I think LessWrong has had a recurring theme of “bioethics sucks.” I very much liked the sanity check of “what, is the thing that people are vaguely saying sucks exactly?”
I appreciated the methodology of grabbing a bunch of random papers, to get a sense of the breadth of the field. I also liked the followup of checking what the field was like a decade+ ago. I think that doing a bunch of research gruntwork is still underrewarded at LessWrong and part of the reason I’m curating this is to “subsidize” that a bit.
Meanwhile, it seemed from the comments that a number of people updated in interesting ways.
Finally, though, I appreciate gwern’s followup comment that this isn’t really the most important thing about bioethics as a field. i.e. what sort of decisions end up getting made when humanity faces a crisis is more important than what papers get written.
Curated.
I think LessWrong has had a recurring theme of “bioethics sucks.” I very much liked the sanity check of “what, is the thing that people are vaguely saying sucks exactly?”
I appreciated the methodology of grabbing a bunch of random papers, to get a sense of the breadth of the field. I also liked the followup of checking what the field was like a decade+ ago. I think that doing a bunch of research gruntwork is still underrewarded at LessWrong and part of the reason I’m curating this is to “subsidize” that a bit.
Meanwhile, it seemed from the comments that a number of people updated in interesting ways.
Finally, though, I appreciate gwern’s followup comment that this isn’t really the most important thing about bioethics as a field. i.e. what sort of decisions end up getting made when humanity faces a crisis is more important than what papers get written.