Harry Potter and the Environmental Industry Regulations
Harry Potter and the Funding For Critical Infrastructure and Climate Research
Harry Potter and Climate Change as a Priority Foreign Policy Issue
"Why, Dobby, don't you see!" exclaimed Harry Mary Sue Potter. "The opposite of hatred isn't love--it's apathy! And that's how you cast the ultra powerful second order approximation killing curse! Do you understand?"
The house elf looked at him like a profit maximizer at an altruistic cause.
"Why, most people complicit in climate change don't actively hate life on earth--they're just apathetic to doing the work necessary to stop it! And in that sense, they're casting a whole bunch of microkilling-curses at our planet! And everyone knows that casting the killing curse is thoughtcrime!"
"Yes, Master," said Dobby.
"You know what you have to do," said Harry Mary Sue Potter.
"Yes, Master," said the house elf as he disapparated with a pop.
And that was how Harry Mary Sue Potter ended the world.
the answer is no it's not satire it's an exerpt from my much ~~over~~hyped piece "Harry Mary Sue Potter and the ~~Mathpets of Rationality~~ Basilisk who makes the earth colder once it's born"
edit: the basilisk is the hero of this story because it tortures people who take it seriously by sending agents backward in time to mercilessly bully them
look at the character of Daphne Greengrass in HPMOR and tell me there isn't something distinctly "weird" about her characterization
also big yud shoehorned polyamory into his harry potter fanfic, in the pre-fridging scene. if hariezer is a chronologically accurate self-insert instead of a "i have always been this way, totally, and never had an embarrassing childhood" self-insert,
> look at the character of Daphne Greengrass in HPMOR and tell me there isn't something distinctly "weird" about her characterization
i mean it's HPMOR so
let's assume i'm not going to look at HPMOR ever again without a stupendously good reason - what bits struck you in particular?
> Afterward Daphne declared in the imperious tones of the future Lady Greengrass that if this feminism business meant girls weren't allowed to pursue boys in whichever way they pleased, then feminism could stay in the Muggle lands where it belonged.
Chapter 71.
> and having just decided that Draco Malfoy would be one of her husbands too.
Also Chapter 71.
really someone lesscharitable might accuse me of cherry picking quotes to support my point that certain viewpoints are shoehorned into the story, but to counter that i will say:
Polyamory is a personal lifestyle choice, not something that should be shoehorned into a didactic harry potter fanfiction.
Hermione was literally fridged and yud's response was uncharitable towards feminism.
Oh, yeah, of course the rationalists are going to be against this
Green New Deal thing…
Like, isn’t the Bay Area community supposed to be exactly what the
right-wing conspiracy theorists calls “the liberal elites”? And if so,
why aren’t they acting like the conspiracy guys said they would and
getting us a socialist revolution already? The world is so disappointing
lmao
I think you’re missing a central plank of the relevant utilitarian
analysis. Some threats are so severe, that we are obligated to siphon
indefinitely large amounts of money towards them even without having any
knowledge about the specifics of the threat or the solution, simply on
the off chance that someone well-funded enough might stumble on a
solution. You know, like the threat of future AI overlords enslaving us
in a Matrix situation, stuff like that.
Other threats, like climate change… you know, not so significant. So
in these cases we can afford to be more conservative in our decision
making.
Climate change: frankly easily understood since the early 20th century, only hurts one copy of everybody, will mostly just kill the poors, techbros can come out on top, as far as LW is concerned, may even be a net positive in that sense. I mean, the alternative probably involves taxes and politics ( the mind killer), and econ 101 proves libertarianism is obviously true (like many worlds theory) and that there must be an efficient economic solution. Also did I mention we're rich.
Acausal robot god: hard to understand, tortures trillions of copies of everybody, targets the rich, techbros lose, net negative to rationalists. Alternative involves paying rationalists to masturbate in a cuddle puddle, philosophy 101 is just wrong for contradicting this and there must be an efficient philosophical solution if you just memorize a list of logical fallacies. Also did I mention they get rich.
Wait, so because the occupy movement was able to plan sufficiently
that it achieved something concrete (which I find hard to believe),
politics is incapable of having concrete plans?
By that logic, all libertarians should be trying to get everybody who
was in the occupy movement elected.
(also, for someone who doesn’t like sneerers, he sure likes
sneering)
> By that logic, all libertarians should be trying to get everybody who was in the occupy movement elected.
the neoreactionaries had Justine Tunney, so
Compare to a respectable pundit, Noah Smith: he didn’t like the
economic aspects of the policies (oh, wait, contrary to his sneer, there
is policy in there), so he wrote what he would suggest instead.
So, wait. Politics is partly about slogans and symbols that help
people build social identities? It’s not literally just policy
engineering? Tsk, tsk. Caring about meat-based embodied aspects of
people seems so… irrational. After all, Chapter 9 of The Big Book of
Bayes teaches that, “After all, humans are literally just memeplexes
with utility functions.”
Edit to add: Also, the solution to climate change can easily be
deduced from the following syllogism.
P1. Climate change is a problem. P2. Developing a friendly AI is the
solution to every problem.
Theorem: Developing a friendly AI is the solution to climate
change.
Look, if they really want to stop climate change, why haven’t they started a blog yet?
Oh, yeah, of course the rationalists are going to be against this Green New Deal thing…
Like, isn’t the Bay Area community supposed to be exactly what the right-wing conspiracy theorists calls “the liberal elites”? And if so, why aren’t they acting like the conspiracy guys said they would and getting us a socialist revolution already? The world is so disappointing lmao
after we come for gamers and white male nerds next on the list for euthanization are people who use words like “desideratum” and “agendum”
I think you’re missing a central plank of the relevant utilitarian analysis. Some threats are so severe, that we are obligated to siphon indefinitely large amounts of money towards them even without having any knowledge about the specifics of the threat or the solution, simply on the off chance that someone well-funded enough might stumble on a solution. You know, like the threat of future AI overlords enslaving us in a Matrix situation, stuff like that.
Other threats, like climate change… you know, not so significant. So in these cases we can afford to be more conservative in our decision making.
Wait, so because the occupy movement was able to plan sufficiently that it achieved something concrete (which I find hard to believe), politics is incapable of having concrete plans?
By that logic, all libertarians should be trying to get everybody who was in the occupy movement elected.
(also, for someone who doesn’t like sneerers, he sure likes sneering)
“Man who doesn’t believe in institutions doesn’t count getting elected to Congress as a success.”
If he’s too explicit about his own plans, the acausal robot god will get him.
Also not included: his own concrete proposal.
Compare to a respectable pundit, Noah Smith: he didn’t like the economic aspects of the policies (oh, wait, contrary to his sneer, there is policy in there), so he wrote what he would suggest instead.
So, wait. Politics is partly about slogans and symbols that help people build social identities? It’s not literally just policy engineering? Tsk, tsk. Caring about meat-based embodied aspects of people seems so… irrational. After all, Chapter 9 of The Big Book of Bayes teaches that, “After all, humans are literally just memeplexes with utility functions.”
Edit to add: Also, the solution to climate change can easily be deduced from the following syllogism.
P1. Climate change is a problem. P2. Developing a friendly AI is the solution to every problem.
Theorem: Developing a friendly AI is the solution to climate change.