[This point is unrelated to the paper’s main arguments]
The authors write “If we create a world government, then the values embodied in the constitution of that government will constrain future decision-makers indefinitely.” But I think this is either incorrect or misleading.
(Whether it’s incorrect or misleading depends on how narrowly the term “constitution” was intended to be interpreted.)
I say this because I think that other things could constrain future decision-makers to a similar or greater extent than the formal written constitution, and because the constitution could later be amended or ignored
Relevant types of “other things” include the institutional design of the world government, the people who initially have power, and the populations they represent or rule over
As an analogy, it seems useful to ask how much current US decision-makers are influenced by the US Constitution relative to a wide range of other factors, and the extent to which we can see the creation of the US Constitution as a strong lock-in event
It doesn’t seem that the answers are just “influenced only by the Constitution” and “yes, it was definitely a strong lock-in event”
More generally, I have a tentative impression that MacAskill is more confident than I am that things like formal, written constitutions would have a major and “locked-in” influence
My uncertainty about this also reduces my confidence that influencing the shape of a future world government should be a longtermist priority
Though I’d definitely like to see more exploration of the topic (since it might be very important), and hope to do some exploration of that at some point myself
[This point is unrelated to the paper’s main arguments]
The authors write “If we create a world government, then the values embodied in the constitution of that government will constrain future decision-makers indefinitely.” But I think this is either incorrect or misleading.
(Whether it’s incorrect or misleading depends on how narrowly the term “constitution” was intended to be interpreted.)
I say this because I think that other things could constrain future decision-makers to a similar or greater extent than the formal written constitution, and because the constitution could later be amended or ignored
Relevant types of “other things” include the institutional design of the world government, the people who initially have power, and the populations they represent or rule over
As an analogy, it seems useful to ask how much current US decision-makers are influenced by the US Constitution relative to a wide range of other factors, and the extent to which we can see the creation of the US Constitution as a strong lock-in event
It doesn’t seem that the answers are just “influenced only by the Constitution” and “yes, it was definitely a strong lock-in event”
More generally, I have a tentative impression that MacAskill is more confident than I am that things like formal, written constitutions would have a major and “locked-in” influence
This is also based in part on small parts of MacAskill’s post Are we living at the most influential time in history?
My uncertainty about this also reduces my confidence that influencing the shape of a future world government should be a longtermist priority
Though I’d definitely like to see more exploration of the topic (since it might be very important), and hope to do some exploration of that at some point myself
(See also totalitarianism, global governance, and value lock-in.)