>>> I can't think of a single institution that hasn't self-corrupted. This is a very cheap take, and undermines the unbelievable amount of function that instit

>>> I can't think of a single institution that hasn't self-corrupted. This is a very cheap take, and undermines the unbelievable amount of function that institutions play, despite corruption. The self-corrupting institutions that you speak of are what drive modern society. To reject them altogether, that is naive. Institutions are also destined to corrupt, see Quigley's work. This is why they die, to give room for new. >>> ...a single entity manned and driven by men that hasn't turned itself into shit... Again, another general take that is not flexible enough to consider the context of Bostrom here. What Bostrom is suggesting is an extremely severe scenario in which there is no other choice other than to place our bets on a centralized authority. I think general distrust of authority and institutions can make one read this article in a bent way, but let's pose it this way; what is an alternative solution to the easy-nukes scenario? If one writes an article on the same topic, how would you frame the solution? >>> ...the view that either a holistic surveillance apparatus or global government would be any better. Centralized systems have done a lot better than decentralized systems in many cases. See many attempts being made in crypto space. They run case by case. It takes tremendous amount of smart design to make decentralized systems work. Sometimes centralized systems are more flexible than decentralized systems. Laissez-faire, power to the people, and all that is great and people (of the world) should tend towards that. This is what I appreciate about America, and their steadfast approach to these values. But that is a general take. Religiosity towards these values can be a great detriment to epistemic flexibility. If this reads as if I am arguing for centralized systems over decentralized systems, I am not. Note I put in a lot of conditionals, like "sometimes" and "case by case". There are situations where centralized systems are better, and where decentralized systems are better. As humanity improves, we will replace centralized portions of the world with decentralized counterparts. But as it stands, centralization is really useful under certain conditions. Could you really decentralize the army? (Maybe in a few hundred years) All this is to say, we need centralization sometimes, and the situation that Bostrom is suggesting here is that sometimes.