The term “totalitarianism” has been traditionally applied to Germany under Hitler, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and China under Mao, and more recently under Xi. These states were enormously influential in the last century. Far from being some ridiculous, speculative risk, totalitarianism seems like a common form of government.
In the last two centuries, the scope and size of modern governments has greatly expanded, according to most measures.
But perhaps you don’t object to the plausibility of a totalitarian government. You merely object to the idea that a “world government” is plausible. But why? As Bostrom notes,
Historically, we have seen an overarching trend towards the emergence of higher levels of social organization, from hunter-gatherer bands, to chiefdoms, city-states, nation states, and now multinational organizations, regional alliances, various international governance structures, and other aspects of globalization. Extrapolation of this trend points to the creation of a singleton.
This trend of increasing social organization seems to have occurred in line with, and possibly in response to, economic growth, which AI will likely accelerate. I can understand thinking that global totalitarianism is “not probable”. I don’t understand why you think it’s “extremely unlikely”.
(As a side note, I think there is a decent argument that AI enables totalitarianism, and thus should be prevented. But it would be self-defeating to build a totalitarian state to stop totalitarianism.)
Separately from the point I gave in my other comment, I’m slightly baffled by your assessment here. Consider that:
Approximately 26% of the world population already lives in a “closed autocracy” which is often closely associated with totalitarianism.
The term “totalitarianism” has been traditionally applied to Germany under Hitler, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and China under Mao, and more recently under Xi. These states were enormously influential in the last century. Far from being some ridiculous, speculative risk, totalitarianism seems like a common form of government.
In the last two centuries, the scope and size of modern governments has greatly expanded, according to most measures.
But perhaps you don’t object to the plausibility of a totalitarian government. You merely object to the idea that a “world government” is plausible. But why? As Bostrom notes,
This trend of increasing social organization seems to have occurred in line with, and possibly in response to, economic growth, which AI will likely accelerate. I can understand thinking that global totalitarianism is “not probable”. I don’t understand why you think it’s “extremely unlikely”.
(As a side note, I think there is a decent argument that AI enables totalitarianism, and thus should be prevented. But it would be self-defeating to build a totalitarian state to stop totalitarianism.)