Roko comments on This Failing Earth - Less Wrong

19 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 May 2009 04:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (158)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: CronoDAS 24 May 2009 09:20:18PM *  26 points [-]

Indeed, our Earth's Westphalian concept of sovereign states is the main thing propping up Somalia and North Korea. There was a time when any state that failed that badly would be casually conquered by a more successful neighbor.

I have to disagree here. First of all, North Korea has the world's third largest army. Any state that tried to conquer it would have its hands full. Additionally, counterinsurgency warfare has become damn hard these days - consider the Soviet failure in Afghanistan during the 1980s. As Stalin observed, it takes a generation and a half to pacify a country and convert it to your ideology by force.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, conquering poorly defended land isn't profitable any more; some time around World War I, conquest became far more trouble than it's worth. Nobody wants Somalia, even if the rest of the world would be okay with someone marching an army into it. It's just not worth anything. The British Empire, a more modern example of conquest for profit, never occupied Afghanistan. It would have cost far more to subdue the natives than it would ever produce in revenue. Today, far more wealth is created by Internet startups than could be stolen by a modern-day Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan.

To put the worthlessness of Somalia into perspective, here's some numbers:

  • The GNP of Somalia is $2 billion.
  • The market capitalization of Amazon.com is $32 billion. Its revenue in 2008 was $19.1 billion, and its net income was $0.64 billion.
  • Bernie Madoff convinced people to invest at least $10 billion in a completely fraudulent stock fund, and reported $50 billion in bogus returns.
Comment deleted 01 June 2009 12:23:14PM *  [-]
Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 01 June 2009 12:34:35PM *  0 points [-]

Maybe on the successful Earths, mass genocide is acceptable in the case that the country involved is an obvious failure, such as north Korea.

This is a confusion of terms: "acceptable" is a cost-benefit calculation, and the cost of genocide is determined by human nature, by how much we value lives, independent among the Earths in this construction. If a certain variant of Earth considers genocide acceptable, it points to an epic failure of rationality (possibly due to something along the lines of scope insensitivity), and so can't be "successful".

Comment deleted 01 June 2009 01:00:13PM [-]
Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 01 June 2009 03:16:24PM 0 points [-]

I bet there is a third option, especially if you plan for disaster in advance.

Comment author: MrHen 01 June 2009 01:55:37PM *  0 points [-]

Why are you jumping to genocide instead of just killing the people making the evil virus? What do the people have to do with the failed state?

(Edit) Oh, I hadn't travelled far enough up the tree to see CronoDAS's post. Still, a well targeted mass-destruction seems simpler than killing everyone.