First, an obligatory reminder that the original post is not an injunction against talking politics, it is against politicizing a non-political discussion.
Do you think that the very same idea of rationality can be the subject of existential risk?
Second, let’s imagine the future where the fundamental/radical/militant Islam won. Specifically, the Salafi version of Sunni Islam. Unconditionally. Everyone is muslim, no other religion is allowed. Everyone not originally muslim is either converted or killed. What’s the worst that can happen to “rationality” in this case?
Clearly this would not affect instrumental rationality much, as striving to succeed is what people do. Also clearly, anything associated with Jews would be purged. This forum would be one of many casualties, but probably would not even register on the scale of destruction. Now, if you look back into history, this happened before, multiple times in various places. Only the dominant religion and the outgroup are different. Almost every time it was a setback, but only a temporary one. Science survived and eventually prospered. The dominant religious movement mellowed, then eventually splintered and crumbled, freeing the epistemic rationality to develop once more. I see no reason that this would be different the next time around.
What do Neoreactionaries think of the Islamic State?
I would imagine they would reply with their usual metaphors, about the Cathedral, Cthulhu’s swimming habits and so on.
Clearly this would not affect instrumental rationality much, as striving to succeed is what people do.
And yet, if the theory of evolution is banned, you’re probably not going to succeed at biology. If you are a very intelligent person in certain cultures you might succeed at memorising the entirety of the holy scriptures, which probably won’t leave much time for science.
Almost every time it was a setback, but only a temporary one.
I disagree that this happening in the future would only be a temporary setback. The takeover of Islam would not be purely demographic and bloodless. Even if the NRxers are right, and the western world is becoming too weak to defend itself, the east would not go down without a fight. The world burns, and as autonomous killing machines stalk the radioactive ruins of cities the survivors start cutting corners on safety in order to desperately hack together some sort of superintelligence before they are overrun.
Assuming humanity survives the nukes and genetically engineered bioweapons or even, at a stretch, nanoweapons, could advanced technology create a panopticon surveillance society? A dystopia that can never be recovered from? Could people read the papers on lie detection and neural corrlates of beliefs, put people inside advanced futuristic brain scanners, and simply kill everyone who’s thoughts betray them?
We’ve never seen humanity recover from a global singleton even without advanced technology.
Of course, we would all be dead, whether from war or from old age when the singularity is delayed.
I would imagine they would reply with their usual metaphors, about the Cathedral, Cthulhu’s swimming habits and so on.
“What do rationalists think of X?”
“Oh, I imagine they reply with their usual talk about cognitive biases, negotiating with beings that don’t exist, and so on”
Simply dismissing the outgroup isn’t exactly the most rational form of discussion.
The world burns, and as autonomous killing machines stalk the radioactive ruins of cities the survivors start cutting corners on safety in order to desperately hack together some sort of superintelligence before they are overrun.
You mean a time machine to send Arnold Schwarzenegger back to the past, right? X-D
We’ve never seen humanity recover from a global singleton
You mean a time machine to send Arnold Schwarzenegger back to the past, right? X-D
I actually mean sticking together the technology for driverless cars, image recognition and ballistics. The first generation have already been built.
I do hope Arnie becomes president in time for the AI debate to enter politics.
“Mr President, the expert opinion is that reliquishment is impossible. There are too many commercial uses for proto-AI, there is no hard line between mathematics and AI, and finally it is simply not possible to ban computers nor to monitor all code written on them”
“So… what you are saying is that judgement day is inevitable?”
Have you seen a global singleton to start with?
Nope. But shminux was saying that we’ve seen humanity recover from local dytopias, and I was pointing out that this line of argument doesn’t hold for global singletons.
Also clearly, anything associated with Jews would be purged
This is not obvious to me, though I would expect that all Jews will either have to convert or be killed. Or possibly just killed—I don’t think all the people in minority religions who’ve been killed by IS have been given a chance to convert.
