Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

It's possible to be over-managed and over-governed, and it's possible to be under-managed and under-governed. A small business doesn't need much more than the owner to manage it. A large multi-national corporation will need many more levels of management. A well run liberal democracy needs some regulation and officials to manage that regulation. A dictatorship can be about mangement jobs for the boys and rampant corruption where regulation becomes meaningless and the country becomes an economic basket case. As always, it's about balance.

[Sy Borg]

Balancing control and latitude in complex societies with millions of people, many corporations, small businesses, advocacy groups and broad demographics is beyond any politician. They are all bluffing, pretending that they know what they are doing as they are constantly blindsided by events they did not foresee, or they find they are prevented from acting for logistical or political reasons.

Besides, given the dynamic nature of society, the very moment that you have achieved the perfect balance, that balance is already shifting. I sound like a broken record, but AI is humanity's only hope of sensible governance. It's possible, though, that if we are provided with truly rational and sensible governance, we might not like it.

[Thrylix]

I think Thyrlix is totally right in that people will be corrupt with power

Everyone needs to feel important. Many fulfill that already, others need to step on "ants" to accomplish it. Sad, really.

Maybe, but that is an oversimplification of my motivation and unfair.

Yes, people generally yearn to feel important, but feeling important would not (for me) the main pay-out in ruling over a civilization of intelligent ant-sized people. Even if it were, that feeling would quickly get old after a few days.

For me, personally, this is more about the fun of influencing and reshaping an entire society on a mass scale... determining the direction of an intelligent society.

It's better to think about it more like a sim game, I guess? Whenever I have played those, I certainly did not feel "important" since I was in a completely behind-the-scenes faceless role. Yet there was still fun to be had about in determining how the city or civilization would be shaped. Ruling over a tiny civilization of ant-sized people would just be an even more intense and immersive sandbox sim game for me, where I get to take a more direct role in the outcomes and indulge myself in other ways.

You're implying that my goal in this is to feel important by destroying something, or as you say, step on ants, but that isn't it. Would I experiment? Sure. Would I try to test the limits of their obedience or see how far they’d go to meet my needs? Of course I would push boundaries. My choice would be to terrorize and rule through fear, absolutely. Yet, I wouldn't be entirely malicious. I would not want to see the little guys get wiped out. Rather, I would actually prefer that their population thrive instead of decimate it. If they were threatened by a natural disaster, I would do everything I could to shield them from it. But, I would also want to be the natural disaster sometimes.

Overall, the main goal in this hypothetical is not about destroying something to feel important -- even though feeling important is a perk that is inherent to the role I am describing. There is more here than that. It is still about building something, even if it is abstract. This is about being architect, destroyer, and enforcer in a world where every outcome is tied to your will. If you want to tie that to one "feeling" that is being chased... perhaps it would be dominion.

[LuckyR]

I think Thyrlix is totally right in that people will be corrupt with power

Everyone needs to feel important. Many fulfill that already, others need to step on "ants" to accomplish it. Sad, really.

Maybe, but that is an oversimplification of my motivation and unfair.

Yes, people generally yearn to feel important, but feeling important would not (for me) the main pay-out in ruling over a civilization of intelligent ant-sized people. Even if it were, that feeling would quickly get old after a few days.

For me, personally, this is more about the fun of influencing and reshaping an entire society on a mass scale... determining the direction of an intelligent society.

It's better to think about it more like a sim game, I guess? Whenever I have played those, I certainly did not feel "important" since I was in a completely behind-the-scenes faceless role. Yet there was still fun to be had about in determining how the city or civilization would be shaped. Ruling over a tiny civilization of ant-sized people would just be an even more intense and immersive sandbox sim game for me, where I get to take a more direct role in the outcomes and indulge myself in other ways.

You're implying that my goal in this is to feel important by destroying something, or as you say, step on ants, but that isn't it. Would I experiment? Sure. Would I try to test the limits of their obedience or see how far they’d go to meet my needs? Of course I would push boundaries. My choice would be to terrorize and rule through fear, absolutely. Yet, I wouldn't be entirely malicious. I would not want to see the little guys get wiped out. Rather, I would actually prefer that their population thrive instead of decimate it. If they were threatened by a natural disaster, I would do everything I could to shield them from it. But, I would also want to be the natural disaster sometimes.

Overall, the main goal in this hypothetical is not about destroying something to feel important -- even though feeling important is a perk that is inherent to the role I am describing. There is more here than that. It is still about building something, even if it is abstract. This is about being architect, destroyer, and enforcer in a world where every outcome is tied to your will. If you want to tie that to one "feeling" that is being chased... perhaps it would be dominion.

Okay, if it makes you feel better to say it that way. What's wrong with a couple of harmless rationalizations between friends?

[Thrylix]

Okay, if it makes you feel better to say it that way. What's wrong with a couple of harmless rationalizations between friends?

But, I'm not just saying the same thing that you said differently. By suggesting in this hypothetical that I would essentially be stepping on ants to feel important, you are genuinely misunderstanding and mischaracterizing me...

Even when I go to step on actual ants on my back patio, I don't feel "important." I am fully aware that the ants who live there do not recognize me as the same giant sleazy asshole who has ruined their day a hundred times before, even though that is what I am. They do not even perceive me as another living organism who is doing this to them.... so I am not asserting my identity over them. I block the entrance to their home with my foot, and all the ants perceive is "Attack of the Giant Running Shoe." And they do not even comprehend that. From their perspective, my running shoe is just this huge white alien object that smells like decomposing rubber and old cheese. Regardless, there is still value in watching them swarm out from underneath to try and repel this unfathomable titanic object their home.

That is a lot closer to what would be the motivation for me in the case of an intelligent race. It is about witnessing and testing their reactions to external pressures and their impacts. But there would be so much more going on with respect to influencing their direction their society takes. And an intelligent race would of course recognize me, unlike the ants. Regardless, feeling important isn't the main goal here...And there would be more than just senseless destruction... I feel that I made that clear, ugh.

[Thrylix]

The perhaps greater attraction for me is the ability to command and force them into doing what I want, or else I crush them.

That's evil.

And I don't think concepts such as good or evil apply in my example. For one thing, we're talking about pretty extraordinary circumstances. But more importantly, in geopolitics, the concepts of "good and evil" or "right and wrong" are rarely, if ever, the primary drivers of action. Nations routinely penetrate one another’s cyber defenses, disrupt infrastructure, engage in data collection, support coups, and engage in economic warfare—not because these actions are morally justified, but because they are necessary to secure strategic advantages. The goal is not morality but achieving and maintaining an edge over rivals, ensuring survival and dominance in an adversarial system. This is analogous to the hypothetical I proposed, where the tiny civilization and myself as the giant are competing interests and each one could pose an existential threat to the other. Survival and dominance would be my goal. That isn't evil.