So, important subquestions here are: which of these are something where, a) if the tools all existed, you would be ready right now to change your own behavior if only the tools and existed, and b) you feel like you have a network or a plan to get the relevant people on board?
It’s not that I can’t think of inadequate equilibria, it’s that I’m not sure whether there’s shovel-ready inadequate equilibria, where there’s 100 − 100,000 people who’d be excited to commit and are just waiting on the tool.
Often, when you’re launching a product, it’s important to have a niche target audience who is really excited for your product (even if eventually, upon hitting critical mass, the bulk of the value will go to people to are only moderately excited). This means you need to identify a clear, pressing need.
It may be that CollAction is a good enough tool, or might not. [context here for other readers]. If it didn’t exist (or isn’t good enough), I might be interested in putting $5,000 of my own money towards making such a project, and/or invest $5,000 worth of my time and social capital towards helping it launch. But if there isn’t a concrete target audience and concrete plan of action that seems worth at least $5,000, and instead it’s just “it seems like someone would probably use this”, I’m way less excited to put effort in.
(For example, for the voting or open access journals, you actually need the people who could change those journals or voting rules to already be basically on board)
(re voting – it may warm your heart to know there is already a collective action plan for removing the US Electoral College. One by one, some states are committing that IF 270 electoral-college-votes-worth-of-states join a contract, that all states in that contract will give all their electoral college votes to whoever wins the popular vote.
In voting thought especially on Israel (where i live). here there are 120 seats in the parliament, and there are many parties that you may vote for. when elections are over, each 1⁄120 of total votes gets the party a seat. But, if you don’t get enough votes for at least 4 seats, you don’t enter at all.
So, there’s is a party which is all about veganism, and it never passes entry threshold (although there are half a million vegans, which is 7-8 times enough for that). apart from it not being very well known, most people who know about don’t want to vote for it cause it’ll be a wasted vote.
I’d be happy to vote for it if i know that a 60,000 people commit to do the same.
Already a vegan, but it’s likely that i would be willing to make another diet change that seems reasonable if it has enough momentum.
I’m already not using most platforms which an exodus from will be popular, but neither am i on an alternative, so i might join the alternative part of the movement.
In my last house i had many fruit trees, would have been glad to share them.
Not a scientists.
Sure, I’d boycott anything that seems reasonable.
Was these the answers you were looking for in the first question?
Getting people on board requires campaigning, the day in which it won’t will be very happy indeed. I had a few ideas for how to build it into the system, but of course it won’t be enough. people who want to coordinate actions will have to put a lot of effort into it. not like in CollAction, where you might post an action, and forget about it for the rest of time.
Sense we’re talking about it in LessWrong, we should (at least currently) think of it as the target audience, asking what equilibria will the LW community want to change (either by itself or by campaigning), ready to put effort into it, and needing a coordinated action.
So, important subquestions here are: which of these are something where, a) if the tools all existed, you would be ready right now to change your own behavior if only the tools and existed, and b) you feel like you have a network or a plan to get the relevant people on board?
It’s not that I can’t think of inadequate equilibria, it’s that I’m not sure whether there’s shovel-ready inadequate equilibria, where there’s 100 − 100,000 people who’d be excited to commit and are just waiting on the tool.
Often, when you’re launching a product, it’s important to have a niche target audience who is really excited for your product (even if eventually, upon hitting critical mass, the bulk of the value will go to people to are only moderately excited). This means you need to identify a clear, pressing need.
It may be that CollAction is a good enough tool, or might not. [context here for other readers]. If it didn’t exist (or isn’t good enough), I might be interested in putting $5,000 of my own money towards making such a project, and/or invest $5,000 worth of my time and social capital towards helping it launch. But if there isn’t a concrete target audience and concrete plan of action that seems worth at least $5,000, and instead it’s just “it seems like someone would probably use this”, I’m way less excited to put effort in.
(For example, for the voting or open access journals, you actually need the people who could change those journals or voting rules to already be basically on board)
(re voting – it may warm your heart to know there is already a collective action plan for removing the US Electoral College. One by one, some states are committing that IF 270 electoral-college-votes-worth-of-states join a contract, that all states in that contract will give all their electoral college votes to whoever wins the popular vote.
See this article about Connecticut joining)
That’s really cool.
In voting thought especially on Israel (where i live). here there are 120 seats in the parliament, and there are many parties that you may vote for. when elections are over, each 1⁄120 of total votes gets the party a seat. But, if you don’t get enough votes for at least 4 seats, you don’t enter at all.
So, there’s is a party which is all about veganism, and it never passes entry threshold (although there are half a million vegans, which is 7-8 times enough for that). apart from it not being very well known, most people who know about don’t want to vote for it cause it’ll be a wasted vote.
I’d be happy to vote for it if i know that a 60,000 people commit to do the same.
Already a vegan, but it’s likely that i would be willing to make another diet change that seems reasonable if it has enough momentum.
I’m already not using most platforms which an exodus from will be popular, but neither am i on an alternative, so i might join the alternative part of the movement.
In my last house i had many fruit trees, would have been glad to share them.
Not a scientists.
Sure, I’d boycott anything that seems reasonable.
Was these the answers you were looking for in the first question?
Getting people on board requires campaigning, the day in which it won’t will be very happy indeed. I had a few ideas for how to build it into the system, but of course it won’t be enough. people who want to coordinate actions will have to put a lot of effort into it. not like in CollAction, where you might post an action, and forget about it for the rest of time.
Sense we’re talking about it in LessWrong, we should (at least currently) think of it as the target audience, asking what equilibria will the LW community want to change (either by itself or by campaigning), ready to put effort into it, and needing a coordinated action.