[Question] Is some kind of minimally-invasive mass surveillance required for catastrophic risk prevention?

Con­sider the fol­low­ing ar­gu­ment:

1) Over time hu­man­ity will dis­cover more su­per­weapons. At the mo­ment, these are mostly just ac­cessible to state ac­tors, but even­tu­ally these will be­come ac­cessible to smaller groups/​individuals

2) The (edit: po­ten­tial for unilat­eral ac­tion) means that if a large num­ber of groups gain ac­cess such an event is al­most guaran­teed to occur

3) It seems un­re­al­is­tic to be­lieve that we could ever com­pletely pre­vent such ter­ror­ism oc­cur­ring with­out min­i­mally-in­va­sive mass surveillance. I don’t be­lieve that we could ob­tain this re­sult via ed­u­ca­tion with­out it be­ing in effect brain­wash­ing. Maybe you could ge­net­i­cally en­g­ineer peo­ple to be less vi­o­lent, but fun­da­men­tally chang­ing our psy­chol­ogy is ter­rify­ing as well.

4) Min­i­mally-in­va­sive mass surveillance would purely fo­cus on threats above a par­tic­u­lar scale and ig­nore ev­ery­thing else that we more minor. Given suffi­ciently ad­vanced tech­nol­ogy, we might be able to pre­vent hu­mans from hav­ing ac­cess to the in­for­ma­tion in any other circumstance

5) While it is pos­si­ble that a su­per­in­tel­li­gence might be able to talk ev­ery­one into ac­cept­ing that this is a rea­son­able policy, I am un­sure enough about this claim to be­lieve that it is worth­while try­ing to build sup­port for min­i­mally-in­va­sive mass surveillance as this will un­doubt­edly be re­flex­ively op­posed by many peo­ple who don’t ap­pre­ci­ate the stakes.

It’s likely that I have seen this term men­tioned some­where else in the past by some­one else, but if I did, the source is long gone from my mem­ory.

What do you think about this ar­gu­ment?

Up­date: I was linked to this TED talk by Nick Bostrom where he dis­cusses the po­ten­tial that we might need such surveillance.

No comments.