Superhuman Psychopaths

[TechTed]

I find the concept of superhuman psychopaths very interesting. In Joel Bakan's book "The Corporation", he asks the question what if corporations were people and what sort of people would they be? A psychologist would likely classify them as a psychopath because corporations are singularly self-interested, manipulative, shallow in their relationships, and incapable of showing remorse or empathy. While I haven't read this book (only a synopsis), I would imagine that a company's transparency directly affects the degree of its psychopathic behavior.

The same arguement could be made about governments and organized religions.

The collective intelligence within these entities when applied to the resources and influence they posses gives them a superhuman quality.

As science progresses, it would be hard to argue against the risks that these superhuman psychopaths pose to humanity. Especially if they have diverging objectives. How do we mitigate these risks without giving more power and control to one of these superhuman psychopaths? There appears to be no solution.

Or is the only solution a technological breakthrough (not controlled by a superhuman psychopath) of such magnitude that it almost instantly changes the very definition of what it means to be 'human'?

 

[Erebus]

Nitpicking here, but try not to confuse the terms "psychopathic" and "psychotic", they mean different things. Confusing them is a pet hate of mine

You raise an interesting point about companies, but I would suggest that instead of thinking of the company itself as a living thing/human, just focus on the company leaders. Very few big business men/women have no psychopathic traits and I would imagine that a great deal of the worlds leaders (be they political, religious or economic leaders) would be considered true psychopaths by many psychologists. Our society is a haven for canny psychopaths and it's almost impossible to make it in the world of business without a strong element of the dark triad in your personality (Narcissism, Psychopathy and Machiavelianism). Like it or not, psychopaths are and always have been some of the most capable leaders. It's just the way humans work as a society that allows this and I very much doubt that will change.

Kind of makes you wish you were psychopathic eh?

 

[TechTed]

Nitpicking here, but try not to confuse the terms "psychopathic" and "psychotic", they mean different things. Confusing them is a pet hate of mine

You raise an interesting point about companies, but I would suggest that instead of thinking of the company itself as a living thing/human, just focus on the company leaders. Very few big business men/women have no psychopathic traits and I would imagine that a great deal of the worlds leaders (be they political, religious or economic leaders) would be considered true psychopaths by many psychologists. Our society is a haven for canny psychopaths and it's almost impossible to make it in the world of business without a strong element of the dark triad in your personality (Narcissism, Psychopathy and Machiavelianism). Like it or not, psychopaths are and always have been some of the most capable leaders. It's just the way humans work as a society that allows this and I very much doubt that will change.

Kind of makes you wish you were psychopathic eh?

Good catch on my use of "psychotic". I edited my original post to remove that mistake.

What makes the concept interesting to me is when you consider the entire company / government / religion as a single entity. Regardless of the behavior of its individual parts, through the pursuit of its goals (usually to attain more power and control) which directly or indirectly, intentionally or non-intentionally causes human suffering and makes all superhuman psychopaths counterproductive.

An example from the company I work for, which is a global, multi-billion dollar food and beverage company. My company is becoming more focused on healthy-for-you products and Green initiatives to sustain the environment. This all sounds good right? Yet, we still consume an obscene amount of resources to make products that (while tasty) are still contributors to obseity. Consumers need to be accountable for their own actions, yet, the fact that we make these products to begin with, advertise them aggressively, promote them aggressively, etc. in a way to influence people to become addicted to them is probably not in the interest of maintaining a healthly lifestyle for people (though we would never ever say that publicly). Without these "comfort" snacks, our financial models would collapse and the company would likely go out of business.

This company has transferred people to new locations for better opportunities then within a few months, closed those sites down through consolidation in effect putting all those people out of work and in some cases destroying lives.

The individuals involved in all these decisions and actions are not psychopaths but when you look at the company as a single entity the sum of its actions seems very psychopathic.

I could go on and on....

 

[Willamena]

...corporations are singularly self-interested, manipulative, shallow in their relationships, and incapable of showing remorse or empathy. While I haven't read this book (only a synopsis), I would imagine that a company's transparency directly affects the degree of its psychopathic behavior.

