(Perhaps partly to blame here is the view—sadly all too common in rationalist circles—that nothing is meaningful or worth doing unless it somehow “saves the world”.
It seems tautologous to me that if thing A is objectively more important than thing B, then,
all other things being equal, you should be doing thing A. Mysticism isn’t a good fit for the standard rationalist framing of “everything is ultimately about efficiently achieving arbitrary goals”, but a lot of other things aren’t either, and the framing itself needs justification.
It seems tautologous to me that if thing A is objectively more important than thing B, then, all other things being equal, you should be doing thing A.
This certainly sounds true, except that a) there’s no such thing as “objectively more important”, and b) even if there were, who says that “saving the world” is “objectively more important” than everything else?
Mysticism isn’t a good fit for the standard rationalist framing of “everything is ultimately about efficiently achieving arbitrary goals”, but a lot of other things aren’t either, and the framing itself needs justification.
Well I certainly I agree with you there—I am not a big fan of that framing myself—but I don’t really understand whether you mean to be disagreeing with me, here, or what. Please clarify.
Saving the world certainly does seem to be an instrumentally convergent strategy for many human terminal values. Whatever you value, it’s hard to get more of it if the world doesn’t exist. This point should be fairly obvious, and I find myself puzzled as to why you seem to be ignoring it entirely.
Please note that you’ve removed the scare quotes from “saving the world”, and thus changed the meaning. This suggests several possible responses to your comment, all of which I endorse:
It seems likely, indeed, that saving the world would be the most important thing. What’s not clear is whether ‘“saving the world”’ (as it’s used in these sorts of contexts) is the same thing as ‘saving the world’. It seems to me that it’s not.
It’s not clear to me that the framework of “the world faces concrete threats X, Y, and Z; if we don’t ‘save the world’ from these threats, the world will be destroyed” is even sensible in every case where it’s applied. It seems to me that it’s often misapplied.
If the world needs saving, is it necessary that all of everyone’s activity boil down to saving it? Is that actually the best way to save the world? It seems to me that it is not.
It seems tautologous to me that if thing A is objectively more important than thing B, then, all other things being equal, you should be doing thing A. Mysticism isn’t a good fit for the standard rationalist framing of “everything is ultimately about efficiently achieving arbitrary goals”, but a lot of other things aren’t either, and the framing itself needs justification.
This certainly sounds true, except that a) there’s no such thing as “objectively more important”, and b) even if there were, who says that “saving the world” is “objectively more important” than everything else?
Well I certainly I agree with you there—I am not a big fan of that framing myself—but I don’t really understand whether you mean to be disagreeing with me, here, or what. Please clarify.
Saving the world certainly does seem to be an instrumentally convergent strategy for many human terminal values. Whatever you value, it’s hard to get more of it if the world doesn’t exist. This point should be fairly obvious, and I find myself puzzled as to why you seem to be ignoring it entirely.
Please note that you’ve removed the scare quotes from “saving the world”, and thus changed the meaning. This suggests several possible responses to your comment, all of which I endorse:
It seems likely, indeed, that saving the world would be the most important thing. What’s not clear is whether ‘“saving the world”’ (as it’s used in these sorts of contexts) is the same thing as ‘saving the world’. It seems to me that it’s not.
It’s not clear to me that the framework of “the world faces concrete threats X, Y, and Z; if we don’t ‘save the world’ from these threats, the world will be destroyed” is even sensible in every case where it’s applied. It seems to me that it’s often misapplied.
If the world needs saving, is it necessary that all of everyone’s activity boil down to saving it? Is that actually the best way to save the world? It seems to me that it is not.