>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
>
>Zero Powers wrote:
> >
> > >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> > >
> > >Wouldn't it be great if we could pass an international law that said
> > >that nations had to fight their wars in simulators?
> >
> > While you're at it: how about a law that outlaws war? How about all
> > international disputes resolved by televised debate and online
>plebiscite?
> >
> > North Ireland's Catholic v. Protestant
> > Israel v. Palestine
> > Russia v. Chechnya
> >
> > all decided with the click of a mouse!
>
>The problem with issues that lead to war is that they are typically
>issues where the parties both have truly justified but conflicting
>interests, also where there is also an element where the situation has
>festered for so long that the original reasons are no longer the main
>reasons, only hate. In such situations, any plebiscite will not be
>rational, and losers will not willingly accept being outvoted.
No question there would be significant obstacles to creating such a system.
But all the societal suggestions I make on this list assume the existence of
strong AI and practical nanotech. Given those developments, we could turn
all military power over to AI, to be used only when given the order by
society. For instance:
Say Israel and Palestine cannot resolve a border dispute. Each side would
be permitted to propose as many acceptable resolutions as it can. Among
each side the alternative resolutions could be whittled down to just one per
side in preliminary plebiscites, sort of like the US Presidential primary
process. Voting in the preliminary plebiscites would be limited to only
citizens of the involved body. In international disputes, only citizens of
the disputant states would be allowed to vote in their state's "primary."
Once the acceptable resolutions had been reduced to one per side, the matter
would be submitted to a general plebiscite at which every citizen in the
world would be invited to vote. That way the losing side could not complain
of being defeated merely by the larger population of the opposing state. In
order to win, a disputant would need to convince the world at large of the
superiority of its plan.
Once the general election is decided, coercing the disputants to comply with
the winning plan would be a simple matter of saying, either implement the
plan yourself or the global nano-powered AI police will implement the will
of the people, with your help or not. Another global problem solved before
lunch.
-Zero
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:01 MDT