. I guess this is because the ethics seem obvious to me: of course we should prevent people from developing a “supervirus” or whatever, just as we try to prevent people from developing nuclear arms or chemical weapons.
Of course the ethics are obvious. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. 200 years ago burning all those fossil fuels to power steam engines sounded like a really great idea.
If you simply try to solve problems created by people adopting technology by throwing more technology at it, that’s dangerous.
The wise way is to understand the problem you are facing and do specific intervention that you believe to help. CFAR style rationality training might sound less impressive then changing around peoples neurology but it might be an approach with a lot less ugly side effects.
CFAR style rationality training might seem less technological to you. That’s actually a good thing because it makes it easier to understand the effects.
The fact that solar itself is getting less expensive is great, but unfortunately the changing over from fossil fuels to solar (e.g. phasing out old power plants and building brand new ones) is still incredibly expensive.
It depends on what issue you want to address. Given how things are going technology involves in a way where I don’t think we have to fear that we will have no energy when coal runs out. There plenty of coal around and green energy evolves fast enough for that task.
On the other hand we don’t want to turn that coal. I want to eat tuna that’s not full of mercury and there already a recommendation from the European Food Safety Authority against eating tuna every day because there so much mercury in it. I want less people getting killed via fossil fuel emissions. I also want to have less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
is still incredibly expensive.
If you want to do policy that pays off in 50 years looking at how things are at the moment narrows your field of vision too much.
If solar continues it’s price development and is 1⁄8 as cheap in 21 years you won’t need government subsidies to get people to prefer solar over coal. With another 30 years of deployment we might not burn any coal in 50 years.
disheartening roadblocks in the way (utility companies, lack of government will, etc.).
If you think lack of government will or utility companies are the core problem, why focus on changing human neurology? Addressing politics directly is more straightforward.
When it comes to solar power it might also be that nobody will use any solar panels in 50 years because Craig Venter’s algae are just a better energy source. Betting to much on single cards is never good.
CFAR style rationality training might sound less impressive then changing around peoples neurology but it might be an approach with a lot less ugly side effects.
It’s a start, and potentially fewer side effects is always good, but think of it this way: who’s going to gravitate towards rationality training? I would bet people who are already more rational than not (because it’s irrational not to want to be more rational). Since participants are self-selected, a massive part of the population isn’t going to bother with that stuff. There are similar issues with genetic and neurological modifications (e.g. they’ll be expensive, at least initially, and therefore restricted to a small pool of wealthy people), but given the advantages over things like CFAR I’ve already mentioned, it seems like it’d be worth it...
I have another issue with CFAR in particular that I’m reluctant to mention here for fear of causing a shit-storm, but since it’s buried in this thread, hopefully it’ll be okay. Admittedly, I only looked at their website rather than actually attending a workshop, but it seems kind of creepy and culty—rather reminiscent of Landmark, for reasons not the least of which is the fact that it’s ludicrously, prohibitively expensive (yes, I know they have “fellowships,” but surely not that many. And you have to use and pay for their lodgings? wtf?). It’s suggestive of mind control in the brainwashing sense rather than rationality. (Frankly, I find that this forum can get that way too, complete with shaming thought-stopping techniques (e.g. “That’s irrational!”). Do you (or anyone else) have any evidence to the contrary? (I know this is a little off-topic from my question—I could potentially create a workshop that I don’t find culty—but since CFAR is currently what’s out there, I figure it’s relevant enough.)
Given how things are going technology involves in a way where I don’t think we have to fear that we will have no energy when coal runs out. There plenty of coal around and green energy evolves fast enough for that task.
You could be right, but I think that’s rather optimistic. This blog post speaks to the problems behind this argument pretty well, I think. Its basic gist is that the amount of energy it will take to build sufficient renewable energy systems demands sacrificing a portion of the economy as is, to a point that no politician (let alone the free market) is going to support.
This brings me to your next point about addressing politics instead of neurology. Have you ever tried to get anything changed politically...? I’ve been involved in a couple of movements, and my god is it discouraging. You may as well try to knock a brick wall down with a feather. It basically seems that humanity is just going to be the way it is until it is changed on a fundamental level. Yes, I know society has changed in many ways already, but there are many undesirable traits that seem pretty constant, particularly war and inequality.
