deity
You get it, I'll do it. I ain't skeered.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I want AIs only smart enough to do their job, and nothing more.
Moff Jerjerrod
Deity
This is a tough one.
World Peace would mean billions of complacent sentients for me to feast upon but...
World Domination would mean billions of rebellious sentients for me to stamp out...
decisions, decisions...
World Peace would mean billions of complacent sentients for me to feast upon but...
World Domination would mean billions of rebellious sentients for me to stamp out...
decisions, decisions...
I would like my country to have world domination, because I think that would lead to a good world peace. That said, being British I have to go for world peace.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I'll be damned if I have to spell one of the base units of the metric system as "metre".
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
who cares who runs the world? as long as there's peace.
amadeus
Serenity now
So a coalition of Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong-il and the Saudi royal family wouldn't bother you?
BasketCase
Username sez it all
I would vote "both" if I could.
Peace when possible. Domination when necessary, and then only against people who actually need dominating: Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Kim Il Jung, Fidel Castro.....(in general, dictators and religious zealots)
Peace when possible. Domination when necessary, and then only against people who actually need dominating: Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Kim Il Jung, Fidel Castro.....(in general, dictators and religious zealots)
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
If you count peace as being a state of there not being armed conflict, then domination every time. Lack of war doesn't mean a nice society, it could be a horrific place.
If you count it as genuine harmony, then world peace. But we can still test tanks and warships and things, just for fun. And paintballing is compulsory.
If you count it as genuine harmony, then world peace. But we can still test tanks and warships and things, just for fun. And paintballing is compulsory.
onedreamer
Dragon
World domination and world peace aren't mutually exclusive at all. As well as democracy and peace have no connection. A civil war can break even in democratic countries. Or it might even have more chances to break out. All you need are preachers and people who believe them.
Name a senator living in poverty, and hence having a perspective on what it really is. You can span from the Roman Republic to 2010 AD.
Name a senator living in poverty, and hence having a perspective on what it really is. You can span from the Roman Republic to 2010 AD.
