Тег: Experiment

Life with androids

Solution to the android husbandry problem by Artyom Seversky.

We are given a favorable but completely unfamiliar environment, as well as a company of androids—universal interfaces for transforming this environment. The working conditions of the android exclude its conversion into private property. And so, behold—Ancap-chan becomes a communist!

Features of Android Husbandry

A. Synergy. Non-linear growth of productivity resulting from an increase in the number of androids involved in a task; there is a significant positive economy of scale. Therefore, the constant privatization of androids one by one to serve families or individuals is inefficient.

B. Unsuitability for zero-sum games. Any attempt to requisition an android for tasks that do not benefit others is suppressed with incredible ease. Insisting that an android perform a strictly individual assignment is incredibly difficult. Therefore, the most advantageous evolutionarily stable strategy is to employ androids primarily for the benefit of the largest possible collectives.

C. Uncertainty of the future. According to the terms of the problem, the end date of the experiment is unknown. It is also unknown how complex the production of new androids will be. Therefore, one should proceed from the pessimistic assumption that the growth of the human population will occur faster than the growth of the android population for a considerable amount of time.

Now I will formulate the strategy.

  1. Our goal is the maximum prosperity of the community in the longest possible perspective.
  2. Until it is possible to ensure that the growth of the android population exceeds the increase in the number of people, we should reduce our dependence on androids by developing production chains that do not include androids.
  3. Priority is given to tasks that bring immediate benefit to the maximum number of community members. That is, instead of tasks like “bring me some tea,” preference is given to tasks like “construct a time-cost function for planting a tea plantation for the entire human community based on the number of androids involved in the task; now you three go and plant it.”
  4. Since androids are de facto slaves in public use, the social structure to be adapted as a self-governance mechanism should be one that implies the mass use of public slaves. For example, Lacedaemon, better known as Sparta. That is, decisions on the plans for using androids for public tasks are prepared by a “gerousia”—these do not necessarily have to be biological elders, but some elected body of experts in such optimization tasks. And the decisions are approved by the “apella,” that is, a general assembly.
  5. An obvious solution for the initial setup phase:
    5.1. Each family receives an android for family setup tasks during the daytime and has the right to use synergistic effects by cooperating with neighbors.
    5.2. A small surplus of androids (at the start there are slightly more than there are families) is immediately assigned to public tasks according to the scheme “gerousia outlines the plan, apella approves.”
    5.3. During the nighttime, all family androids must be sent to public works with instructions to return by morning.
  6. As the community grows and becomes more complex, the initial mechanism will inevitably be revised. Questions regarding revision should be raised after a change in the number of families, the end of the primary setup phase (everyone already has a house, a garden, and a sports ground, and androids gradually begin to be recruited for tasks like “scratch my heel”), at the moment of a predicted sharp change in the load on the android fund (start or end of major projects), or at the moment of a change in the number of androids (they begin to fail or, conversely, a production line is launched).
  7. The appearance of a group with radically different views than the majority on the disposal of androids should lead to a proposal to settle further away, taking androids with them proportional to the size of the group. Otherwise, the damage from management collisions will paralyze the plans of both the majority and the minority.

Well, am I a good communist?

Is Libertarianism a Utopia? Yes, just like the idea of the personal computer.

Bitark’s Column

Not a day goes by without me coming across phrases like “ancap is a utopia,” “a fantasy world,” or “pink ponies.” Those who write this (usually authoritarian-right conservatives and traditionalists) apparently assume that by doing so, they are protecting stability. In reality, they are only ensuring that inevitable changes occur according to the harshest possible scenario for themselves.

Let’s look at history. What was said about the idea of a federal republic and the separation of powers in the early 18th century? It’s a utopia, a federal republic is impossible, and how dare you insult the king! What about the unacceptability of slavery and serfdom in the early 19th century? It is the nature of things; you are utopians! And what about women’s suffrage in the mid-19th century? It’s a utopia; where would a woman get a political position? She will vote however her husband tells her. Was it different with the rights of Black people and LGBTQ individuals in the 1950s? Have you eaten too many mushrooms, seeing a fantasy world with rainbows?! You don’t see it—people of different colors—so why on earth would a Black person be served in a whites-only bar?

Every time a new social ideology emerged, conservatives refused to recognize it until the very end. Society would reach a breaking point where enduring the status quo was no longer possible, after which necessary reforms were implemented haphazardly, by force, across the entire country at once. This inevitably caused excesses, enormous casualties and suffering, economic damage, and led to the creation of privileges for the previously oppressed group (now, conservatives in first-world countries complain that they are persecuted for criticizing LGBTQ people, but this is merely a natural response to their own previous lawlessness; the ashes of Alan Turing echo in the hearts of queer activists). In the end, conservatives each time received what they hate most—radical change, chaos, and repression. Yet they could have had peaceful development…

How does this relate to libertarianism? Currently, many libertarians would be quite satisfied with the non-interference of protectors in local self-government. People would willingly occupy unclaimed lands, experiment there with social orders that suited them specifically, and would not immediately aim for the capitals. This is a very moderate agenda that should cause no direct inconvenience to anyone. Various practices of social organization in these territories could be evolutionarily refined and gradually reach large cities in a mature form, without causing upheavals.

But no, these vigilantes stay alert, suppressing any independent initiative—from non-traditional sexual practices and immoral music to informal businesses and self-organizing communities—and they will eventually wait until they are beaten in the streets, until the state collapses with a default on social obligations, GDP drops several times over, impoverishment occurs, and gangster “roofs” appear, which, as Laxi Catal predicts, will become the prototype of the ECU. There is a well-known joke that Nicholas II should be posthumously awarded the Order of Lenin for his heroic efforts in bringing society to a revolutionary situation. Now, conservatives, as they did a century ago, are making the same mistake that cost the country tens of millions of lives, starting with their own.

Socialists do not like to admit mistakes, but like to say: “That was the wrong kind of socialism.” Under what circumstances could ancaps admit that libertarianism is a false idea?

…And justice for all

The political program of libertarianism boils down to the consistent reduction of the role of the state, that is, deregulation and tax reduction.

If movement in this direction leads to an increase in the security and wealth of residents until the state is reduced to the role of a “night watchman,” and further curtailment of state functions causes the level of violence to rise and prosperity to decrease, then the minarchists are right and the ancaps are not, and there exists a minimum state optimum below which it cannot be reduced.

If the state optimum is not found, and every reduction of the state brings only benefit to the people, then the ancaps are right after all; the state is a harmful parasite and must be completely eradicated.

If an optimum is found, but not where the minarchists assume it to be, but, say, at the level of “night watchman plus a poorhouse,” then the social liberals are right, and the hardline libertarians, with their meager brains, have failed to grasp the full importance of competent centralized redistribution of resources.

And finally, if it turns out that sustainable results are impossible to achieve because different societies have their own optimum of state functions, then the panarchists are entirely right: people are too different to be treated with a one-size-fits-all approach. Some need more state, some less, some zero—let everyone receive according to their request.

But in order to achieve all these results, a willingness of people to experiment in building a society convenient for them is necessary. However, decades of violent socialist experiments have largely discredited the very idea of consistently building something new. Therefore, we now more often see sporadic attempts to improve something, followed by rollbacks. But just as a long peace has taught people not to take the danger of a major war seriously, a long period of ideolessness can return the taste for reforms to the people. Our task is to ensure that at that moment, the idea of specifically libertarian transformations is floating in the air.