Variations on this post go up or come up in comments every so often. The last time I can recall, the notion was put in a mildly (very mildly) more shit-stirring way and the post got downvoted into oblivion. I suggest letting karma be your guide.
There are a very few injunctions in the human art of rationality that have no ifs, ands, buts, or escape clauses. This is one of them. Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Never. Never ever never for ever.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to discuss this, not only because it may give people ideas, but also because there is only one possible side to the argument that can really be mentioned.
I was worried about that. Do you suggest I edit or take the entire post down?
Edit: For example by focusing on the comparison between ‘reducing extreme poverty’ and ‘reducing xrisk’.
2nd Edit: I removed the ‘identifiable targets’, hopefully that will help.
Variations on this post go up or come up in comments every so often. The last time I can recall, the notion was put in a mildly (very mildly) more shit-stirring way and the post got downvoted into oblivion. I suggest letting karma be your guide.
-- HPMoR: 82
Or to put it another way: Ends Don’t Justify Means (Among Humans)
Related:
-- Uncritical Supercriticality