I enthousiastically recommend the new (2008) Global Catastrophic Risks, ed. by N Bostrom. It is both well-researched (the chapter bibliographies alone warrant acquisition) and very thought-provoking.

Especially troubling is a sentence in the last chapter that increased “totalitarian” risks could be a consequence of the other risks (i.e. nuclear terrorism, catastrophic bioviolence, etc.). This is precisely the central issue of my own inquiry (as above).

Also highly recommended is John Gray’s Heresies, subtitled About Progress and Other Illusions, which puts SEI risks in a broader human instinct/history perspective.

Taken together, or if one dares in sequence ending with a reread of Orwell’s 1984, these British works should be consumed only with the finest British gin (Hendrick’s, of course).

(With my sincere apology for the late reply)

Sometimes overlooked is that SEIs power, though potentially large, is fundamentally dependent upon anonymity. Relinquishment, an oft-misunderstood concept, may be impossible in our world today. But who would say that it is impossible in Orwell’s 1984?

Electoral majorities have again reproven their willingness to sacrifice cherished rights for personal security, supporting Cheneyisms by large majorities. How much greater might their fear grow, and with what results?

Nick Bostrom’s excellent 2008 collection, Global Catastrophic Risks, briefly discusses totalitarianism as an existential risk. By what concept of humanity is this not literally correct? Who has considered this scenario and not given it a 10%+ probability? A 10% likelihood that our children might live in a sustained 1984? Where is the discussion of preventive actions we might take?

My related questions continue at http://www.sustainablerights.blogspot.com and your ideas and opposing views are sincerley appreciated.