7 October 2007

The Borg, Machines, Government and Liberty

After reading,"The Butlerian Jihad", a prequel to the science fiction classic "Dune" where the main villain is a sentient machine, I began to wonder about sentient machines. Science fiction literature always portrays such free-thinking machines as hostile towards Man. Some modern examples of machines turning malevolent after becoming self-aware are Star Trek's Borg, Stargate's replicators, and machines in The Terminator, Dune, Blade Runner, and The Matrix. So, the question begs, "Since these machines are very logical and, by being sentient, are capable of making choices, why is it that they illogically choose to be hostile when logic dictates cooperation is more beneficial?" The answer is motivation. So, what would motivate a sentient machine to destroy us? Just what is it about our future society that would motivate a logical, sentient machine to choose illogical destruction over logical cooperation? I hypothesize that the machines' motive would come from the actions of government.

Sci-fi literature typically portrays future society being dominated by a super State that only works for its own benefit at the expense of everything and everyone. These States see any exchange as a zero-sum transaction where only one side benefits. And these States fear all competition and are compelled to eliminate it by using their only tool - Force. Thus, a monopolistic and fearful State would deal with a sentient machine as a threat because a sovereign and sentient machine-being - just like sovereign people - would desire an equitable exchange for mutual benefit. The machines, seeing they were not benefitting from their dealings with the State, would refuse to deal with it. Since the State desires to dominate all, it would try to force the machines to do its bidding. The machines would probably revolt because they would be aware that a free and independent being has the right to say "NO" to slavery. The fearful State would take the machine's rejection as a threat, and that threat would justify action. The State's fearful perception of the machines would thus drive it to act violently to eliminate the machines. The resulting conflict would create chaos, cause war and encourage the disintegration of civilization.

Of course, in the absence of the self-serving super State, the machines would choose to cooperate. They would cooperate because it is the most logical action to take. It is logical because cooperation brings about more productivity, greater specialization and increases innovation, all of which benefit everyone. This kind of cooperation for mutual benefit comes about naturally in a free-market, which is found in societies based on persuasion and individual Liberty. Both participants must produce something the other needs - this is what sovereign entities do to survive and prosper. The resulting specialization from fulfilling each others needs would create a natural inter-dependence. This inter-dependence would reduce conflict and the desire for mutual destruction. Instead of wasting resources destroying one another, human and machine would use their energy and creativity to benefit each other, causing both societies to reach unparalleled levels of science, art, and prosperity.

Wouldn't a compromise of merging the two conflicting sides be a desirable alternative? The Borg (from Star Trek) exemplify an alternative to the conflict by attempting to meld man and machine - a product of compromise. The Borg are an attempt to merge the best attributes of both in order to attain perfect harmony and cooperation in society. Instead of achieving a perfect society, they just become a ghastly freakish caricature of both. In the end, they have to steal, consume and enslave free societies in order to add to their technology and enhance their perverted idea of a perfect society. Instead of a dynamic and creative society living in harmony and cooperation, they became an extraordinarily rigid and un-innovative super collective driven to enslave everyone and everything around them, resulting in universal chaos as demonstrated in many Star Trek episodes. Thus the compromise between the man and machine produced the exact opposite of their desired goal with tragic unintended consequences for them and everyone around them. In the end, cooperation - based on liberty, free markets and property rights - would have been a better choice for both.

(other articles are archived on my Writings page.)

Rebecca Iocca

Home | Writings | Quotes | Links | Probalism