Peter McCluskey wrote:
> As the size of the benefit gets up into the trillions of dollars, the
>effects start to resemble making one person a world dictator. It is
>this kind of consideration that would probably cause me to oppose a
>"benefit" of this sort that exceeded something like $100 billion.
>I will be reluctant to believe people who are claiming they would
>support giving someone $100 trillion until they explain why they
>aren't deterred by the maxim "power corrupts".
The easiest response is to deny the maxim. If wealth = power, then
the fact that we are a lot richer than our ancestors, but not a lot
more corrupt, suggests that wealth-power does not corrupt. Perhaps
you mean relative wealth = power. But it is not clear to me that
richer people tend to be more corrupt. And even if this were true
the cause might go the other way -- corruption tends to acquire power.
If so, handing a person unexpected wealth might not corrupt them,
though it might well cause them to be suddenly surrounded by lots
of corrupt people.
Actually the sad fact is that few legal systems in the world would
allow someone to keep most of $100 trillion given to them. Far
more likely it would get stolen from them in some way that was
sanctioned by the powers that be. Even then it might be a net
benefit to humanity.
> I think this exercise does a good job of illuminating some of the
>motives for opposing superhumanism, ...
That was my reason for posting it here.
Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:58 MDT