True, but I don’t necessarily want to be inserted into it by mandate
Counterfactually, yes you do! I think the fact that it’s such an unpleasant conclusion is evidence that the initial assumption—tortureworld being highter utility—is flawed.
I hope you are right.
I mean, how could it be that human sexuality is bound to a specific kind of adversarial relationship in heterosexuals, but otherwise encompasses homosexuals, asexuals, dragon/car sex fetishists, master/slave dynamics, power bottoms...
this strikes me as the difference between pessimists and optimists. You look at the world compared to what has been, I look at it compared to what I think it optimally should be. Depression and creativity ARE linked after all ;)
I think perhaps you have mistaken me! What I mean is—now is better than the past, therefore “Anyone with the ability to make the world better almost by definition has a vested stake in the current fucked up one” either isn’t historically true, or things are getting better anyway.
Anyway I like to spend my time being happy and creative, so I reject your latest conclusion as well >;D
In exploring people’s preferences I have discovered that I am weird. I don’t think positive utility cancels out negative utility.
I mean, how could it be that human sexuality is bound to a specific kind of adversarial relationship
I’ve recently been made aware of the fact that it is more likely that it is a specific kind of middle class farmer culture (in the hansonian sense) sexual norm that I am objecting to, not a universal one.
so I reject your latest conclusion as well
it isn’t my conclusion, though I’m too lazy to dig up the citations right now.
As for things getting better despite everyone fighting against it, yes, that is basically what I believe. Tech innovation has been and continues to be sharply limited by crappy social conditions.
Counterfactually, yes you do! I think the fact that it’s such an unpleasant conclusion is evidence that the initial assumption—tortureworld being highter utility—is flawed.
I mean, how could it be that human sexuality is bound to a specific kind of adversarial relationship in heterosexuals, but otherwise encompasses homosexuals, asexuals, dragon/car sex fetishists, master/slave dynamics, power bottoms...
I think perhaps you have mistaken me! What I mean is—now is better than the past, therefore “Anyone with the ability to make the world better almost by definition has a vested stake in the current fucked up one” either isn’t historically true, or things are getting better anyway.
Anyway I like to spend my time being happy and creative, so I reject your latest conclusion as well >;D
In exploring people’s preferences I have discovered that I am weird. I don’t think positive utility cancels out negative utility.
I’ve recently been made aware of the fact that it is more likely that it is a specific kind of middle class farmer culture (in the hansonian sense) sexual norm that I am objecting to, not a universal one.
it isn’t my conclusion, though I’m too lazy to dig up the citations right now.
As for things getting better despite everyone fighting against it, yes, that is basically what I believe. Tech innovation has been and continues to be sharply limited by crappy social conditions.
It would seem that you are using a different definition of the word “utility” than the one which is used in technical game theoretical analysis.
yes this is true.
Well, suffice to say I agree that utility models are pretty terrible for modeling people.
The depression / creativity thing I have heard before, and is possibly quite true, though luckily it’s not a hard-and-fast rule.