As for solar as opposed to other technologies, I am a bit torn as to whether it might be better to work on developing technologies rather than whatever seems most practical now. Fusion, for instance, if it’s actually possible, would be incredible. I guess I feel that working on whatever’s practical now is better for me, personally, to expend energy on since everything else is so speculative. Sort of like triage.
Of course the ethics are obvious. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. 200 years ago burning all those fossil fuels to power steam engines sounded like a really great idea.
If you simply try to solve problems created by people adopting technology by throwing more technology at it, that’s dangerous.
The wise way is to understand the problem you are facing and do specific intervention that you believe to help. CFAR style rationality training might sound less impressive then changing around peoples neurology but it might be an approach with a lot less ugly side effects.
CFAR style rationality training might seem less technological to you. That’s actually a good thing because it makes it easier to understand the effects.
It depends on what issue you want to address. Given how things are going technology involves in a way where I don’t think we have to fear that we will have no energy when coal runs out. There plenty of coal around and green energy evolves fast enough for that task.
On the other hand we don’t want to turn that coal. I want to eat tuna that’s not full of mercury and there already a recommendation from the European Food Safety Authority against eating tuna every day because there so much mercury in it. I want less people getting killed via fossil fuel emissions. I also want to have less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
If you want to do policy that pays off in 50 years looking at how things are at the moment narrows your field of vision too much.
If solar continues it’s price development and is 1⁄8 as cheap in 21 years you won’t need government subsidies to get people to prefer solar over coal. With another 30 years of deployment we might not burn any coal in 50 years.
If you think lack of government will or utility companies are the core problem, why focus on changing human neurology? Addressing politics directly is more straightforward.
When it comes to solar power it might also be that nobody will use any solar panels in 50 years because Craig Venter’s algae are just a better energy source. Betting to much on single cards is never good.
It’s a start, and potentially fewer side effects is always good, but think of it this way: who’s going to gravitate towards rationality training? I would bet people who are already more rational than not (because it’s irrational not to want to be more rational). Since participants are self-selected, a massive part of the population isn’t going to bother with that stuff. There are similar issues with genetic and neurological modifications (e.g. they’ll be expensive, at least initially, and therefore restricted to a small pool of wealthy people), but given the advantages over things like CFAR I’ve already mentioned, it seems like it’d be worth it...
I have another issue with CFAR in particular that I’m reluctant to mention here for fear of causing a shit-storm, but since it’s buried in this thread, hopefully it’ll be okay. Admittedly, I only looked at their website rather than actually attending a workshop, but it seems kind of creepy and culty—rather reminiscent of Landmark, for reasons not the least of which is the fact that it’s ludicrously, prohibitively expensive (yes, I know they have “fellowships,” but surely not that many. And you have to use and pay for their lodgings? wtf?). It’s suggestive of mind control in the brainwashing sense rather than rationality. (Frankly, I find that this forum can get that way too, complete with shaming thought-stopping techniques (e.g. “That’s irrational!”). Do you (or anyone else) have any evidence to the contrary? (I know this is a little off-topic from my question—I could potentially create a workshop that I don’t find culty—but since CFAR is currently what’s out there, I figure it’s relevant enough.)
You could be right, but I think that’s rather optimistic. This blog post speaks to the problems behind this argument pretty well, I think. Its basic gist is that the amount of energy it will take to build sufficient renewable energy systems demands sacrificing a portion of the economy as is, to a point that no politician (let alone the free market) is going to support.
This brings me to your next point about addressing politics instead of neurology. Have you ever tried to get anything changed politically...? I’ve been involved in a couple of movements, and my god is it discouraging. You may as well try to knock a brick wall down with a feather. It basically seems that humanity is just going to be the way it is until it is changed on a fundamental level. Yes, I know society has changed in many ways already, but there are many undesirable traits that seem pretty constant, particularly war and inequality.
As for solar as opposed to other technologies, I am a bit torn as to whether it might be better to work on developing technologies rather than whatever seems most practical now. Fusion, for instance, if it’s actually possible, would be incredible. I guess I feel that working on whatever’s practical now is better for me, personally, to expend energy on since everything else is so speculative. Sort of like triage.