5 ms·
This is a really interesting point to think about. I've considered this before: if there were some world superpower with an unstoppable military and a "good" po
by rococode 8y ago
This is a really interesting point to think about. I've considered this before: if there were some world superpower with an unstoppable military and a "good" political system, would it be right or wrong for them to take over the world and enforce their (good) policies world-wide?
Obviously, there would be a lot of war to be waged, even if they're all fairly short. But assuming the superpower is truly benevolent towards its people, would it be a morally correct move to look at the long-term and choose to "save" people from countries with less rights, rather than leave them to suffer an indeterminately longer amount of time? So far I'm not sure that either point of view on this is particularly convincing.
- tareqak 8y agoThe first thing I thought to do when I read your comment was replace the word "superpower" with "AI". It doesn't answer any questions, or really add that much of an extra dimension, but it was my first thought.
- viciousvoxel 8y agoThe problem of objective vs. subjective morality aside, one problem with allowing even a "benevolent" superpower to take over the world, is that there's an underlying assumption that it will always be benevolent. We can almost certainly say that at some point, that will not be the case. I think a union/federation of powers will always be safer and more practical than a monolithic power, if not as immediately world-changing.