3 ms·

The political stronghold in China appears well fortified. With every year that passes, the optimization gradient from government to people re-enforces the compl

The political stronghold in China appears well fortified. With every year that passes, the optimization gradient from government to people re-enforces the complicity. The differences in written and oral language make clandestine operations difficult. How many of the 2600 Politburo members are intelligence assets? Likely few to none. The situation is clearly suboptimal from a human perspective: oppressive power is categorically bad, we take this truth to be self-evident. In terms of catalytic change, what are some out of the box ideas that would rise to the challenge? 1. New forms of biotechnology minorly resemblant of targeted mind control. For example, any nanotechnology-based vector sufficiently power to trigger behaviors like a voluntary mass resignation of party members. Alternatively, a controlled pandemic that somehow interfaces with compromised electronics to temporarily modulate behavior. But this ask is too high, and such technology would surely be deployed towards even geopolitical goals first. 2. Incredibly high velocity targeted counterpropaganda that is also historically truthful. Some of the earliest StarCraft bots that defeated humans were simply very good at controlling mass mutalisk swarm. A rapid and unexpected infiltration with truth bombs, ideally physical or written rather than electronic to make censorship challenges, could cause a (probably uncontrolled chain reaction). 3. Inducement of a Taiwan takeover, and subsequent loss. Very high collateral damage and seems widely destructive rather than more “peaceful.” 4. Weird deus ex machinas. In the Three Body Problem, theoretical physicist start hallucinating a countdown timer. A covert leap in physics or technologies to induce “mystic breaks” in relevant sub populations, particularly those in power, could lead to mostly voluntary abdications of power. 5. Something more insidious or pernicious related to improved clandestine operation. 6. Straightforward domination, such as through a deployment of a sovereign but appropriately aligned or controlled AI fleet that maintains the balance of a covert takeover / disassembly of the power structure but phase transitions organically to redistribute power to the wider populace before halting or terminating itself. A lot of these require sci fi, non-existence technology, or risk of armageddon. Are there alternatives (that don’t require classified information or a SCIF) that don’t rely on these or is the task complexity simply at that scale?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
exceptione 3y ago
Dictatorships look strong from the outside, but are weak inside. What looks like a monolith is in fact multiple tribes seeking a position closer to the throne. The most brutal few that make it to the top have to spend much of their energy to get there or defend their position. That is not saying they don't have any ideologies, but leadership in these systems rewards obedience and tribute paying first of all. So you get a system that optimizes optics for a hierarchy of overlords. Contrast that with the chaotic looking processes that happens within free democratic societies. Leadership has a much broader accountability, faces scrutiny from all sides, has to tolerate opposition, are bound to laws and have term limits. This system, with all buts and ifs, allows societies to innovate, learn, adapt and prosper. Chinese leadership should thank the late Kissinger for the enormous transfer of wealth, intellectual properties, and highly favorable trading conditions from the West. It is still very dependent on it for its economics. Totalitarian states will in the long run not be able to compete with free states. The collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable, but that stuff can take decades.
paradox242 3y ago
All of these technologies would be very useful to a government, especially an authoritarian government. Who do you imagine wielding this technology, exactly? Agents of a foreign power? Internal dissidents? In either case it is difficult to imagine a circumstance in which the same technology is not already available to the CCP themselves.
ordu 3y ago
(2) wouldn't work. People agree with propaganda not because they think it is telling the truth. On the contrary, they agree with propaganda and then they start believing it. I'd say it is more like a social adaptation, you need to be like others. (3) wouldn't work either, I think. Propaganda can absorb losses and paint them as a heroic struggle against overhelming odds. > Are there alternatives (that don’t require classified information or a SCIF) that don’t rely on these or is the task complexity simply at that scale? I don't know any, but I think that some way to form societies independent from the government might help. Some way to meet people, to discuss things with them, to plan actions and to do it at a large scale. But the problem is how you can distinguish a goverment spy from a freedom fighter? It is the key problem, everything else is just an implementation detail.
the_af 3y ago
Almost all of the proposals in your comment seem authoritarian to me. I think at this point we should have learned that deploying totalitarianism to fight a regime the West doesn't like both doesn't work and, to use your words, is "self-evidently categorically bad". Dreaming of some mind-controlling bioweapon to change the minds of politicians we don't like seems particularly dystopian to me. If this technology existed, you can guarantee it will be deployed in your country, wherever that is.
hakfoo 3y ago
You're starting way far down the path here. The first questions should be more things like "Why are the current stakeholders willing to play along with the CCP system" or "How can a more 'western-norms' approach be packaged to appear less threatening and more compelling so it won't be instinctively rejected" and less "how do we invent MIND CONTROL NANOBOTS to make people change their political affiliation." Any political system survives because some core percentage of the population benefits from it and buys into it. The cartoonish stereotype examples tended to be the small third-world countries where it was clear the local leader was financing the army to keep him afloat to the detriment of other services. The CCP has a far broader buy-in. I'm sure some of that might be people trying to use the Party for personal economic or social gain, but right now it's still easy for them to say "you're better off today than your parents were 30 years ago" and trade on that. They also happen to be sitting around at a time where a lot of the original guardrails of good faith happen to be falling off of Western institutions. Situations like Brexit, runaway income inequality, the rise of fascist-adjacent leaders in Europe, and the non-function of the US legislature seem to scream "this nifty 'Capitalist Democracy' product we're selling? We can't even make it work on our machine!" If you want to win over China, you have to show them that your value system will provide better outcomes. You can't exactly trot out Liz Truss and Kevin McCarthy and say "this is the sort of stable, respected government that will preserve the progress you've made over the last century." It's also inherently antagonistic to present a message that's "we'd love if if you voted out your current leaders"-- just look at the glare Schumer is catching over that type of language to a country that already has a multi-party norm. I almost wonder if the way to sell democracy is less as a values-oriented Freedom(tm) message, and more pragmatic, like trying to apply the Toyota Process to government-- empower citizenry and look for ways that they can incorporate feedback at the ground level to root out performance and waste and enhance value for existing stakeholders. That could get to a government that's more responsive and respectful of its citizenry through an internal process it can own and see as "organic", rather than "foreigners insist we must have elections."

