LESSWRONG
LW

This is what I had in mind. I'd guess that the fact that the US is democratic and China is not ends up indirectly causing a lot of US/China friction. Same is probably true for Russia.

Existential risks open thread

SWIM12y00

In discussions about AI risks, the possibility of a dangerous arms race between the US and China sometimes comes up. It seems like this kind of arms race could happen with other dangerous techs like nano and bio. Pushing for more democratic governments in states like Russia and China might also decrease the chances of nuclear war, etc.

This article from the Christian Science Monitor suggests that if the Chinese government decided to stop helping North Korea, that might cause the country to "implode", which feels like a good thing from an x-risk ... (read more)

0Sarokrae12y

How sure are you? * Acts of military aggression by the PRC since 1949: About 5. * Acts of military aggression by the USSR/Russia in the same period: About 5 * Acts of military aggression by the USA in the same period: About 7 (I've tried to be upwardly biased on numbers for all three, since it's obviously hard to decide who the aggressors in a conflict are) * Wars that the PRC have participated in that were not part of domestic territorial disputes since 1949: 2 * Likewise for Russia: 5 * Likewise for the USA: 17 (for the USA and USSR figures I'm counting all of the Cold War as one conflict, and likewise all of the War on Terror) Sources found here Edit: What happened to my formatting? I've had this problem before but I've never been able to fix it.

2Elithrion12y

I think the civil war that would result combined with extreme proximity between Chinese and US troops (the latter supporting South Korea and trying to contain nuclear weapons) is probably an abysmal thing from an x-risk reduction standpoint.

5Emile12y

Most Chinese people I talked to really disliked Japan, and seemed in favour of China invading Taiwan to "get it back". And that's from a sample that was more educated and western-friendly than the general population. I'm really not sure giving everybody the vote would really decrease the chances of nuclear war. It's not as if democratic elections in Iran, and Egypt (and maybe Libya?) were making the countries more stable. Sure, a civil war in a highly militarized country that has The Bomb, what could go wrong?

6[anonymous]12y

I agree that if Russia and China became more democratic the world would be a safer place. Liberal democracies are generally better at cooperation, and almost never go to war with one another [see the extensive literature on Democratic Peace Theory]. However like Larks, I think this is a baaaaaad idea. Foreign inteference would either have no effect, or provoke harsh countermeasures.

8Larks12y

That sounds like the sort of aggression which would lead to an arms race. How would America react if China tried to achieve regime change here? ...thereby encouraging them to invest in intelligent tech defence

DanArmak12y130

So pushing for more democratic governments in states like Russia and China

Do you expect democratic governments to engage less in arms races? Or to be less capable of engaging in them (because they might have less domestic/economic/military power)? Or to be less willing to actually deploy the produced arms? Or to be less willing to compete with the US specifically? Or to cause some other change that is desirable? And why?

I ask because "democracy" is an applause light that is often coopted when people mean something else entirely that is mentally associated with it. Such as low corruption, or personal freedom, or an alliance with Western nations.