What Use Do Humans Have in Transhuman Space?

[Ramidel]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

The citizens can vote in a new legislature, the capital owners could protest, but if the WTO controls the future equivalent of the DRM, what difference does it make?

In this case, the WTO is acting on behalf of the IP owners (IP is a means of regulating capital). If the owners of the relevant IP act to allow it...

Okay, yes, it's possible that the WTO will go rogue and attempt to enforce IP laws against the express intent of the owners, which is yet another conflict/story seed. But by default THS assumptions, IP ownership is a form of capitalism and IP will serve the interests of its owners.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Ramidel

In this case, the WTO is acting on behalf of the IP owners (IP is a means of regulating capital).

Not necessarily, though they might be. It depends on who controls the WTO in the THS world. It could be influenced by IP owners, or by rival national powers that don't want someone improving their social cohesion, or by dissenting members of the ruling class in the subject state, or any of a number of other possibilities.

Theoretical ownership is only one facet of actual control.

Okay, yes, it's possible that the WTO will go rogue and attempt to enforce IP laws against the express intent of the owners, which is yet another conflict/story seed. But by default THS assumptions, IP ownership is a form of capitalism and IP will serve the interests of its owners.

But those default assumptions can change on a dime in accordance with culture and politics.

Another way votes could turn out not to matter: imagine Country A decides to pass legislation limiting the replacement of workers with SAI/LAI/NAI. That leaves the companies in-country losing out to automated competition in neighboring Countries B and C, who don't have to pay workers. So the voters elect a legislature that slaps heavy tariffs on imports from B and C.

The WTO, controlled by interests sympathetic to B and C, rules that the tariffs are invalid. Country A votes to ignore the ruling. At which point other states, influenced by bribes/common interests/etc. with B and C, proceed to cut off A's raw materials imports, strangling domestic industry. Another step or two of escalation and Country A is at war with her neighbors.

My point is simply that political influence and authority tracks power, and that includes even voters' influence. SAI and related technologies aren't guarenteed to undercut that power, but it easily, it very easily, could.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Even after humans are no longer the means, we will remain the ends.

Which humans will be the ends for which humans? And what particular ends?

If you're in a position of political power/economic security, and you don't need the masses for anything...why care? Beyond the danger of guillotines in Central Park, I mean?

(Obviously some people will care anyway, but thousands of years of experience tells us that we can't count on it.)

The traditional counter to the threat of mass uprisings and guillotines is armed enforcers, but that's always had the problem that it leaves the ruling class dependent on their armed men, and they have to at least keep them somewhat happy, and ensure their loyalty.

SAI/LAI/NAI opens the possibility to loyal enforcers that you don't have to keep happy.

I'm not saying it's inevitable, but the assumptions of transhumanist tech in the THS have some very sinister and dark implications. There are very nasty possibilities implied by the tech. It would probably take a conscious effort to avert a bad outcome.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

Not necessarily, though they might be.

I mean, unless you're tossing the setting as written, there's no "might be". It's a straightforward fact. The WTO messes with the economy of the TSA specifically over IP law. This filters through the setting, with anti-xox sentiments to reinforce the interests of AI vendors, and anti-bioshell "Frankenstein" sentiments to reinforce the interests of cyberdoll vendors.

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

If you're in a position of political power/economic security, and you don't need the masses for anything...why care? Beyond the danger of guillotines in Central Park, I mean?

SAI/LAI/NAI opens the possibility to loyal enforcers that you don't have to keep happy.

To start with the question I'd end on to shorten things a little, "What use is a politician after you've shot all their constituents?"

Like, even leaving aside that basically everyone in power needs to decide to start acting incredibly ghoulishly, your argument still requires that people in power act against their interests. "Here, have a bribe to pass a bill that will render you irrelevant in five years" is almost certainly not worth it for the politician.

But let's say you come up with a bribe that would persuade the politician to pass crazy laws, or maybe the government is some kind of oligarchy where all politicians would benefit from this law. But even there, it's still not a good idea. Sure, taking the slice of pie that used to go to "the masses" and dividing it up between you and the other billionaires means more pie for you, maybe even a lot more pie for you. But so does taking the other billionaires pie. And after that, well, you quickly realize that the appropriate number of humans is one. It's not even that big a leap; after all, you've already reduced the number from a few million to a couple thousand. What's a couple thousand more?

