Introduction
As a leader, decision-making should be strictly rational and never driven by emotion. However, it is far from the case, which results in the emergence of multiple political parties and regimes with contrasting ideas. It is commonly believed that in a liberal democracy, a democratic system of government in which individual rights and freedoms are officially recognised and protected, and the exercise of political power is limited by the rule of [1], everything that is not forbidden is allowed, and in a totalitarian system, everything that has not been banned is compulsory.
Seemingly, the rise of totalitarianism, let alone stable totalitarianism, appears very unlikely in the future, and does not strike as one of the most pressing world problems. Stable totalitarianism is defined as “a global totalitarian – a system of government that is centralised and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state (Britannica) – regime that lasts for an extremely long period of time” (Benjamin Hilton, 2023). Indeed, it only has an estimated 5% chance to occur within the next millennium [2]. Following the fast development of artificial intelligence, the worldwide pandemic and brutal coup d’états, the rise of stable totalitarianism remains unpredictable. Long-termism is the view that positively influencing the long-term future is a key moral priority of our time [3], and Iroquois’s Seventh Generation Principle suggests that all decisions should result in positive impact and sustainability seven generations later [4]. The two theories should be kept in mind when applying every small change. First, the main possible causes of totalitarianism will be evaluated: lack of political diversity, artificial intelligence as a tool and overall miserable living conditions.
The main goal is not to stop progress, but to ensure it does not turn destructive since acting in the interest of future generations translates into the maintenance of humankind. After all, no matter the time or the place, saving human lives must remain a priority. Although totalitarianism is not listed as one of the five most likely problems, the occurrence of stable totalitarianism would lead to a possibly irreversible and perpetual dystopia [5]. Hence, the policy that I am suggesting includes the limitation of obligations within federal unions, the instalment of Grassroots Organisations in every territory to promote political literacy, and the creation of an in-government research institute that would evaluate pieces of media altered by artificial intelligence and supervise external research to protect human rights and freedoms.
I. Lack of political diversity: the global state
The first potential factor of stable totalitarianism would be a lack of political diversity on the international scale which translates to the creation of a global state. Indeed, hypothetically, if every country used identical political regimes with connected leaders, the world would become unipolar as one global state with no external forces to express opposition. The geopolitical level would potentially be completely erased. Nowadays, political spectrums (left-right) and parties (in the US, Democrats and Republicans) [6] concretise freedom of speech. Essentially, the problem of stable totalitarianism does not lie in individual countries converting to this extreme form of authority, but rather in the whole world’s common embrace of it [7] which would create an endless cycle unless interrupted by a problem of succession.
Indeed, previous instances of unsuccessful totalitarianism have seemingly ended due to foreign military powers’ interventions or problems with succession. For instance, the former factor is a direct manifestation of external disapproval and threat. During the rise of European totalitarianism in the 20th century, multiple democracies mobilised their armies and resources to aid the secret societies fighting against the oppression. It was notably the case for the countries of the Entente who assembled their resources to organise the liberation of occupied territories, like Northern France, and a blockade against Nazi Germany. On top of this, the contrasting ideologies of the Soviet Union led them to engage in multiple battles. Eventually, the Battle of Stalingrad marked the end of Nazi Germany, which is even to this day, recognised as the key example of totalitarianism’s consequences. Hence, this illustrates the crucial importance of opposition if the world was to ever be dominated by a single totalitarian movement. It is also worth noting that at the given period, the opposing countries had more or less the same level of political, military and economic influence.
On the other hand, if all countries in the world adopted the same regime and formulas, but different ideologies, it would inevitably result in competition. Therefore, the solution does not lie in promoting internal diversity, but in preventing extensive international cooperation. While the idea of nation-states has been villainised due to the rise of nationalism [8], an integration into a larger political union could be harmful.
Hence, the policy consists of limiting the obligations within federal unions. Enrolling in larger unions remains beneficial, if not essential, to just about every country in order to maximise its economic growth and development to reach a certain degree of independence. The concerned government should evaluate the necessary input of an agreement and join it if the latter does not concern more than three main fields. For instance, in an ecologic agreement, neither country should be obligated to supply another economically.
II. Individualism as the opposite of totalitarianism
The World Population Review lists more than half of the world’s countries as democracies in 2023, yet the fastest-growing country, China, is a dictatorship [9], although it does remain a debatable topic. The rise of democracies has seemingly made a lot of people, especially young people, take their freedoms for granted and grow disinterested in politics.
Most participative political regimes, notably representative democracies, are built on the founding principle of individualism: “a social theory favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control” (Oxford Languages). Individualism is expressed through voting and in some countries the right to campaign and strike, but according to The New York Times, more than half of young people from 18 to 24 did not vote during the 2016 presidential elections. Indeed, the world voter turnout is decreasing each year. In the year 1960, more than 77% of the population voted in legislative elections while nowadays, the numbers are consequently lower [10]. Furthermore, it also mentions that the level of literacy is often proportional to the turnout of a country.
