2. How should we think about horizontal transmission, normatively?
Horizontal transmission can create hugely harmful dynamics. If we are in a position to “open things up”, encouraging more horizontal transmission, we should think very carefully about this. Just because there is currently little evidence of predatory behavior (or virulent memes, etc) does not mean there won’t be more in the future, if the incentives tip in their favor.
However, we’re rarely in such a position. Most people/organizations have their own “immune system” which we would have to get around in order to “open things up” on a large scale.
In which case, how we would push to “open things up” would be to provide more mechanisms allowing for confidence in the robust goodness of interactions. Better reputation networks to enable bad actors to be filtered out. Better commitment mechanisms to ensure positive interactions. And other such things. Providing these will naturally “open things up” as people recognize that they can have safe interactions, allowing the fruits of horizontal transmission to be safely reaped.
However, I think this is far from providing a full answer to the question.
How should we think about open borders, or other mobility issues? Would the world be better in a significant sense if less people left their hometowns to work elsewhere? Or just the opposite?
How should we adjust the standard economic ideas about free international trade (IE: the standard argument that it should be a free-for-all)? Does the horizontal/vertical idea provide any significant argument against this?
To what degree should we really be careful of horizontally transmitted memes, and to what degree should we think that horizontally transmitting memes is bad? Jennifer RM seems to suggest a very significant degree of caution.
2. How should we think about horizontal transmission, normatively?
Horizontal transmission can create hugely harmful dynamics. If we are in a position to “open things up”, encouraging more horizontal transmission, we should think very carefully about this. Just because there is currently little evidence of predatory behavior (or virulent memes, etc) does not mean there won’t be more in the future, if the incentives tip in their favor.
However, we’re rarely in such a position. Most people/organizations have their own “immune system” which we would have to get around in order to “open things up” on a large scale.
In which case, how we would push to “open things up” would be to provide more mechanisms allowing for confidence in the robust goodness of interactions. Better reputation networks to enable bad actors to be filtered out. Better commitment mechanisms to ensure positive interactions. And other such things. Providing these will naturally “open things up” as people recognize that they can have safe interactions, allowing the fruits of horizontal transmission to be safely reaped.
However, I think this is far from providing a full answer to the question.
How should we think about open borders, or other mobility issues? Would the world be better in a significant sense if less people left their hometowns to work elsewhere? Or just the opposite?
How should we adjust the standard economic ideas about free international trade (IE: the standard argument that it should be a free-for-all)? Does the horizontal/vertical idea provide any significant argument against this?
To what degree should we really be careful of horizontally transmitted memes, and to what degree should we think that horizontally transmitting memes is bad? Jennifer RM seems to suggest a very significant degree of caution.