Will we ever have cybernations and cybergovernments?

[petrushka.googol]

As the internet continues to grow exponentially would citizens of the world organize themselves into cybernations administered by cybergovernments? May be this could be the dawn of a new form of more inclusive governance (and maybe more just?). Please advise.

Edited January 25, 2014 by petrushka.googol

[Danijel Gorupec]

I think this is possible. But even in this case, I think, people will have dual citizenship - of a terrestrial country and of a cyber nation. This is because people will live in both worlds (physical and cyber).

 

[ I also believe that conscious computer software could soon be realized (in less than 50 years), and 1-2 decades after that we will probably have to recognize their civil rights. Those entities will probably create some sort of cyber-nation(s)... I actually believe such development is almost a certainty and I would bet that in year 2100 there will be more than 500 billion conscious minds on this planet (about 10 billion of them organic). ]

[Popcorn Sutton]

I think that politicians may already be working on this, or planning to get around to it soon. That's what I've heard from one at least. I love the idea

Edited January 26, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[Delta1212]

I have a cybernation. Used to spend a lot of time on that game.

[Trumptor]

I doubt that will happen, but I do hope that as AI becomes more advanced that we will be able to give up some of our decisions to a more advanced AI in regards to making economic, social, and other choices without the bias and self interests that we humans have. I think that leaving big choices to artificial intelligence with the goal of bettering humanity would result in no wars, a better distribution of food, less corruption, etc.

 

This is obviously a scenario for the future, but I think it would be a rational one if AI passes up human intelligence, and with the HUGE advantage of no self interest or any "isms" such as nationalism, racism, etc. involved.

Danijel,

 

Do you believe that AI will actually have emotions and be sentient? I think the software will allow robots and computers to "fake" personalities and emotions, but how would a programmed machine cross the boundaries of being a programmed hunk of metal to a living, sentient being? I think this is a more philosophical question, since if you believe in a soul and life existing outside of a material body, then a bunch of electronic components being thrown together will never qualify as a living being no matter how convincing the programming or physical shell.

[Popcorn Sutton]

It's probably best to believe that they're living. They're going to be digital though.

[Danijel Gorupec]

Danijel,

 

Do you believe that AI will actually have emotions and be sentient? I think the software will allow robots and computers to "fake" personalities and emotions, but how would a programmed machine cross the boundaries of being a programmed hunk of metal to a living, sentient being? I think this is a more philosophical question, since if you believe in a soul and life existing outside of a material body, then a bunch of electronic components being thrown together will never qualify as a living being no matter how convincing the programming or physical shell.

 

I believe that AI will be sentient one day (today we are making 'toys' that fake emotions and personality, but I believe that one day we will learn how to make truly sentient software). Of course, It seems that at the moment nobody can say what exactly makes somebody/something sentient. Therefore I suppose that in future we will have long discussions about whether our machines are sentient or not.

 

Somehow I doubt that a sentient being can exist without emotions (of some kind). It is because I believe that emotions are strongly connected to motivation, and I doubt that an unmotivated sentient being can exist. Even if it can, we people would have hard time recognizing it.

 

Reasons for my believe in AI is because I don't think that there is anything that 'exist outside' our brain tissue. But I must admit that the question of consciousness is very puzzling. Sometimes I even wonder if there is a 'law' that tells that an intelligent being can never really understand its own complexity level.

[petrushka.googol]

May be some of the advantages of virtual nations will be :

 

1) AI law bodies that act on reason not emotion or bias

2) Virtual boundaries (as there are no discrete barriers in cyberspace).

3) Membership of several "nations" concurrently with no need of a passport or visa.

4) An intelligent marketplace where currency borders do not exist. Maybe there will be some sort of purchase assist tokens that are earned by work in cyberspace that are at parity in all virtual nations and can be used as the de-facto currency across the board.

 

There are many other things possible but i have listed just a few.

