a) If advancedatheist was the leader of the US, and people would follow him, he probably could conquer or kill a billion through technological superiority without too much difficulty. Guerilla warfare might be less of a problem if, after an insurgent attack, all males of fighting age nearby had their first two fingers cut off, to act as both a deterent against future attacks and to stop them pulling triggers. Brutal? Yes, by modern standards, but very civilised compared to say, imperial Japan.
b) Are rationalist consequentialists meant to view empathy as anything other than ‘warm fuzzies’ which should be endorsed enough to stay sane, but otherwise ignored?
EDIT: Am I trying to say that empathy is wrong, or am I employing the Socratic method? Who knows?
If advancedatheist was the leader of the US, and people would follow him, he probably could conquer or kill a billion through technological superiority without too much difficulty.
That I would probably describe as a technofetishist fantasy set in some dystopian universe. Do you think it’s relevant to reality?
Well, I would say that if “relevant to reality” means an accurate map of a counterfactual, then yes, my “technofetishist fantasy set in some dystopian universe” is relevant to reality.
I think models such as “If I had caught the bus, then I would have got to the meeting on time” match reality, even though they are describing events that did not happen in reality.
I think we’ve seen some evidence lately that killing is easy, conquest is hard.
In addition to warm fuzzies, empathy is a shorthand for realizing that other people care about their own interests and are more likely to cooperate and less likely to defect if you have some care for their interest.
If we’re going into game theory here, then surely what you want to be signalling is not that you will cooperate, but that you will cooperate iff they cooperate?
Of course, ISIS have already defected, but that doesn’t generalise to all of the other billion people.
a) If advancedatheist was the leader of the US, and people would follow him, he probably could conquer or kill a billion through technological superiority without too much difficulty.
That basically assumes war is only about direct fighting strength but not about ideas. In practice winning hearts and minds is important to win wars.
The framing of a cultural war helps organisations like IS immensely in their recruiting efforts.
Speaking about how Islam is evil in public in a forum like this has a real effect on the conflict.
To be fair:
a) If advancedatheist was the leader of the US, and people would follow him, he probably could conquer or kill a billion through technological superiority without too much difficulty. Guerilla warfare might be less of a problem if, after an insurgent attack, all males of fighting age nearby had their first two fingers cut off, to act as both a deterent against future attacks and to stop them pulling triggers. Brutal? Yes, by modern standards, but very civilised compared to say, imperial Japan.
b) Are rationalist consequentialists meant to view empathy as anything other than ‘warm fuzzies’ which should be endorsed enough to stay sane, but otherwise ignored?
EDIT: Am I trying to say that empathy is wrong, or am I employing the Socratic method? Who knows?
That I would probably describe as a technofetishist fantasy set in some dystopian universe. Do you think it’s relevant to reality?
Well, unless any of us have the ability to substantially alter politics, none of this is relevant to reality.
You’re conflating whether you have an accurate map and whether you can actually travel.
Well, I would say that if “relevant to reality” means an accurate map of a counterfactual, then yes, my “technofetishist fantasy set in some dystopian universe” is relevant to reality.
LOL. All wrong maps are “accurate maps of a counterfactual” :-D
But not all “accurate maps of a counterfactual” are wrong.
None of them match reality.
I think models such as “If I had caught the bus, then I would have got to the meeting on time” match reality, even though they are describing events that did not happen in reality.
I think we’ve seen some evidence lately that killing is easy, conquest is hard.
In addition to warm fuzzies, empathy is a shorthand for realizing that other people care about their own interests and are more likely to cooperate and less likely to defect if you have some care for their interest.
If we’re going into game theory here, then surely what you want to be signalling is not that you will cooperate, but that you will cooperate iff they cooperate?
Of course, ISIS have already defected, but that doesn’t generalise to all of the other billion people.
You don’t want to have a habit of defecting first, and that’s what empathy can protect you from.
How very postrationalist of you :)
That basically assumes war is only about direct fighting strength but not about ideas. In practice winning hearts and minds is important to win wars.
The framing of a cultural war helps organisations like IS immensely in their recruiting efforts. Speaking about how Islam is evil in public in a forum like this has a real effect on the conflict.