Nations and supernations

An extract from Chapter 11 of the book Transcending Politics:

11. Nations and supernations

I started this book by covering two reasons why politics urgently needs to be improved:

  1. Bad politics is obstructing the development and application of important solutions to human problems; via both incompetence and malice, it hinders or forbids what actually deserves to be enabled and encouraged; conversely, it accelerates what actually deserves to be restricted
  2. Bad politics is creating problems of its own; via misguided overzealous pursuits of half-truths, it increases the likelihood of social alienation, group conflict, and national catastrophe.

As I’ll argue in this chapter, the problems and opportunities of local politics are mirrored and magnified by the problems and opportunities of international politics:

  1. Bad international politics, via both incompetence and malice, is preventing the adoption of optimal regulatory policies which, in order to be fully effective, would need worldwide endorsement
  2. Bad international politics is creating problems of its own; via misguided overzealous cross-border pursuits of half-truths, it increases the likelihood of global schism, military conflict, and planetary catastrophe.

In each case – the local and the international – the basic solution is the same: harness technology more wisely and more profoundly than before. To improve politics, what’s needed is a compelling integrative vision setting out the progressive application of enhanced technologies of abundance and enhanced technologies of collaboration.

Improving local politics is an important start, but will ultimately be fruitless unless we can also improve international politics. Even if a country is at peace with itself, it will face numerous risks if the countries around it are plunging deeper into chaos. Borders provide no respite from radioactive fallout, no shelter from extreme weather, and are of little use against determined cyber-intruders.

So let me rephrase the sentence with which I opened this book. There’s no escape: the journey to a healthier society inevitably involves international politics. More precisely, that journey involves the positive technoprogressive transformation of international politics.

If successful, this vision will slow down and then stop those existing political initiatives that are pulling humanity in separate, fractious directions; instead, it will enable a renewed focus on building a comprehensively better future in which everyone benefits.

Assessing international politics

As a prelude to discussing international politics, let’s briefly remind ourselves of the constructive role that politics can play in society. Politics is the process of collectively agreeing which constraints we put on each other’s freedom.

Thus, as members of society, we have the freedom to drive motor vehicles from A to B, but we are constrained by speed limits and other traffic regulations. We have freedom of speech, but are constrained not to whimsically shout out “fire, fire!” in crowded locations. We have the freedom to develop and market new products and services, but we are constrained by various standards of health and safety. We have the freedom to keep a portion of what we earn in employment, but we are constrained to pass a specific portion of these earnings to central authorities by way of taxes. We have the freedom to hire and fire employees, but we are constrained by legislation covering discrimination and unfair dismissal. We have the freedom to prepare to defend ourselves against violent attack, but we are constrained not to exercise disproportionate force in any such defence. All these constraints annoy us or frustrate us from time to time. However, we generally accept that it is better for society that some constraints exist. It’s the (hard) task of politics to figure out which are the right constraints at any one time – and then to oversee their enforcement.

International politics follows these same principles, not at the level of individuals within a local society, but at the level of societies within a global community. International politics is the process of collectively agreeing on constraints we put on national sovereignty.

Thus, nations can prepare to defend themselves against violent aggressors, but are constrained not to carry out certain kinds of tests of nuclear weaponry. Nations have the freedom to exploit the natural resources at their disposal, but are constrained not to unduly damage the international environment as a side-effect. Nations can use measures such as tax relief to support businesses working in their countries, but within constraints so as not to unfairly distort international market dynamics. Nations can determine their own policies on research and development of new products, but are constrained by international moratoria to avoid particularly risky fields of investigation. Just as for the constraints imposed by local politics, these international constraints from time to time cause annoyance and frustration. Nevertheless, most countries recognise that, in principle, greater safety, stability, and prosperity should follow from adoption of appropriate constraints on sovereignty. Just as for local politics, the dilemma is how to agree these constraints – and how to ensure they are fairly enforced.

The extra complication for international politics is that, unlike the level of the nation state, there is no overall governing structure for global relationships. There is no global police force to track down violators to ensure compliance. There is no process of democracy whereby one set of global politicians can be voted out of office, if they are perceived as having failed in their leadership roles. Existing international bodies, such as the United Nations, and the International Criminal Court located in The Hague, have limited powers, which individual countries seem to be able to ignore with impunity.

Some thinkers express gratitude for this lack of an international government. Prime sovereignty, they argue, should remain at the level of the nation state. No international government could be trusted to operate in a way that gains and keeps the assent of the various leading countries of the world. Any such body would be inclined to add extra layers of bureaucracy and interference. It would likely mandate policies that would be an anathema to national self-determination. It would suck up extra taxes, away from local jurisdiction, to serve the needs of globe-trotting administrators and their far-flung interventionist projects. Therefore – according to this viewpoint – any moves to an international government should be resisted.

Similar opposition is often expressed to the idea of “super-state” conglomerations of neighbouring counties. The notion of a European Union committed to “ever closer integration” alarms many observers, who fear the imposition of alien values and the usurpation of local autonomy. These observers believe that citizens could never feel as much loyalty to the European Union as to their nation state (such as Germany, Spain, or the United Kingdom). Thank goodness, they say, for the failures of super-states.

I say, in contrast, that these failures are to be regretted. Without effective, trustworthy mechanisms of global coordination, countries are driven to take matters into their own hands. We end up in a race to the bottom. This makes the world a more dangerous place for all of us.