Liberal countries often believe that they are granted with a set of freedoms at birth. They are free to form their own opinion, to express it, to travel freely, to do anything as long as it does not interfere with others’ wellbeing. Democracy or any form of participative government is considered the opposite of totalitarianism. Substantially, the Bursa Uludağ University Faculty of Arts and Sciences compares Orwell’s dystopia, 1984, to Hobbes’s Leviathan [11]. Unlike these societies, most contemporary liberal countries are founded on the principles and claims like Immanuel Kant’s claiming that no one has any right to force anything upon anyone.
However, in the case of totalitarian regimes, the population often opts for it, before realising how horrible it is and wanting to opt out. Cult of personality and propaganda were tools to influence the most naïve and threats were weapons against the educated, but fearful.
The only way to prevent intense indoctrination would be to grow a political awareness, especially on the smaller scales and among younger people. Consequently, another component of the policy would be for the governments to finance Grassroots Organisations, local groups to eventually make changes on the larger scales, in their territory and to encourage young people, even teenagers, to participate even if it means giving them monetary compensation. This would allow the creation of multiple local initiatives from first-hand observations [12].
III. Artificial intelligence is a totalitarian’s dream [13]
Advanced artificial intelligence could promote activities against human values. This implies that AI will not only be the cause of human vulnerability by surpassing them on every level and taking some jobs over, but also by being a tool aiding the concretisation of totalitarian projects. On top of this, our society is known for being one that “sacrifices its values quickly” [14].
Moreover, artificial intelligence’s engineering is not rooted in morality, more so in performance. Also, while LLM-based products are not programmed to hold any political bias, it is inevitable for them to support a position in political matters due to the subjective nature of the array of questions they can answer. Additionally, AI models will most likely not answer directly to questions that ask for a political opinion, but their beliefs can ultimately be uncovered when asking a series of precise prompts. This was shown in Baum and Villasenor’s experiment confirming the thesis of the Technical University of Munich and the University of Hamburg about ChatGPT being “pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation.” Hence, if governments were to add political bias to their AI models, the change in most answers would probably go undetected [15]. Most other changes in the programmes would remain unnoticed by most users.
Similarly, its ultimate goal is not to collaborate with the mass of society but help only a fraction by accelerating the process and doing it more precisely and consistently as a human could. This situation would inevitably lead to an increase in unemployment [16].
Behavioural engineering could not only pervade citizens’ privacies, but also control their actions to a certain degree. Similarly, technological advancement could improve already existing security structures, weapons, and barriers. Also, the innovative aspects of artificial intelligence could easily alter and add false statistics, paving the way for censorship and a global rewriting of history. It is therefore essential to align its development with human values [17].
This is where effective altruism comes into play. The principle of effective altruism aims at “using the resources you want to devote to doing good as effectively as possible” (Kelsey Piper, 2023). It compares the introduction of AI to the Industrial Revolution’s impact. It could also lead to “the concentration of power in the hands of a very small elite”. The research seems to be leaning in this direction so far with 40,000 researchers working on the increasing AI capabilities and only 300 working on the alignment problem as of 2020 and 2021 respectively [18].
The last aspect of my policy is to create an in-government research institute [19] that would supervise researchers and make sure that they respect the paradigm of AI alignment. It could also help evaluate the risks in federal unions (first point). Also, it should publicise different tools to detect AI modifications in documents of every nature, or perform checks on the most important pieces of information before releasing them into the media in order to insure uncensored freedom of speech.
Conclusion
Overall, preventing the risk of stable totalitarianism lies in political literacy, the independence of a nation, the contribution of young people and the development of artificial intelligence. Researching and implementing for the benefit of future generations is a noble and rewarding action, and ultimately equates to aiding humankind. This has been a characteristic throughout history. Even more so today as we witness a shift or rebalance in economic power globally with the rise of AI. Although it might appear to be utopian, we have a moral duty to always leave the world for the future generations a better place than we found it. However, in retrospect, there is no perfect political regime and participative political systems are by no means the best solution.
References
1. Jackson, Paul. “Totalitarianism in the twentieth century and beyond”. OpenDemocracy, August 27, 2019.
2. Hilton, Benjamin. “Risks of stable totalitarianism”. 80,000 Hours, 2023.
3. MacAskill, William. “What is longtermism?” BBC, August 8, 2022.
4. “What is the Seventh Generation Principle”. Indigenous Corporate Training, May 30, 2020.
5. “What are the most pressing world problems?” 80,000 Hours, May 2023.
6. Carlisle, Madeline. “What to Know About the Origins of 'Left' and 'Right' in Politics, From the French Revolution to the 2020 Presidential Race”. The Time, September 14, 2019.
7. Caplan, Bryan. The totalitarian threat. Oxford Academic, July 2008.
8. Anderson, Gordon L. “THE IDEA OF THE NATION-STATE IS AN OBSTACLE TO PEACE.” International Journal on World Peace 23, no. 1 (2006): 75–85.
9. Gueorguiev, Dimitar. “Mike Bloomberg said China isn’t a dictatorship. Is he right?” The Washington Post, December 4, 2019.
