Nornagest seems to be worried about the system becoming aristocratic, so I somehow doubt that he’d be interested in a more NRx flavoured technocracy. While technocracy could come in many forms, I personally would advocate for a less culture-neutral system—at a bare minimum the test should require fluency in the native language and knowledge of the countries’ history.
But I also wouldn’t advocate too much cultural bias—after all, we are discussing China in a positive light!
While technocracy could come in many forms, I personally would advocate for a less culture-neutral system—at a bare minimum the test should require fluency in the native language and knowledge of the countries’ history.
The most important aspect (from the point of view of stability) is making sure people agree with the concept of a test-based meritocratic society and with parts of the culture that support it.
I would agree that this is important, with the caveat that a system should be able to evolve to changing circumstances, so there ought to be room for a dissenting voice within the part of the system that controls the systems evolution.
Well, the historical Chinese system wasn’t very good at dealing with changing circumstances and dealt with it by discouraging technological innovation.
If you let the system change freely it’ll change to a form that causes the meritocratic parts (and even the openness to dissenting voices part) to collapse.
I don’t know whether it’s possible to combine stability and adaptability. My attempt would be to include an “unquestionable core” to protect meritocracy and the ability to question everything else. But as St. Thomas Aquinas’s successors discovered, even that may not work.
If you let the system change to freely it’ll change to a form that causes the meritocratic parts (and even the openness to dissenting voices part) to collapse.
What exactly do you think it will change into?
My attempt would be to include an “unquestionable core” to protect meritocracy and the ability to question everything else.
A plausible idea. Essentially the government would have a constitution. Another idea would be that the constitution can be changed, but with differing levels of unanimity needed (so the “unquestionable core” would need a 90% vote to change for example—I’m worried about making anything entirely irrevocable.)
Well to common failure modes are collapse to hereditary aristocracy and “pod people” takeover by fanatical ideologues. The way the later works is that since not “pod people” are willing to hire competent “pod people” but the fanatics will base hiring on ideological fanaticism rather than competence, an ideological faction will gradual take over unless stopped by other forces. For example, look at the current state of academia outside hard STEM fields.
This is exactly why I have not mentioned interviews anywhere in the exam process, otherwise yes the pod people would take over. I suppose it might be possible to have interviews for parts of government except the bit which oversees the examination process.
Aristocracy seems a lot less likely, unless generations of associative breeding lead to a multimodal distibution of IQ. This might have been the case in the indian caste system, a quick search finding this HBD guy who says that subgroup means vary from 80ish to 112 and this “progressive”.
Who says:
Brahmins and their Nazi eugenics and sick caste system.
FUCK India FUCK Indians FUCK Hinduism … This is an essential point for any progressive person worth their salt
Errrm… ok. That doesn’t sound very progressive.
Anyway, it is also possible that any sort of transhumanism capable of significantly raising IQ would also turn a meritocracy into a aristocracy, where the wealthy elites can afford BCIs or embryo selection or whatever and thus also form a cognitive elite which dominates government, and passes laws that benefit this elite. This is one of the more reasonable objections to transhumanism, but there is no particular reason why this aristocracy would be oppressive, and certainly not compared to old feudal aristocracies, because in the modern world exit is an option.
Finally, this situation would probably not persist long without a singularity, and for that reason in general I do not think that stability of the meritocracy in the long run is of particularly high importance compared to good governance in the short to medium term.
there is no particular reason why this aristocracy would be oppressive
No, see, out of the set of all societies only a very small fraction is “not oppressive” by a reasonable definition. So unless you are really aiming for that small subset, you are all but guaranteed not to get there. The question should be “is there a particular reason why X would not be oppressive?”
We have more tools to oppress now, as well. In some sense feudalism was only a thing because you couldn’t send messages faster than a horse/boat.
No, see, out of the set of all societies only a very small fraction is “not oppressive” by a reasonable definition.
