Does he not know that the automated warhead detection systems run
automatically, and that nuclear weapons operators are drilled that in
the case of actual war to fire unconditionally, which doesn’t require
Rationality?
It requires a special kind of simpleton to believe rationality is even part of the equation when power projection is at play in a *real XXI century war.
Some would even go as far to say fuzzy logic and other ordinary intent obfuscation techniques are part of the very conflict arsenal, crazy.
Nowadays cyber attacks take care of “logical” domains. Tactical and kinetic are all about blowing the enemy’s mind and morale and these don’t operate on the common cause and effect framework, these are MADE to fuck one’s mind, like, by design.
He realizes that, like, the reason this has become so prevalent is
because of rational estimation, right? People didn’t decide to
do this for funsies, they decided that generally you can maximize the
cost-benefit ratio with low-investment, high-reward proxy conflicts and
so forth. Either that or fighting a conventional war would be unwise, so
you maximize your chances of success by fighting asymmetrically.
Planning a guerrilla war is incredibly hard. The complete lack of
reflexiveness on these people astounds me sometimes - how does none of
this occur to you?
Oh dear lord, I knew this dude tangentially in the early nineties. He
was a wanker at the time, too. I had no idea he was associated with the
“rationalists” though. At the time he was just an unaffiliated self-
important wanker.
Not sure how much of a Rationalist he is, but he certainly is on team 'humans are not rational enough' so he wrote a sort of self help book called meaningness about meta rationality, stances of thinking and other things. I have not read it and cant judge it. Perhaps others can.
And of course meta rationality will stop the collapse of civilization.
Hat tip. I browsed his web site a bit. On this page (below) he was quite critical of Rationalism (see section Rationalist Eternalism). Apparently he expanded on that criticism in a book he wrote that may have something to do with the biology of egg plants 🤷🏻♂️
https://meaningness.com/eternalist-systems#rationalist
This guy's ego must be so big if he thinks the theories on his blog prevent the 'collapse of civilization' while actual x-risks like international conflict (which rationalists can't solve because they're not interested in gaining enough power or learning about \_skillfully\_ manipulating the levers of power to reduce it, unlike the people behind the SALT arms reduction talks, or starvation (which Borlaug helped alleviate with his actual years of research and experimentation) go unnoticed.
Also does he not know that civilizations existed before the scientific method, and industrial rationality?
Well, I don't know much about this person, so im not sure how much he is in on the whole 'anti collapse' thing. It was just via [this retweet of his](https://twitter.com/FluidityAudio/status/1498133999520256004) which I also have not listened to.
E: ah, right, the podcast is narrating Chapmans [essay on this](https://metarationality.com/stem-fluidity-bridge). So my doubts were misplaced. (Lol the arrogance of going 'geeks are bad at 'fluid, meta-rational understanding' and linking that to civ collapse. He blames postmodernism of course).
These people are fortunately not canny enough to get anywhere near the levers of power, but considering current politics and the Q cult... , I'd favor literal technocrats (which the rationalists \_claim\_ to be) over Q-heads
upon considering all of the data i think its safe to say the most
rational thing to do is to send a generation of young men into a meat
grinder and those who survive return home maimed and scarred
Does he not know that the automated warhead detection systems run automatically, and that nuclear weapons operators are drilled that in the case of actual war to fire unconditionally, which doesn’t require Rationality?
He realizes that, like, the reason this has become so prevalent is because of rational estimation, right? People didn’t decide to do this for funsies, they decided that generally you can maximize the cost-benefit ratio with low-investment, high-reward proxy conflicts and so forth. Either that or fighting a conventional war would be unwise, so you maximize your chances of success by fighting asymmetrically. Planning a guerrilla war is incredibly hard. The complete lack of reflexiveness on these people astounds me sometimes - how does none of this occur to you?
the “Great Powers” run guerilla wars? Maybe they mean anti-insurgency campaigns? Either way they’re wrong
A take so hot it should be labeled ‘drop and run Co60’
Do wonder what he means with conventional war? Trenches? Two lines smashing into each other? Pike and shot?
Oh dear lord, I knew this dude tangentially in the early nineties. He was a wanker at the time, too. I had no idea he was associated with the “rationalists” though. At the time he was just an unaffiliated self- important wanker.
Our leaders simply lack the intelligence required to start a pointless war that kills a bunch of people
This has to be parody. “Meaningness”? lol, pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
Deranged ahistorical opinion
isn’t nuclear war peak rationality?
upon considering all of the data i think its safe to say the most rational thing to do is to send a generation of young men into a meat grinder and those who survive return home maimed and scarred
Thanks I have brain cancer