[hoola]

I certainly hope that we have politics replaced by computers. I think we are in a race to save ourselves from the intellectual "bag of tricks we have been using to destroy our enviornment for short term advantage, with new governmental institutions controlled by computers with a long term global survival strategy algorithm at it's center. Foremost will be a reduction of human populations to 2 billion individuals worldwide. That alone would go a long way to reducing the CO2 issue, habitat destruction, and general repairing a planet that is simply overpopulated. It is obvious that governments are falling apart, and the scramble for diminishing resources will only get worse as the enviornment degrades. Due to economic and social forces, humanity simply doesn't have a chance to keep childbearing down to one child per person, or even better, no child per person, until the population get down to a sustainable level. It will have to be compelled to do so. Another new institution in the united states needs to be a "department of peace" to replace the so called department of "defense" that has become the emotional, economic and spirtual death of the west and is largely responsible for warmongering world-wide. This sentiment offered as the parting remark of the eisenhower administration, a republican administration...war is essentially incompatible with the enviornment, and is ingrained in human culture as a way of life...

Edited February 16, 2014 by hoola

[Popcorn Sutton]

I certainly hope that we have politics replaced by computers. I think we are in a race to save ourselves from the intellectual "bag of tricks we have been using to destroy our enviornment for short term advantage, with new governmental institutions controlled by computers with a long term global survival strategy algorithm at it's center. Foremost will be a reduction of human populations to 2 billion individuals worldwide. That alone would go a long way to reducing the CO2 issue, habitat destruction, and general repairing a planet that is simply overpopulated. It is obvious that governments are falling apart, and the scramble for diminishing resources will only get worse as the enviornment degrades. Due to economic and social forces, humanity simply doesn't have a chance to keep childbearing down to one child per person, or even better, no child per person, until the population get down to a sustainable level. It will have to be compelled to do so. Another new institution in the united states needs to be a "department of peace" to replace the so called department of "defense" that has become the emotional, economic and spirtual death of the west and is largely responsible for warmongering world-wide. This sentiment offered as the parting remark of the eisenhower administration, a republican administration...war is essentially incompatible with the enviornment, and is ingrained in human culture as a way of life...

It really grinds my gears when people say that this planet is overpopulated. Once people start believing that, people start looking for quick solutions, genocide being one of them. I don't think that the human population is detrimental to our well being, and if we did have a central source of intellect, such as a supercomputer, I'm sure it would find a much better solution than limiting population growth. There are solutions out there already which don't involve limitations on population growth; I've proposed a few, and a lot of other people are working very hard on it as well. If we did have a supercomputer intelligence at the center of decision making, it would most likely choose the best solution out there before it comes up with solutions of its own.

[Trumptor]

I couldn't disagree more. Wow, I can't see how anyone can come to such a conclusion. Can you say that 100,000 humans on the planet would strain our natural resources and create as much pollution as 7 billion?!?!? Not to mention the greater statistical chance for mutations in viruses with a larger population. Put 100 rats in a cage with a certain virus and put a billion rats in a cage with the same virus and see which has a far greater chance of developing a mutation to kill off the population.

 

I'm optimistic and don't worry much about the population problem because I believe our advances in technology along with the trend of a decline in the population growth rate will be enough to manage any problems, but those are hopes, not guarantees. Also, who the heck would come up with genocide as a solution for overpopulation??? Hitler? Lex Luther? I can't see that as a viable option in any serious discussion among civilized humans.

[Delta1212]

I couldn't disagree more. Wow, I can't see how anyone can come to such a conclusion. Can you say that 100,000 humans on the planet would strain our natural resources and create as much pollution as 7 billion?!?!? Not to mention the greater statistical chance for mutations in viruses with a larger population. Put 100 rats in a cage with a certain virus and put a billion rats in a cage with the same virus and see which has a far greater chance of developing a mutation to kill off the population.

 

I'm optimistic and don't worry much about the population problem because I believe our advances in technology along with the trend of a decline in the population growth rate will be enough to manage any problems, but those are hopes, not guarantees. Also, who the heck would come up with genocide as a solution for overpopulation??? Hitler? Lex Luther? I can't see that as a viable option in any serious discussion among civilized humans.

Wouldn't 10 strain resources even less and create even less pollution? Does that mean a global population of 100,000 is "overpopulated" because a smaller population would have less of an impact?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Everyone who thinks that lowering the population would solve significant problems hasn't thought of the implications. We have plenty of room here in the USA for a lot more people. If China can fit that many people there, we can fit twice as much, maybe even more. Our diseases aren't really mutating. The world is becoming a better place, and Exxon is working on the pollution problem. There's a plant near where I live that has reduced hazardous emissions by over 75% in the last twenty years, and they're being forced by the government to make it even more. IBM just released Watson and showed what it's capable of when it won Jeapordy. The program can read over 2 million documents in less than 3 seconds.