He wrote Reactionary Philosophy in an enormous, planet-sized nutshell back in March, as a precursor to a reactionary take-down essay that never seemed to materialize, other than a few bits and pieces, such as the one on how war is on the decline. This faq seems to be the takedown he was aiming for, so I imagine he’s been building it for at least the past seven months, probably longer.
(ETA: In the comments on the Anti-reactionary FAQ, Scott says it took roughly a month, so I guess it wasn’t as much of an on-going project as I predicted.)
I’m keeping this question to this thread as to not spam political talk on the new open thread.
What does a post scarcity society run by reactionaries look like? If state redistribution is not something that is endorsed, what happens to all the people who have no useful skills? In a reactionary utopia where there is enough production but lacking an efficient way to distribute resource base on ability or merit, what happens to the people who have been effectively replaced by automation? Is it safe to assume that there are no contemporary luddites among reactionaries?
What does a post scarcity society run by reactionaries look like?
I can answer that question to a certain extent, as I’ve talked to several people in reaction who have thought about it, as have I, at least once we look far into the posthuman era, it might be most easily imagined as a society of gods above and beasts below, something the ancient Greeks found little difficulty imagining and certainly didn’t feel diminished their humanity. An important difference between the post human fantasies often imagined is that the superiority of transhuman minds would not be papered over by fictional legal equality, there would be a hierarchy based on the common virtues the society held in regard and there would be efforts to ensure the virtues remained the same, to prevent value drift. Much of the society would be organized along the lines of striving to enable (post)human flourishing as defined by the values of the society.
An aristocracy prevailing, indeed “rule of the best”, with at least a ceremonial Emperor at its apex. Titles of nobility where in theory in ancient society awarded, both to incentivize people for long term planning, define their place, formalize their unique influence as owners of land and warriors, define what the social circle you are expect to compare yourself with is and expecting the good use of such privilege by people from excellent families. Extending and indeed much improving such concept offers fascinating possibilities, compatible with human imagination and preferences, think of the sway that nobility, let alone magical or good queens, dukes and knights hold over even our modern imagination. Consider that in a world where aging is cured and heredity, be it genetic or otherwise full understood, where minds are emulated and merge and diverge, the line between you and your ancestors/previous versions blurs. A family with centuries of diligent service, excellence, virtue, daring and achievement… I can envision such a grand noble lineage made up of essentially one person.
But this is an individual aspect of the vision. The shape of galactic civilization is often to most the more motivating aspect. To quote Aaron Jacob:
There will be extrasolar planets covered in cathedrals and flags, and Nike will be a Greek word and nothing more. #progress
But there is a subgroup of reaction that includes Francis St. Pol that might go into more strongly emphasizing raw intelligence maximization. And Nick Land embraces capitalism in all its forms tightly.
In a reactionary utopia where there is enough production but lacking an efficient way to distribute resource base on ability or merit, what happens to the people who have been effectively replaced by automation?
This is I think an example of a near future issue. The answers I have heard are the welfare state but with eugenics (many agree with the basic income guarantee), makework, especially relatively fulfilling makework such as perhaps crafting “handmade” items for consumption or perhaps farming and the pod option (virtualization). The latter is indeed at least partial wireheading, but I wonder how much it actually would be if the humans living virtual lives are allowed to interact with each other in something like a very fun MMO, their social relations would still be quite real and I think fundamentally this is all most really care about. This option becomes especially economical if uploading minds becomes cheap. I would add the option of humane suicide, but I’m not sure how many would agree.
Is it safe to assume that there are no contemporary luddites among reactionaries?
To a large extent yes, but enthusiasm for technology varies. Most are moderately enthusiastic about technology and believe Progressivism is holding back civilization. Nick Land is an example of an outlier in the pro-technology direction, but there are a few on the other end, those agree with a variant of the argument Scott Alexander has rediscovered that technology and wealth inevitably caused the change of values they find detrimental, but I don’t recall any of them arguing for a technological rollback, because none think it feasible.
From what I understood based on reading the anti-reactionary faq, Scott’s interpretation of Moldbug’s interpretation of an ideal reactionary king would either arrange infrastructure such that there are always jobs available, or start wireheading the most useless members of society (though if I’m reading it right, Moldbug isn’t all that confident in that idea, either). I’d not mind a correction (as Scott points out, either option would be woefully inefficient economically).
The Anti-Reactionary FAQ by Yvain. Konkvistador notes in the comments he’ll have to think about a refutation, in due course.