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

exceptione 3y ago

Dictatorships look strong from the outside, but are weak inside. What looks like a monolith is in fact multiple tribes seeking a position closer to the throne. The most brutal few that make it to the top have to spend much of their energy to get there or defend their position. That is not saying they don't have any ideologies, but leadership in these systems rewards obedience and tribute paying first of all. So you get a system that optimizes optics for a hierarchy of overlords. Contrast that with the chaotic looking processes that happens within free democratic societies. Leadership has a much broader accountability, faces scrutiny from all sides, has to tolerate opposition, are bound to laws and have term limits. This system, with all buts and ifs, allows societies to innovate, learn, adapt and prosper. Chinese leadership should thank the late Kissinger for the enormous transfer of wealth, intellectual properties, and highly favorable trading conditions from the West. It is still very dependent on it for its economics. Totalitarian states will in the long run not be able to compete with free states. The collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable, but that stuff can take decades.

paradox242 3y ago

All of these technologies would be very useful to a government, especially an authoritarian government. Who do you imagine wielding this technology, exactly? Agents of a foreign power? Internal dissidents? In either case it is difficult to imagine a circumstance in which the same technology is not already available to the CCP themselves.

ordu 3y ago

(2) wouldn't work. People agree with propaganda not because they think it is telling the truth. On the contrary, they agree with propaganda and then they start believing it. I'd say it is more like a social adaptation, you need to be like others. (3) wouldn't work either, I think. Propaganda can absorb losses and paint them as a heroic struggle against overhelming odds. > Are there alternatives (that don’t require classified information or a SCIF) that don’t rely on these or is the task complexity simply at that scale? I don't know any, but I think that some way to form societies independent from the government might help. Some way to meet people, to discuss things with them, to plan actions and to do it at a large scale. But the problem is how you can distinguish a goverment spy from a freedom fighter? It is the key problem, everything else is just an implementation detail.

the_af 3y ago

Almost all of the proposals in your comment seem authoritarian to me. I think at this point we should have learned that deploying totalitarianism to fight a regime the West doesn't like both doesn't work and, to use your words, is "self-evidently categorically bad". Dreaming of some mind-controlling bioweapon to change the minds of politicians we don't like seems particularly dystopian to me. If this technology existed, you can guarantee it will be deployed in your country, wherever that is.

hakfoo 3y ago

You're starting way far down the path here. The first questions should be more things like "Why are the current stakeholders willing to play along with the CCP system" or "How can a more 'western-norms' approach be packaged to appear less threatening and more compelling so it won't be instinctively rejected" and less "how do we invent MIND CONTROL NANOBOTS to make people change their political affiliation." Any political system survives because some core percentage of the population benefits from it and buys into it. The cartoonish stereotype examples tended to be the small third-world countries where it was clear the local leader was financing the army to keep him afloat to the detriment of other services. The CCP has a far broader buy-in. I'm sure some of that might be people trying to use the Party for personal economic or social gain, but right now it's still easy for them to say "you're better off today than your parents were 30 years ago" and trade on that. They also happen to be sitting around at a time where a lot of the original guardrails of good faith happen to be falling off of Western institutions. Situations like Brexit, runaway income inequality, the rise of fascist-adjacent leaders in Europe, and the non-function of the US legislature seem to scream "this nifty 'Capitalist Democracy' product we're selling? We can't even make it work on our machine!" If you want to win over China, you have to show them that your value system will provide better outcomes. You can't exactly trot out Liz Truss and Kevin McCarthy and say "this is the sort of stable, respected government that will preserve the progress you've made over the last century." It's also inherently antagonistic to present a message that's "we'd love if if you voted out your current leaders"-- just look at the glare Schumer is catching over that type of language to a country that already has a multi-party norm. I almost wonder if the way to sell democracy is less as a values-oriented Freedom(tm) message, and more pragmatic, like trying to apply the Toyota Process to government-- empower citizenry and look for ways that they can incorporate feedback at the ground level to root out performance and waste and enhance value for existing stakeholders. That could get to a government that's more responsive and respectful of its citizenry through an internal process it can own and see as "organic", rather than "foreigners insist we must have elections."