The “reasonable definition” is tricky to agree on—many would say that aspects of modern democracies are oppressive in some respects. I’m not an expert, but I’m pretty sure that in historical feudal societies the aristocracy generally gained power through military force, rather than economic or intellectual routes. This is going to select for people who are naturally inclined towards oppression.
We have more tools to oppress now, as well.
Such as? I know there is increased surveillance, but given events such as the arab spring, it seems like modern communications are far more a tool for expressing and organising dissent.
Absolutely—and that’s my point. You are after something tricky and subtle, not something simple like “no death penalty.” So most societies will not have it. The answer to the question of whether we have any reason to believe [society] will not have [tricky and subtle thing] is “yes, the thing is tricky and subtle.”
Such as?
It is super neat that the panopticon society is also operating in reverse, e.g. cell phones filming police being thugs. It’s hard to work out counterfactuals properly, dystopian writers often get them wrong. But here is a partial list (some of these are double edged, naturally):
big data analytics, cheap world-wide communication, strong crypto, clever PR/marketing people, professional bureaucracy, multinational corps, cheap manufacturing of all sorts of horrible things, incredibly deadly weapons, ability to kill via drone strikes, learning to coordinate larger and larger organizations (see for example how China learned to crowd-source censoring and online propaganda on the cheap), etc.
Well, that’s quite a long list. To pick out a few of your examples:
multinational corps
My impression is that one of the main arguments against corporations is corporate lobbying. Under an examination-based system, there is no campaign funding which should go a long way to removing this problem. And the ‘multi-national’ bit is an incentive against wars.
incredibly deadly weapons
You can kill a lot of people with machetes.
learning to coordinate larger and larger organizations (see for example how China learned to crowd-source censoring and online propaganda on the cheap)
Large scale co-ordination is good! People like Gwern argue that large-scale cooperation to suppress harmful technologies is mankind’s best hope of survival.
Big-data and facial recognition applied to CCTV cameras is understandably something of concern. OTOH, some of the bitcoin people think that blockchain technologies will bring down governments.
I personally would advocate for a less culture-neutral system—at a bare minimum the test should require fluency in the native language and knowledge of the countries’ history.
Why exactly history and what do you consider history to be in this case? Dates?
Are you familiar with the adage “those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it”? I am talking about the standard history exams that one might take in school or at university, and when I studied history at school there was a greater emphasis on ‘why’ rather than ‘when’. Its important to know roughly when stuff happened, but only insofar as it helps a general understanding.
And world history in general is important, but your own countries history is especially relevant, so more weight should be attached to it, although certainly not to the exclusion of all else.
Of course I’m familiar with a lot of folks beliefs. On LW you can generally assume that the people with whom you arguing aren’t stupid.
We have found that learning how causation works is usually really hard and requires a lot of data. A single countries history doesn’t provide much data, so most lessons that you draw from it are going to be overfitted on the available data.
It’s quite all right if you are conscious that you want to teach certain lessons and objective appearing history is the easiest way to teach those lessons. It also allows you to kick out anybody who doesn’t agree with your interpretation of events out of your political system.
If you are NRx of course you might want a tool to kick out those people with different political ideas but if that’s what you want, be more open about it and don’t hide behind slogans.
Of course I’m familiar with a lot of folks beliefs. On LW you can generally assume that the people with whom you arguing aren’t stupid.
I wasn’t trying to imply that you are stupid.
A single countries history doesn’t provide much data
Which is why I said that knowing world history is beneficial. But if you are going to participate in American government then knowing about the American civil war is going to be especially beneficial in understanding current political tensions, while if you were going to be in the Iraqi government then you would gain more from knowing abut the history of conflict between Sunni and Shi’ite.
It also allows you to kick out anybody who doesn’t agree with your interpretation of events out of your political system.
My intention is examinations with questions like “why did Napoleon lose?” not “write a description of our glorious victory over the French!”. Incidentally, people who disagree with the mainstream view of history are never going to get elected in a democratic system, so this examination-based system is more tolerant of dissenting views.