I was surprised by the breadth of ideas he addresses. It blew my mind that he put that together in under a month.
I assume he’s been thinking about this stuff for years, given he’s known the people in the Reactionary subculture that long.
He wrote Reactionary Philosophy in an enormous, planet-sized nutshell back in March, as a precursor to a reactionary take-down essay that never seemed to materialize, other than a few bits and pieces, such as the one on how war is on the decline. This faq seems to be the takedown he was aiming for, so I imagine he’s been building it for at least the past seven months, probably longer.
(ETA: In the comments on the Anti-reactionary FAQ, Scott says it took roughly a month, so I guess it wasn’t as much of an on-going project as I predicted.)
I’m keeping this question to this thread as to not spam political talk on the new open thread.
What does a post scarcity society run by reactionaries look like? If state redistribution is not something that is endorsed, what happens to all the people who have no useful skills? In a reactionary utopia where there is enough production but lacking an efficient way to distribute resource base on ability or merit, what happens to the people who have been effectively replaced by automation? Is it safe to assume that there are no contemporary luddites among reactionaries?
I can answer that question to a certain extent, as I’ve talked to several people in reaction who have thought about it, as have I, at least once we look far into the posthuman era, it might be most easily imagined as a society of gods above and beasts below, something the ancient Greeks found little difficulty imagining and certainly didn’t feel diminished their humanity. An important difference between the post human fantasies often imagined is that the superiority of transhuman minds would not be papered over by fictional legal equality, there would be a hierarchy based on the common virtues the society held in regard and there would be efforts to ensure the virtues remained the same, to prevent value drift. Much of the society would be organized along the lines of striving to enable (post)human flourishing as defined by the values of the society.
An aristocracy prevailing, indeed “rule of the best”, with at least a ceremonial Emperor at its apex. Titles of nobility where in theory in ancient society awarded, both to incentivize people for long term planning, define their place, formalize their unique influence as owners of land and warriors, define what the social circle you are expect to compare yourself with is and expecting the good use of such privilege by people from excellent families. Extending and indeed much improving such concept offers fascinating possibilities, compatible with human imagination and preferences, think of the sway that nobility, let alone magical or good queens, dukes and knights hold over even our modern imagination. Consider that in a world where aging is cured and heredity, be it genetic or otherwise full understood, where minds are emulated and merge and diverge, the line between you and your ancestors/previous versions blurs. A family with centuries of diligent service, excellence, virtue, daring and achievement… I can envision such a grand noble lineage made up of essentially one person.
But this is an individual aspect of the vision. The shape of galactic civilization is often to most the more motivating aspect. To quote Aaron Jacob:
But there is a subgroup of reaction that includes Francis St. Pol that might go into more strongly emphasizing raw intelligence maximization. And Nick Land embraces capitalism in all its forms tightly.
This is I think an example of a near future issue. The answers I have heard are the welfare state but with eugenics (many agree with the basic income guarantee), makework, especially relatively fulfilling makework such as perhaps crafting “handmade” items for consumption or perhaps farming and the pod option (virtualization). The latter is indeed at least partial wireheading, but I wonder how much it actually would be if the humans living virtual lives are allowed to interact with each other in something like a very fun MMO, their social relations would still be quite real and I think fundamentally this is all most really care about. This option becomes especially economical if uploading minds becomes cheap. I would add the option of humane suicide, but I’m not sure how many would agree.
To a large extent yes, but enthusiasm for technology varies. Most are moderately enthusiastic about technology and believe Progressivism is holding back civilization. Nick Land is an example of an outlier in the pro-technology direction, but there are a few on the other end, those agree with a variant of the argument Scott Alexander has rediscovered that technology and wealth inevitably caused the change of values they find detrimental, but I don’t recall any of them arguing for a technological rollback, because none think it feasible.
From what I understood based on reading the anti-reactionary faq, Scott’s interpretation of Moldbug’s interpretation of an ideal reactionary king would either arrange infrastructure such that there are always jobs available, or start wireheading the most useless members of society (though if I’m reading it right, Moldbug isn’t all that confident in that idea, either). I’d not mind a correction (as Scott points out, either option would be woefully inefficient economically).
This makes me suspect he may have much more free time than I guessed, and no longer despair of a new LW survey in the foreseeable future.
It hasn’t appeared in the “Recent on Rationality Blogs” sidebar on LW yet. How long does that normally take? 24 hours?
It seems likely that this post has been blocked from appearing there, due to its political and controversial nature.