suppose

The best form of government is simply the one the people consent to. The Greeks in their time had a variety of governments no different then any other people, yet if asked why they were different it was always because they consented to that form of government.

The problem is getting everyone to agree to the same one. In that sense, it may not be within our power to create a Utopian society where the government has the ability to best serve the interests of all people. After all, what I define as important and essential you may not, and how would the government you describe (or any) satisfy both of us?

I'm sorry if this is shorter then you had hoped but often I think plain and simple answers are best.

 

Keep in mind this is also meant to create "world peace".

 

World peace through warfare and forced computer rule? Peace should never come at the price of violence.

EDIT: Though I am aware that it has. It's just sad that it has. Forcing something into the people they don't like or agree with seems another terrible means to an end.

 

someone's been playing Deus Ex..

I would not want to be ruled by machines. Hence why I always chose to blow up Helios.

 

I was arguing against this whole thing btw. because:

1 - the majority of the world wouldn't support being run and ruled by a computer\AI.
-they wouldnt trust something that could so easily be hacked\corrupted.

2 - The world wouldnt stay ruled by one anything for too long if it ever gets like that.

3 - I doubt very much a computer would have the capacity to make thousands of decisions a day that is morally acceptable for more then the majority of the worlds people.(to keep any semblance of peace it would have to be just about the whole world that is in agreement or else too many would band together and rebel starting a war.)

4 - most likely the computer\ai would make some ethically questionable choices without a morality compass, like kill thousands because it will save millions kinda deal. But who gets to set the morality compass and is what they decide the right ethical solution?

5 - world peace cannot exist within the human race.

i think i had other points but i cant think of them atm

 

These two.
-People like having a choice in who rules them, and when things are going wrong they like the ability to chose someone new to shake things up and make it better.
-Morality isn't innate and is barely the same across all levels; for people to decide a uniform one alone would be an extreme task.

 

Governments already (try to) use computers to do all those things. But the software developed to perform all these functions are limited to the rules that humans program into them. That's not gonna change for a long while--neither governments nor the people will trust AI to make its own rules or decisions.

 

"Any society is only three meals away from revolution"

So no I don't think it is possible for computers as we know them to govern the world. Computers can not make decisions, they only evaluate logic. Humans are anything but logical.

 

have u saw the film eagle eye? if not then go watch it. and then u will understand why u dont want a computer being in charge.

 

Solving ever one of life's problems with computers is a bad idea. Computers are as good as the people who programs them. So its asking for trouble! Nothing will beat humans when it comes down to this. Even with the problems we face with it.

 

i dont think this could ever work. Computers work in a way whereby they can only calculate things using the set values that are programmed into them. As long as ever decision made is rational, computers could cope.

However, Man is a hugely irrational creature, computers could not cope, as they simply could not anticipate how people would react, as people are guided by emotions, not logic. Computers can calculate logic, but not emotions.

You always need people in control, people can empathise with other people, computers cannot. Computes would only be able to arrive at conclusions that were the most logical, which don't necessarily relate to the best decisions for the people.

I personally feel irrationality is sometimes the cause of great break throughs. People have to think of something so out of the box, so completely seemingly stupid, that they discover a new truth, or a new way of doing things.
I don't think computers could do this, only humans could do this.

 

only like the best game of all time.



I highly recommend you get it, it's cheap as anything now and it'll run on anything pretty much.

 

Skynet, anyone?

 

My prevalent (subjected to change) hypothesis (subjected to error) on "world peace":

I propose that absolute world peace (taking into account conflicts amongst communities) cannot be achieved by a change in "systems" - monarchy, democracy, implementing robots, etc.

I propose that world peace can only be achieved by a change in human values.

Violence is created when the "structure" and the "agent" conflict. Even if the "structure" serves to bring peace and harmony, if the "agents" are against this "structure", and if the "agents" believe in the use of force, they will revolt and cause conflict/violence.

Hence in order to achieve world peace, the "agents" themselves have to believe in the values of acceptance, conflict-solving through peaceful means, etc. I have yet to develop a concrete hypothesis on how we should achieve it... So far I have come out with one possibility:

1. Brainwash everyone through the evolution of memes.

Another possibility that I deem to be weaker is "educating everyone, using logic and rationality, to see for themselves the value of peace"

The reason why I find that possibility to be weaker is because I have failed to come up with a logical reasoning why peace is better than violence

 

lol. i was thinking that or iRobot.