If you are NRx of course you might want a tool to kick out those people with different political ideas but if that’s what you want, be more open about it and don’t hide behind slogans.
Are the NRx the only people intolerant of those with different political ideas? Or can someone lose their job for, say, being against gay marriage? (I’m ok with gay marriage, but uncomfortable with censorship)
Anyway, I’m not NRx, in that while certain aspects of society were better in the past, on the whole things are a lot better now. And even if modern society is going in the wrong direction, it seems to me that classical Rome/Greece/India/China were more functional than medieval Europe, so heading back to medieval social norms is entirely the wrong way to go.
Nornagest seems to be worried about the system becoming aristocratic, so I somehow doubt that he’d be interested in a more NRx flavoured technocracy. While technocracy could come in many forms, I personally would advocate for a less culture-neutral system—at a bare minimum the test should require fluency in the native language and knowledge of the countries’ history.
But I also wouldn’t advocate too much cultural bias—after all, we are discussing China in a positive light!
The most important aspect (from the point of view of stability) is making sure people agree with the concept of a test-based meritocratic society and with parts of the culture that support it.
I would agree that this is important, with the caveat that a system should be able to evolve to changing circumstances, so there ought to be room for a dissenting voice within the part of the system that controls the systems evolution.
Well, the historical Chinese system wasn’t very good at dealing with changing circumstances and dealt with it by discouraging technological innovation.
If you let the system change freely it’ll change to a form that causes the meritocratic parts (and even the openness to dissenting voices part) to collapse.
I don’t know whether it’s possible to combine stability and adaptability. My attempt would be to include an “unquestionable core” to protect meritocracy and the ability to question everything else. But as St. Thomas Aquinas’s successors discovered, even that may not work.
What exactly do you think it will change into?
A plausible idea. Essentially the government would have a constitution. Another idea would be that the constitution can be changed, but with differing levels of unanimity needed (so the “unquestionable core” would need a 90% vote to change for example—I’m worried about making anything entirely irrevocable.)
Well to common failure modes are collapse to hereditary aristocracy and “pod people” takeover by fanatical ideologues. The way the later works is that since not “pod people” are willing to hire competent “pod people” but the fanatics will base hiring on ideological fanaticism rather than competence, an ideological faction will gradual take over unless stopped by other forces. For example, look at the current state of academia outside hard STEM fields.
This is exactly why I have not mentioned interviews anywhere in the exam process, otherwise yes the pod people would take over. I suppose it might be possible to have interviews for parts of government except the bit which oversees the examination process. Aristocracy seems a lot less likely, unless generations of associative breeding lead to a multimodal distibution of IQ. This might have been the case in the indian caste system, a quick search finding this HBD guy who says that subgroup means vary from 80ish to 112 and this “progressive”.
Who says:
Errrm… ok. That doesn’t sound very progressive.
Anyway, it is also possible that any sort of transhumanism capable of significantly raising IQ would also turn a meritocracy into a aristocracy, where the wealthy elites can afford BCIs or embryo selection or whatever and thus also form a cognitive elite which dominates government, and passes laws that benefit this elite. This is one of the more reasonable objections to transhumanism, but there is no particular reason why this aristocracy would be oppressive, and certainly not compared to old feudal aristocracies, because in the modern world exit is an option. Finally, this situation would probably not persist long without a singularity, and for that reason in general I do not think that stability of the meritocracy in the long run is of particularly high importance compared to good governance in the short to medium term.
No, see, out of the set of all societies only a very small fraction is “not oppressive” by a reasonable definition. So unless you are really aiming for that small subset, you are all but guaranteed not to get there. The question should be “is there a particular reason why X would not be oppressive?”
We have more tools to oppress now, as well. In some sense feudalism was only a thing because you couldn’t send messages faster than a horse/boat.
