Perhaps something which may be useful here is to look at a couple dictatorships that have been stable, and why:
North Korea survives on propaganda, isolation, and by keeping the population so poor and scattered that revolution is nearly impossible. The controllers have access to substantial power compared to the population as a whole, and the population is prevented from using their political superpower because they’re too scattered and diffuse.
Saudi Arabia survives by having so much power and money funneled to the ruling class that the ruling class is able to keep the population in check. The population’s superpower is available, but the ruling class has sufficient resources and control to keep the population from wanting to use it.
The common theme in both of these cases is merely that the ruling class is able to maintain a sufficient power gap over the population, which is effectively the same thing that happened in 1984. Some technologies make this easier and some make it harder. Nothing guarantees democratic organization, and advancement of technology may in fact lead to conditions that strongly prefer dictatorships in the future.
If nothing else, look at the “infinite paperclip maximizer” crowd and Eliezer’s fears that a single AI would take over the entire universe: that’s one of the most strict, unforgiving and inescapable dictatorships you could possibly ask for. It’s such an inescapable dictatorship that Eliezer has set up an entire research institution dedicated to securing us favorable rules should one be set up.
Ultimately I think it’s more interesting to discuss the conditions and requirements for stable dictatorship than whether or not dictatorships are more stable than democracies.
Perhaps something which may be useful here is to look at a couple dictatorships that have been stable, and why:
North Korea survives on propaganda, isolation, and by keeping the population so poor and scattered that revolution is nearly impossible. The controllers have access to substantial power compared to the population as a whole, and the population is prevented from using their political superpower because they’re too scattered and diffuse.
Saudi Arabia survives by having so much power and money funneled to the ruling class that the ruling class is able to keep the population in check. The population’s superpower is available, but the ruling class has sufficient resources and control to keep the population from wanting to use it.
The common theme in both of these cases is merely that the ruling class is able to maintain a sufficient power gap over the population, which is effectively the same thing that happened in 1984. Some technologies make this easier and some make it harder. Nothing guarantees democratic organization, and advancement of technology may in fact lead to conditions that strongly prefer dictatorships in the future.
If nothing else, look at the “infinite paperclip maximizer” crowd and Eliezer’s fears that a single AI would take over the entire universe: that’s one of the most strict, unforgiving and inescapable dictatorships you could possibly ask for. It’s such an inescapable dictatorship that Eliezer has set up an entire research institution dedicated to securing us favorable rules should one be set up.
Ultimately I think it’s more interesting to discuss the conditions and requirements for stable dictatorship than whether or not dictatorships are more stable than democracies.
IIRC Saudi Arabians don’t necessarily desire an end to the dictatorship? My impression was that due to oil, everybody has fair material wealth?