And let's say, "OK, I'll convince all the billionaires they're a cut above everyone else, and they won't kill each other after we kill the mob." There's still one other issue: unless you do this everywhere all at once, a society that does this is going to be relatively disadvantaged, at least in the short term. Like, even ignoring the disruptions this would pose in THS as written, where the employment rate is still over 60%, and imagining a world that has automated virtually everything, you're still diverting tons of resources into security that no rival is doing. Even imagining rivals that don't care about mass death, they'll either see weakness (and come in to take stuff with more capability than "the mob") or they'll fear whatever actions you're taking to defend yourself and work against you. Even imagining a society that can act unilaterally, they still must weigh, "Is the wealth we're going to get out of this greater than what we get right now?"

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by TGLS

Like, even leaving aside that basically everyone in power needs to decide to start acting incredibly ghoulishly, your argument still requires that people in power act against their interests. "Here, have a bribe to pass a bill that will render you irrelevant in five years" is almost certainly not worth it for the politician.

No, it doesn't require ghoulishness, just indifference and self-interest among the ruling class. Which, if it's not necessarily the historical norm, is certainly historically common.

But let's say you come up with a bribe that would persuade the politician to pass crazy laws, or maybe the government is some kind of oligarchy where all politicians would benefit from this law.

What law? If you accumulate enough economic and/or military and/or social power, you can just do what you want without a law.

Upthread I mentioned the case of Greece as an example of this. A decade ago, in the aftermath of the crash of '08 and the subsequent upheavals, Greece was operating under an EU-mandated austerity program. EU economic support for the ailing Greek economy was contingent on it.

OK, the Greek electorate got fed up and elected a left-wing party called Syriza, who campaigned on ending the austerity program. They won control of the Greek legislature, straight up, by legitimate democratic means.

And they discovered that it didn't matter. Yes, they were in power, but they had to use that power the way the EU overseers told them to, or the EU would cut off the economic support that was keeping the economy afloat. Syriza discovered that winning the election simply meant that they had to implement the same policies they had run against...or else.

The Greeks could vote in anybody they wanted to...but all they were doing is choosing who would implement the EU directives, which were going to be thge same no matter what...and they could not vote out the EU officials imposing them. They had votes, but the votes didn't matter because they lacked the power to back them up. The elected officials were legally and duly elected...but they still didn't have the power to use their authority.

One German official even said, in response to the incident: "Elections change nothing."

It doesn't matter who was right on the merits, that's not my point. I'm using that as an illustration of how legality sometimes fails in the face of power.

You don't necessarily have to bribe anyone, or convince anyone, if you've built up enough power by other means.

But even there, it's still not a good idea. Sure, taking the slice of pie that used to go to "the masses" and dividing it up between you and the other billionaires means more pie for you, maybe even a lot more pie for you. But so does taking the other billionaires pie. And after that, well, you quickly realize that the appropriate number of humans is one. It's not even that big a leap; after all, you've already reduced the number from a few million to a couple thousand. What's a couple thousand more?

Depends on how much power the other billionaires have to defend their interests. It also depends on who a member of the elite considers to be part of 'us' and who they don't. Don't understimate the power of class identification.

And let's say, "OK, I'll convince all the billionaires they're a cut above everyone else, and they won't kill each other after we kill the mob."

As I said, that part is easy. It's happened (in one form or another) many times in history.

There's still one other issue: unless you do this everywhere all at once, a society that does this is going to be relatively disadvantaged, at least in the short term. Like, even ignoring the disruptions this would pose in THS as written, where the employment rate is still over 60%, and imagining a world that has automated virtually everything, you're still diverting tons of resources into security that no rival is doing. Even imagining rivals that don't care about mass death, they'll either see weakness (and come in to take stuff with more capability than "the mob") or they'll fear whatever actions you're taking to defend yourself and work against you. Even imagining a society that can act unilaterally, they still must weigh, "Is the wealth we're going to get out of this greater than what we get right now?"

If it all happened at one time, maybe.

But this sort of thing doesn't happen suddenly. It's not a sudden revoluation where the aristocrats/oligarchs take over, or if it is, that's a culmination of something that's usually gone on for a long time. The Roman Republic, for example, had already died long before Julius and Octavian removed the corpse. It died, in part, of precisely the sort of economic displacements we're talking about, except that instead of SAI and LAI and cybershells, it happened through the slave economy that the expansion from the Republic's own success permitted, and it occurred over two or three generations.

Likewise, the emergence of an elite/underclass divide like that in the THS setting would happen over years and decades, maybe generations. It would happen gradually, then maybe suddenly, and it wouldn't necessarily ever be official. You could easily have a scenario where the governments still operate superficially as before, but where all the real decision-making power was elsewhere.