The “reasonable definition” is tricky to agree on—many would say that aspects of modern democracies are oppressive in some respects. I’m not an expert, but I’m pretty sure that in historical feudal societies the aristocracy generally gained power through military force, rather than economic or intellectual routes. This is going to select for people who are naturally inclined towards oppression.
Such as? I know there is increased surveillance, but given events such as the arab spring, it seems like modern communications are far more a tool for expressing and organising dissent.
Absolutely—and that’s my point. You are after something tricky and subtle, not something simple like “no death penalty.” So most societies will not have it. The answer to the question of whether we have any reason to believe [society] will not have [tricky and subtle thing] is “yes, the thing is tricky and subtle.”
It is super neat that the panopticon society is also operating in reverse, e.g. cell phones filming police being thugs. It’s hard to work out counterfactuals properly, dystopian writers often get them wrong. But here is a partial list (some of these are double edged, naturally):
big data analytics, cheap world-wide communication, strong crypto, clever PR/marketing people, professional bureaucracy, multinational corps, cheap manufacturing of all sorts of horrible things, incredibly deadly weapons, ability to kill via drone strikes, learning to coordinate larger and larger organizations (see for example how China learned to crowd-source censoring and online propaganda on the cheap), etc.
Well, that’s quite a long list. To pick out a few of your examples:
My impression is that one of the main arguments against corporations is corporate lobbying. Under an examination-based system, there is no campaign funding which should go a long way to removing this problem. And the ‘multi-national’ bit is an incentive against wars.
You can kill a lot of people with machetes.
Large scale co-ordination is good! People like Gwern argue that large-scale cooperation to suppress harmful technologies is mankind’s best hope of survival.
Big-data and facial recognition applied to CCTV cameras is understandably something of concern. OTOH, some of the bitcoin people think that blockchain technologies will bring down governments.
It’s equally important that the officials who are chosen that way aren’t too awful at their jobs.
Why exactly history and what do you consider history to be in this case? Dates?
Are you familiar with the adage “those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it”? I am talking about the standard history exams that one might take in school or at university, and when I studied history at school there was a greater emphasis on ‘why’ rather than ‘when’. Its important to know roughly when stuff happened, but only insofar as it helps a general understanding.
And world history in general is important, but your own countries history is especially relevant, so more weight should be attached to it, although certainly not to the exclusion of all else.
Of course I’m familiar with a lot of folks beliefs. On LW you can generally assume that the people with whom you arguing aren’t stupid.
We have found that learning how causation works is usually really hard and requires a lot of data. A single countries history doesn’t provide much data, so most lessons that you draw from it are going to be overfitted on the available data.
It’s quite all right if you are conscious that you want to teach certain lessons and objective appearing history is the easiest way to teach those lessons. It also allows you to kick out anybody who doesn’t agree with your interpretation of events out of your political system.
If you are NRx of course you might want a tool to kick out those people with different political ideas but if that’s what you want, be more open about it and don’t hide behind slogans.
I wasn’t trying to imply that you are stupid.
Which is why I said that knowing world history is beneficial. But if you are going to participate in American government then knowing about the American civil war is going to be especially beneficial in understanding current political tensions, while if you were going to be in the Iraqi government then you would gain more from knowing abut the history of conflict between Sunni and Shi’ite.
My intention is examinations with questions like “why did Napoleon lose?” not “write a description of our glorious victory over the French!”. Incidentally, people who disagree with the mainstream view of history are never going to get elected in a democratic system, so this examination-based system is more tolerant of dissenting views.
Are the NRx the only people intolerant of those with different political ideas? Or can someone lose their job for, say, being against gay marriage? (I’m ok with gay marriage, but uncomfortable with censorship)
Anyway, I’m not NRx, in that while certain aspects of society were better in the past, on the whole things are a lot better now. And even if modern society is going in the wrong direction, it seems to me that classical Rome/Greece/India/China were more functional than medieval Europe, so heading back to medieval social norms is entirely the wrong way to go.