I think LW being default atheist would be enough to get it erased.
I would expect that all Jews will either have to convert or be killed
Nope. Jews and Christians are “people of the book” and they don’t have to convert. If you accept the authority of Islam and are happy to live your life as a second-class person, you can remain a Jew or a Christian.
Of course, that is not the case for everyone else (atheists, pagans, Hindus, all “deviant” Islamic sects, etc.).
First, an obligatory reminder that the original post is not an injunction against talking politics, it is against politicizing a non-political discussion.
Second, let’s imagine the future where the fundamental/radical/militant Islam won. Specifically, the Salafi version of Sunni Islam. Unconditionally. Everyone is muslim, no other religion is allowed. Everyone not originally muslim is either converted or killed. What’s the worst that can happen to “rationality” in this case?
Clearly this would not affect instrumental rationality much, as striving to succeed is what people do. Also clearly, anything associated with Jews would be purged. This forum would be one of many casualties, but probably would not even register on the scale of destruction. Now, if you look back into history, this happened before, multiple times in various places. Only the dominant religion and the outgroup are different. Almost every time it was a setback, but only a temporary one. Science survived and eventually prospered. The dominant religious movement mellowed, then eventually splintered and crumbled, freeing the epistemic rationality to develop once more. I see no reason that this would be different the next time around.
I would imagine they would reply with their usual metaphors, about the Cathedral, Cthulhu’s swimming habits and so on.
And yet, if the theory of evolution is banned, you’re probably not going to succeed at biology. If you are a very intelligent person in certain cultures you might succeed at memorising the entirety of the holy scriptures, which probably won’t leave much time for science.
I disagree that this happening in the future would only be a temporary setback. The takeover of Islam would not be purely demographic and bloodless. Even if the NRxers are right, and the western world is becoming too weak to defend itself, the east would not go down without a fight. The world burns, and as autonomous killing machines stalk the radioactive ruins of cities the survivors start cutting corners on safety in order to desperately hack together some sort of superintelligence before they are overrun.
Assuming humanity survives the nukes and genetically engineered bioweapons or even, at a stretch, nanoweapons, could advanced technology create a panopticon surveillance society? A dystopia that can never be recovered from? Could people read the papers on lie detection and neural corrlates of beliefs, put people inside advanced futuristic brain scanners, and simply kill everyone who’s thoughts betray them?
We’ve never seen humanity recover from a global singleton even without advanced technology.
Of course, we would all be dead, whether from war or from old age when the singularity is delayed.
“What do rationalists think of X?”
“Oh, I imagine they reply with their usual talk about cognitive biases, negotiating with beings that don’t exist, and so on”
Simply dismissing the outgroup isn’t exactly the most rational form of discussion.
You mean a time machine to send Arnold Schwarzenegger back to the past, right? X-D
Have you seen a global singleton to start with?
I actually mean sticking together the technology for driverless cars, image recognition and ballistics. The first generation have already been built.
I do hope Arnie becomes president in time for the AI debate to enter politics.
“Mr President, the expert opinion is that reliquishment is impossible. There are too many commercial uses for proto-AI, there is no hard line between mathematics and AI, and finally it is simply not possible to ban computers nor to monitor all code written on them”
“So… what you are saying is that judgement day is inevitable?”
Nope. But shminux was saying that we’ve seen humanity recover from local dytopias, and I was pointing out that this line of argument doesn’t hold for global singletons.
This is not obvious to me, though I would expect that all Jews will either have to convert or be killed. Or possibly just killed—I don’t think all the people in minority religions who’ve been killed by IS have been given a chance to convert.
I think LW being default atheist would be enough to get it erased.
Nope. Jews and Christians are “people of the book” and they don’t have to convert. If you accept the authority of Islam and are happy to live your life as a second-class person, you can remain a Jew or a Christian.
Of course, that is not the case for everyone else (atheists, pagans, Hindus, all “deviant” Islamic sects, etc.).