> I made another comment about this a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21042022

Thank you for this, in that comment you had stated the same idea much more clearly than I have in this thread.

> Unfortunately, I see no reasonable solution to this other than most countries' citizens collectively accepting an all-encompassing Big Brother-style surveillance state. Even then, it still might all be for naught, since it obviously can't catch absolutely everything. But maybe it's the only way to give humanity a fighting chance

This is also where I now find myself on this train of thought. I too abhor the idea of a true surveillance state due to my perception that our governance is often corrupt and short-sighted. If I could somehow truly verify that it was really aligned with the long term greater good, then maybe I'd feel better? Maybe this is where governance by open source algo is best? That sure seems a long way off as far as social acceptance. A global-scale war/terrorist attack might nudge people on this. WWII certainly led to a lot of changes.

> ... But maybe it's the only way to give humanity a fighting chance

Our entire evolution on this planet seems to indicate that we have been barely winning against crazy odds. It's all a game of percentages so far, why stop now? We need every chance we can get.

> "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.", yes. But what if you must give up essential liberty in order to have any safety at all? I think this is a terrible and wrong argument in 2020, and probably also in 2080, and maybe also in 2120. But in 2320? 2620?

Sadly this is something that may be necessary and is very much against my personal ideals. But even using modern tech, things like unsolved murders in major cities could be obsolete if we were all chipped and recorded everywhere, right? Again, maybe I would trade that freedom for the right to stay alive if the system was "non-biased," and nearly transparent with complete accountability.

The other likely victim in this scenario is "publish everything" research. Now this is an area where I have had interesting exchanges with folks like a physicist at CERN. The mere suggestion that some research should be hidden from the public is basically heresy in that world, and they have a really good argument! I am very thankful for the fruits of published research. But there has to be a rational limit in some cases, at least theoretically, right? This is an area where I have had no success getting even a “maybe” out of my limited discussions with scientists online.

On a personal note, while I do find this kind of thinking grim, and maybe the outlook is not good, a bad outcome just means we failed as a species. We didn't deserve the role of immortal galactic-level intelligence. Oh well, the universe has 100 billion to trillions of years to try again. It would be a crying shame, but only for planet earth? That's how I try to feel OK about this anyway.

Also, if this basic concept is universal, we can rest assured that violent hyper-technological alien life does not exist!

Thanks for taking the time to reply, also just FYI, I had rephrased my parent comment prior to noticing that you had responded.