10. Symonds, Alexandria. “Why Don’t Young People Vote?” The New York Times, October 8, 2020.
11. Baykent, Ö. U. (2023). Totalitarianism and Individualism Unveiled: Hobbes and Orwell, Kaygı. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, 22 (2), 648-659.
12. Bettencourt, Alexandra. “Grassroots organizations are just as important as seed money for innovation”. The UN Refugee Agency, October 15, 2023.
13. McArthy-Jones, Simon. “Artificial intelligence is a totalitarian’s dream – here’s how to take power back”. The Conversation, August 12, 2020.
14. Boulter, Sophie. Understanding and preventing totalitarianism catastrophe. Xavier University, 2019.
15. Baum, Jeremy. Villasenor, John. The politics of AI: ChatGPT and Political bias. Brookings, May 8, 2023.
16. Urwin, Matthew. “AI Taking Over Jobs: What to Know About the Future of Jobs”. BuiltIn, September 12, 2023.
17. Dafoe, Allan. AI Governance: A Research Agenda. Centre for the Governance of AI, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, August 27, 2018.
18. Piper, Kelsey. “What is effective altruism?” Effective Altruism, accessed October 15, 2023.
19. Harris, Riley. “Summary: Longtermist institutional reform”. Global Priorities Institute (John, Tyler M. and MacAskill, William), University of Oxford, 2021.
Bibliography
Dafoe, Allan. AI Governance: A Research Agenda. Centre for the Governance of AI, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, August 27, 2018.
Carmody, Christine. Considering future generations – sustainability in theory and practice. Australian Government The Treasury, November 8, 2012. Economic roundup issue 3, 2012.
Boulter, Sophie. Understanding and preventing totalitarianism catastrophe. Xavier University, 2019.
Bettencourt, Alexandra. “Grassroots organizations are just as important as seed money for innovation”. The UN Refugee Agency, October 15, 2023.
Baweja, Sahajveer. Singh, Swapnil. “Beginning of Artificial Intelligence, End of Human Rights”. LSE blog, July 16, 2020.
Piper, Kelsey. “What is effective altruism?” Effective Altruism, accessed October 15, 2023.
Han, S., Kelly, E., Nikou, S. et al. Aligning artificial intelligence with human values: reflections from a phenomenological perspective. AI & Soc 37, 1383–1395 (2022).
Jackson, Paul. “Totalitarianism in the twentieth century and beyond”. OpenDemocracy, August 27, 2019.
Urwin, Matthew. “AI Taking Over Jobs: What to Know About the Future of Jobs”. BuiltIn, September 12, 2023.
Symonds, Alexandria. “Why Don’t Young People Vote?” The New York Times, October 8, 2020.
“What are the most pressing world problems?” 80,000 Hours, May 2023.
Hilton, Benjamin. “Risks of stable totalitarianism”. 80,000 Hours, September 2023.
Fenwick, Cody. “Longtermism: a call to protect future generations”. 80,000 Hours, March 2023.
Harris, Riley. “Summary: Longtermist institutional reform”. Global Priorities Institute (John, Tyler M. and MacAskill, William), University of Oxford, 2021.
Ontiveros, Caleb. “The Spectre of Stable Totalitarianism”. Caleb Ontiveros, October 31, 2021.
“Democratic Countries 2023”. World Population Review, 2023.
Anderson, Gordon L. THE IDEA OF THE NATION-STATE IS AN OBSTACLE TO PEACE. International Journal on World Peace 23, no. 1 (2006): 75–85.
Baykent, Ö. U. (2023). Totalitarianism and Individualism Unveiled: Hobbes and Orwell, Kaygı. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, 22 (2), 648-659.
McArthy-Jones, Simon. “Artificial intelligence is a totalitarian’s dream – here’s how to take power back”. The Conversation, August 12, 2020.
Moorhouse, Finn. “Longtermism: An Introduction”. Effective Altruism, January 27, 2021.
Samuel, Sigal. “What we owe to future generations”. Vox, July 2, 2021.
Jackson, Paul. “Totalitarianism in the twentieth century and beyond”. OpenDemocracy, August 27, 2019.
MacAskill, William. “What is longtermism?” BBC, August 8, 2022.
Carlisle, Madeline. “What to Know About the Origins of 'Left' and 'Right' in Politics, From the French Revolution to the 2020 Presidential Race”. The Time, September 14, 2019.
Caplan, Bryan. The totalitarian threat. Oxford Academic, July 2008.
Gueorguiev, Dimitar. “Mike Bloomberg said China isn’t a dictatorship. Is he right?” The Washington Post, December 4, 2019.
Baum, Jeremy. Villasenor, John. The politics of AI: ChatGPT and Political bias. Brookings, May 8, 2023.
Deanna Wong is a high school student from Mauritius. She dedicates her time to writing novels, playing piano (and never truly finishing any piece she starts), and of course, working on The Social Canvas! She has been longlisted for the Invisible City Blurred Genres Flash Contest and was commended for her history essay by the John Locke Institute.
Comentarios