If discussions about how best to accomplish this are “mind killing” then the smartest people in our civilization (no, not the posters on this blog) are all brain-dead.
Neither Yudkowsky nor me argues that discussions about how best to accomplish this are always “mind killing”.
It something you think because you are angry and that anger prevents you from clearly understanding what other people are thinking.
That anger mind killed you. It makes you ineffective at convincing other people.
People in the real world don’t refer to intelligent political positions as “mind-killing.”
Being angry is no intelligent political position.
If you live in China you can achieve some political ends by getting a sufficent number of people angry. You can’t in Western democracies.
Julian Assange made the point that most of the actual power is in contracts which just won’t change because someone is angry. I’m not 100% with Assange on the point but he said, that the reason free speech is legal in Western democracy while it isn’t in China is that political power in Western democracy is stable enough that you don’t change power structures with free speech.
According to him the effort that a given government extends at suppressing a certain type of speech correlates to that speech potential to create substantial political change.
Lesswrong is an echo chamber for people whose priorities are computer programming above all else. Such people will spend their lives programming mostly for other people, because their vision is too narrow to own their own lives.
Actually no. There are plenty of people here no care about saving lifes in Africa through bet nets that have been proven to be effective.
They are not angry that people die to malaria. They just calculate how they can safe as many lifes as possible and then engage in that cause of action.
Then MIRI wants to prevent our world from getting destroyed by an unfriendly artificial intelligence and many people here think that’s a more important project than being angry that some political injustice.
I myself did even do mainstream media interviews in Germany about QS where one of the points I make is that people shouldn’t rely on authorities but trust their own judgment. I’m no apolitical person.
I however don’t let emotions like anger cloud my intellectual abilities to understand the world in all it’s shades of grey.
When it comes to a topic like the war on drugs I know the background of politics that doubled the amount of marijuana that you can carry around in Berlin without getting charged with a crime.
The people who acted there politically weren’t angry.
In the US there are many places where medical marijuana polls much better than drug legislation. If you actually want to win politically it can make a lot of sense to focus on something like medical marijuana for which it’s easier to find a societal consensus than focusing on anger that everything isn’t legalised.
Political successes need coalition building and that usually doesn’t happen from a place of extreme anger.
Neither Yudkowsky nor me argues that discussions about how best to accomplish this are always “mind killing”. It something you think because you are angry and that anger prevents you from clearly understanding what other people are thinking.
That anger mind killed you. It makes you ineffective at convincing other people.
Being angry is no intelligent political position.
If you live in China you can achieve some political ends by getting a sufficent number of people angry. You can’t in Western democracies. Julian Assange made the point that most of the actual power is in contracts which just won’t change because someone is angry. I’m not 100% with Assange on the point but he said, that the reason free speech is legal in Western democracy while it isn’t in China is that political power in Western democracy is stable enough that you don’t change power structures with free speech.
According to him the effort that a given government extends at suppressing a certain type of speech correlates to that speech potential to create substantial political change.
Actually no. There are plenty of people here no care about saving lifes in Africa through bet nets that have been proven to be effective. They are not angry that people die to malaria. They just calculate how they can safe as many lifes as possible and then engage in that cause of action.
Then MIRI wants to prevent our world from getting destroyed by an unfriendly artificial intelligence and many people here think that’s a more important project than being angry that some political injustice.
I myself did even do mainstream media interviews in Germany about QS where one of the points I make is that people shouldn’t rely on authorities but trust their own judgment. I’m no apolitical person. I however don’t let emotions like anger cloud my intellectual abilities to understand the world in all it’s shades of grey.
When it comes to a topic like the war on drugs I know the background of politics that doubled the amount of marijuana that you can carry around in Berlin without getting charged with a crime. The people who acted there politically weren’t angry.
In the US there are many places where medical marijuana polls much better than drug legislation. If you actually want to win politically it can make a lot of sense to focus on something like medical marijuana for which it’s easier to find a societal consensus than focusing on anger that everything isn’t legalised.
Political successes need coalition building and that usually doesn’t happen from a place of extreme anger.