|
|
|
|
|
|
by evrydayhustling
1182 days ago
|
|
|
> we need to fundamentally change how we govern humanity to mitigate existential risks In both cases, which "we" can you possibly mean? Like, today's voters? worldwide? Today's HN users? The CCP? The idea that any "we" may or must choose how to govern humanity is a category error. There are lots of forces other than markets to appeal to - nations, industry groups, religions. But any of them will be in a power struggle, except to the degree that they can show a legitimacy to control. Who has the most legitimacy on this subject? |
|
|
Most of which suffer from an analogue of market forces. For example, elections are won by playing the "getting elected" game near-perfectly. That leads to behavior which no one might want, but people are forced into.
> The idea that any "we" may or must choose how to govern humanity is a category error.
The category error is that not making a choice isn't a choice. Right now, we're governed by complex dynamics, which are at least as restrictive as choices we might engineer.
The book "Dictator's Handbook" gives a nice overview of the dynamics which govern us. It's a game-theoretic (but non-mathematical) analysis of political systems, including corporate and democratic governance.