Indeed, observers in various parts of the world are increasingly concerned about falling under the growing influence of strident “superpowers” such as China or the United States. A world where America politicians are pursuing an international policy of “America First”, or where Chinese politicians are pursuing an international policy of “China First”, is a perilous place for the smaller countries that may be caught in the crossfire or trodden underfoot. It’s no surprise if countries such as Iran and North Korea seek powerful weaponry as bargaining chips against potential global steamrollers. Once grown accustomed to their new-found arsenals, these countries are in no hurry to disarm. Weapons of mass destruction, in the hand, seem to be worth far more than acres of pious hopes.

The prisoner’s dilemma

Arms races involving military weaponry are one example of international politics failing. At each step in such a race, any country which perceives itself as falling behind its potential adversaries can see a logical case to improve its armaments, so as to reduce the chance of it being overpowered in conflict. At the next step in the arms race, the same cold logic applies again, to whichever country now perceives itself as laggard. “Keeping up with the Joneses” has a terrible meaning when each round of expenditure adds extra potency to a growing explosive stockpile. The individually logical steps add up to a tragically illogical outcome.

There can be arms races without earth-shattering physical explosives. Other forms of race include software malware or biological pathogens. Systems described as “defensive” can contribute to the escalation of a race, too; they may spur the other side to improve their offensive capability in order to circumvent the new defensive mechanisms.

Trade wars can, likewise, prove deeply damaging, with countries taking increasingly dramatic economic steps to seek competitive economic advantage.

These are all cases of the “prisoner’s dilemma” model. This occurs when there are two (or more) participants, and the actions that are rationally the best for the individual participants add up to an outcome that is rationally poorer than what could have been achieved if the participants had collaborated.

<snip>

Recent Posts

RAFT 2035 – a new initiative for a new decade

The need for a better politics is more pressing than ever.

Since its formation, Transpolitica has run a number of different projects aimed at building momentum behind a technoprogressive vision for a better politics. For a new decade, it’s time to take a different approach, to build on previous initiatives.

The planned new vehicle has the name “RAFT 2035”.

RAFT is an acronym:

  • Roadmap (‘R’) – not just a lofty aspiration, but specific steps and interim targets
  • towards Abundance (‘A’) for all – beyond a world of scarcity and conflict
  • enabling Flourishing (‘F’) as never before – with life containing not just possessions, but enriched experiences, creativity, and meaning
  • via Transcendence (‘T’) – since we won’t be able to make progress by staying as we are.

RAFT is also a metaphor. Here’s a copy of the explanation:

When turbulent waters are bearing down fast, it’s very helpful to have a sturdy raft at hand.

The fifteen years from 2020 to 2035 could be the most turbulent of human history. Revolutions are gathering pace in four overlapping fields of technology: nanotech, biotech, infotech, and cognotech, or NBIC for short. In combination, these NBIC revolutions offer enormous new possibilities – enormous opportunities and enormous risks:…

Rapid technological change tends to provoke a turbulent social reaction. Old certainties fade. New winners arrive on the scene, flaunting their power, and upturning previous networks of relationships. Within the general public, a sense of alienation and disruption mingles with a sense of profound possibility. Fear and hope jostle each other. Whilst some social metrics indicate major progress, others indicate major setbacks. The claim “You’ve never had it so good” coexists with the counterclaim “It’s going to be worse than ever”. To add to the bewilderment, there seems to be lots of evidence confirming both views.

The greater the pace of change, the more intense the dislocation. Due to the increased scale, speed, and global nature of the ongoing NBIC revolutions, the disruptions that followed in the wake of previous industrial revolutions – seismic though they were – are likely to be dwarfed in comparison to what lies ahead.

Turbulent times require a space for shelter and reflection, clear navigational vision despite the mists of uncertainty, and a powerful engine for us to pursue our own direction, rather than just being carried along by forces outside our control. In short, turbulent times require a powerful “raft” – a roadmap to a future in which the extraordinary powers latent in NBIC technologies are used to raise humanity to new levels of flourishing, rather than driving us over some dreadful precipice.

The words just quoted come from the opening page of a short book that is envisioned to be published in January 2020. The chapters of this book are reworked versions of the scripts used in the recent “Technoprogressive roadmap” series of videos.

Over the next couple of weeks, all the chapters of this proposed book will be made available for review and comment:

  • As pages on the Transpolitica website, starting here
  • As shared Google documents, starting here, where comments and suggestions are welcome.

RAFT Cover 21

All being well, RAFT 2035 will also become a conference, held sometime around the middle of 2020.

You may note that, in that way that RAFT 2035 is presented to the world,

  • The word “transhumanist” has moved into the background – since that word tends to provoke many hostile reactions
  • The word “technoprogressive” also takes a backseat – since, again, that word has negative connotations in at least some circles.

If you like the basic idea of what’s being proposed, here’s how you can help:

  • Read some of the content that is already available, and provide comments
    • If you notice something that seems mistaken, or difficult to understand
    • If you think there is a gap that should be addressed
    • If you think there’s a better way to express something.

Thanks in anticipation!

  1. A reliability index for politicians? 1 Reply
  2. Technoprogressive Roadmap conf call Leave a reply
  3. Transpolitica and the TPUK Leave a reply
  4. There’s more to democracy than voting Leave a reply
  5. Superdemocracy: issues and opportunities Leave a reply
  6. New complete book awaiting reader reviews Leave a reply
  7. Q4 update: Progress towards “Sustainable superabundance” Leave a reply
  8. Q3 sprint: launch the Abundance Manifesto Leave a reply
  9. Q2 sprint: Political responses to technological unemployment Leave a reply