The same arguement could be made about governments and organized religions...

As science progresses, it would be hard to argue against the risks that these superhuman psychopaths pose to humanity... How do we mitigate these risks without giving more power and control to one of these superhuman psychopaths? There appears to be no solution.

What risks? If everyone is participating in the creation of these superhuman psychopathic corporations, governments and religions, yet these superhumans represent none of us, why do you anticipate a risk?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

People who are psychopathic can be very powerful. Just think they never worry about how others feel. They can just make their plans and plots with out those pesky feelings of love and guilt getting in the way of their amoral conduct. They also have the ability to make what is amoral seem very moral, they can be very convincing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or is the only solution a technological breakthrough (not controlled by a superhuman psychopath) of such magnitude that it almost instantly changes the very definition of what it means to be 'human'?

Then the technology would become the superhuman thingie. Technology performs exactly as it is designed to....which is seldom ever exactly what was intended.
But there is a solution, one which is already in place, ie, the mutually competing interests of the many companies, governments, citizens, lobbying groups, etc,
so long as power never becomes overly concentrated. It ain't perfect, but it beats creating a single entity with absolute authority over us, IMO anyway.

 

[TechTed]

What risks? If everyone is participating in the creation of these superhuman psychopathic corporations, governments and religions, yet these superhumans represent none of us, why do you anticipate a risk?

Most of the risks are obvious: global war, ecological disasters (isn't there a massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico right now???), pollution, oppression, etc etc. It seems like things are heating up very quickly on the Korean pennisula right now...

The point was superhuman psychopaths are not the best stewards of new technologies that could potentially have devastating effects on us and the planet.

Superhuman psychopaths can not provide the best moral compass.

The human race would be better off without them, yet we all rely on them to survive. A conundrum to be sure.

Will a global catastrophe be needed to break our reliance on them? Will the emergence of AI solve this problem?

 

[Revoltingest]

Most of the risks are obvious: global war, ecological disasters (isn't there a massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico right now???), pollution, oppression, etc etc. It seems like things are heating up very quickly on the Korean pennisula right now...

The point was superhuman psychopaths are not the best stewards of new technologies that could potentially have devastating effects on us and the planet.

Superhuman psychopaths can not provide the best moral compass.

The human race would be better off without them, yet we all rely on them to survive. A conundrum to be sure.

Will a global catastrophe be needed to break our reliance on them? Will the emergence of AI solve this problem?

Who's to say we'd be better off without these superhuman psychopaths? Their moral compasses don't seem any worse than individual people, even if there
were a moral compass we could even agree upon. Global catastrophes will continue to exist no matter what economic or governmental systems we have in
place. I see it as a matter of just trying to do the best job we can with the best system we can employ. Of course, even that won't be agreed upon.

 

[logician]

I find the concept of superhuman psychopaths very interesting. In Joel Bakan's book "The Corporation", he asks the question what if corporations were people and what sort of people would they be? A psychologist would likely classify them as a psychopath because corporations are singularly self-interested, manipulative, shallow in their relationships, and incapable of showing remorse or empathy. While I haven't read this book (only a synopsis), I would imagine that a company's transparency directly affects the degree of its psychopathic behavior.

The same arguement could be made about governments and organized religions.

The collective intelligence within these entities when applied to the resources and influence they posses gives them a superhuman quality.

As science progresses, it would be hard to argue against the risks that these superhuman psychopaths pose to humanity. Especially if they have diverging objectives. How do we mitigate these risks without giving more power and control to one of these superhuman psychopaths? There appears to be no solution.

Or is the only solution a technological breakthrough (not controlled by a superhuman psychopath) of such magnitude that it almost instantly changes the very definition of what it means to be 'human'?

It is true that corporations have only one interest, their bottom line, or rate of return of investment for their stockholders/owners. This means all other social, eco, and people concerns are secondary. This is also why there should not be "for profit" healthcare companies, as the profit motive - their highest priority, runs counter to providing good healthcare. Likewise, we currently see companies like BP more concerned with limiting their liability than limiting the damage being done to the environment.:sleep: