I mean Yudkowsky is already on record being okay with 100 holocausts if it results in his outcome. Not sure why people are downvoting this guy he is only talking about one holocaust.
Stranger of Paradise is so fucking good because characters will stand there and spout paragraphs of Final Fantasy dialogue and Jack will just reply "Bullshit."
It’s the marketplace of altruism! I’ll feed a bunch of hungry people,
and you go do some genocide, and we’ll see which one the market prefers!
And as always, because it’s just a market preference, you bear no moral
culpability!
To get really specific about this, here’s some cause areas that are
outside the Overton window for EAs today but that matter to some people
in the world and that they could reasonably want to pursue more
effectively:
civilizing “barbarian” peoples
engaging in a multigenerational program to improve the human genome
via selective breeding
E: ow god this guys real name is actually G Gordon Worley III (Sadly
this the third thing is just a coincidence, and he doesn’t seem to
actually be a member of the British aristocracy)
E2: Also wanted to mention this:
I posted a question about effective giving for abortion rights in
America. It was controversial to say the least.
You should be very worried when that is considered a controversial
question. (But looking at the actual link it doesn’t seem to be that
controversial, just a few people arguing in the comments).
The good news is people in EA already do this. For example, I think
x-risks are really important and dominate all other concerns. If I had
bn to allocate, I’d allocate all of it to x-risk reduction and none of
it to anything else. Some people would think this is a tragedy because
people alive today could have been saved using that money! I think the
even greater tragedy is not saving the much larger number of potential
future lives!
>A (hopefully) useful example, inspired by Worley's thoughts, my mother, and Richard's stinging question, respectively. Look at the following causes:
> * X-risk Prevention
> * Susan G. Komen Foundation
> * The Nazi Party
>All three of the above would happily accept donations. Those who donate only to the first would probably view the values of the second cause as merely *different* from their own values, but they'd probably view the values of the third cause as *opposing* their own set of values.
Would they, though?
>>Would you really want to ally with Effective Nazism?
>I'd bite the bullet and say "yes". I disagree with Nazism, but to be intellectually consistent I have to accept that even beliefs about what is good that I find personally unpalatable deserve consideration.
> to be intellectually consistent [in their own mind] (\*)
Doing this always leads to the weirdest places. Extremely dumb hypotheticals etc. (And a high chance this is both philosophically and mathematically (at least on the level of first order logic) impossible), but dont quote me on that). And weird inaction debating about stuff like "ha you fascists are not being intellectually consistent" as they are removing peoples rights and putting people in camps.
\*: I use this weird clarifier because I used to know a libertarian who used to 'debate' leftwingers and and then 'win' those debates by find stances which he thought were inconsistent in their ideology and then declare he won when his opponents went 'euh wtf ok dude, whatever' and gave up. It was really weird. And last I heard he was sliding into fortress Europe like fascism (he always was oddly neo-nazi curious btw, he managed to go to invite only secret neonazi metal concerts. I was naive and didn't see this for the huge red flag at the time (neither did anybody else in the group of people who knew him btw, we were fools))
>And weird inaction debating about stuff like "ha you fascists are not being intellectually consistent" as they are removing peoples rights and putting people in camps.
This is too real, I used to be on Twitter (I'm better now) and it was so frustrating watching liberals high fiving each other for saying "sir this is a Wendy's" to some Republican, meanwhile said Republican logs off Twitter and passes new abortion restrictions here in the real world
My favourite band? You probably haven't heard of them. They only play in secret, you have to be a pretty big deal in the posting community to get an invite.
It went from 'these antifa people are wrong these neonazi bands aren't that bad, I the only open-minded metalhead and the true libertarian went to see what they are about in the spirit of open debate. Antifa pussies are scared' to 'I support the eastern European neonazi training camps, shoot the Muslim hordes' in a few years.
(I'm making it slightly extremer than it was he didn't literally call for mass murder of Muslims, he did have a very aggressive 'support those who stop refugees streak'. Which was weird as years ago he was so pro peoples rights and individual freedoms, he even supported workers unions (guess he just followed the rest of the dutch libertarians into conspiracy theory crazyland). I do wonder if it was his metal interests which got him invited to the neo-nazi metal bands, or his writings on libertarianism).
I actually love anyone who considers it a virtue to be context-agnostically consistent
If you're against political violence by nazis you must be against political violence by antifa, if you're against lying for bad reasons you must be against lying for good reasons, if you're against slicing up orphans you must be against slicing up carrots, and if you like water to drink every now and then you better not complain about water when you're drowning in it!
You know, intellectual consistency. As one has.
> I think the even greater tragedy is not saving the much larger number of potential future lives!
What about all the potential future lives that won't exist because those people alive today have died?
To be fair, every one of his comments was downvoted into oblivion and
his post has received fewer upvotes than almost any post in the last
several weeks.
[deleted]
It’s the marketplace of altruism! I’ll feed a bunch of hungry people, and you go do some genocide, and we’ll see which one the market prefers! And as always, because it’s just a market preference, you bear no moral culpability!
So basically they want to believe in nothing even harder than they currently do? I’m almost impressed.
[30 seconds later]
Well well well
E: ow god this guys real name is actually G Gordon Worley III (Sadly this the third thing is just a coincidence, and he doesn’t seem to actually be a member of the British aristocracy)
E2: Also wanted to mention this:
You should be very worried when that is considered a controversial question. (But looking at the actual link it doesn’t seem to be that controversial, just a few people arguing in the comments).
This guy seems to be a quokka.
How do I sneer something that already is an ouroboros of self-parody?
The good news is people in EA already do this. For example, I think x-risks are really important and dominate all other concerns. If I had bn to allocate, I’d allocate all of it to x-risk reduction and none of it to anything else. Some people would think this is a tragedy because people alive today could have been saved using that money! I think the even greater tragedy is not saving the much larger number of potential future lives!
To be fair, every one of his comments was downvoted into oblivion and his post has received fewer upvotes than almost any post in the last several weeks.