LWers would not be the only ones to try this tactic, though. There’s a whole movement based on producing more evangelical Christians.
Another tactic, better at changing ratios, would be to adopt existing children. This could propagate rationalists’ memes, though not genes, and it’s unpredictable how much those two things impact whether your children come out like you want (e.g. rationalist, or evangelical). And it assumes you want more rationalists compared to others, as opposed to just more rationalists, period.
LWers would not be the only ones to try this tactic, though. There’s a whole movement based on producing more evangelical Christians.
Well, yes. I did use Amish as the example of a group already using this tactic.
But rationality is about winning, so clearly if rationalists put their minds to it they would be better at it. ;)
Another tactic, better at changing ratios, would be to adopt existing children.
Hey it worked for Shakers. Until government said no more mass adoptions for you.
What is P that government agencies might try to interfere with organizations that helped rationalist families adopts lots of kids? What is the P that some group might lobby and warn parents against giving away their children to those creepy/Godless people?
This could propagate rationalists’ memes, though not genes, and it’s unpredictable how much those two things impact whether your children come out like you want (e.g. rationalist, or evangelical).
Obviously enough evangelicals stay evangelicals for their group to keep growing. Amish reject many modern comforts, something evangelicals don’t do, yet their losses aren’t as great as people seem to think they would be.
But basically to the first approximation kids are like their parents in temperament and ability. And in the environment that LWers are likley to raise their kids its basically settled that nurture plays only a negligible role when explaining the differences between biological and adopted kids in the same family. Now lets consider which set of people have the temperaments and abilities better on average suited to our needs? Set of biological parents of children legally up for adoption or set of LWers?
And it assumes you want more rationalists compared to others, as opposed to just more rationalists, period.
More rationalists period sounds pretty awesome to me. Human brains are pretty much dirt cheap supercomputers that can actually do incredible things when hooked up together.
Another tactic, better at changing ratios
I’m responding a bit lightly and teasingly, so I should clear up that I’m not claiming this is most probably the best strategy, I haven’t done much more than Fermi estimates, but so far its clear that its hard to deny it is a workable strategy.
And it keeps getting better and better looking the further away one puts his most likley singularity date, or even if one is sceptical of it ever occurring. But most LWers wouldn’t think of it straight away as a potential strategy. I think the reason is that this strategy is currently employed by people LWers don’t like, not only that it is a strategy that is low status in modern society. Perhaps we may be on average biased against it? No?
Again, my main point was this:
People underestimate just how much “dumb” replication can do to carry memes forward.
LWers would not be the only ones to try this tactic, though. There’s a whole movement based on producing more evangelical Christians.
Another tactic, better at changing ratios, would be to adopt existing children. This could propagate rationalists’ memes, though not genes, and it’s unpredictable how much those two things impact whether your children come out like you want (e.g. rationalist, or evangelical). And it assumes you want more rationalists compared to others, as opposed to just more rationalists, period.
Well, yes. I did use Amish as the example of a group already using this tactic. But rationality is about winning, so clearly if rationalists put their minds to it they would be better at it. ;)
Hey it worked for Shakers. Until government said no more mass adoptions for you.
What is P that government agencies might try to interfere with organizations that helped rationalist families adopts lots of kids? What is the P that some group might lobby and warn parents against giving away their children to those creepy/Godless people?
Obviously enough evangelicals stay evangelicals for their group to keep growing. Amish reject many modern comforts, something evangelicals don’t do, yet their losses aren’t as great as people seem to think they would be.
But basically to the first approximation kids are like their parents in temperament and ability. And in the environment that LWers are likley to raise their kids its basically settled that nurture plays only a negligible role when explaining the differences between biological and adopted kids in the same family. Now lets consider which set of people have the temperaments and abilities better on average suited to our needs? Set of biological parents of children legally up for adoption or set of LWers?
More rationalists period sounds pretty awesome to me. Human brains are pretty much dirt cheap supercomputers that can actually do incredible things when hooked up together.
I’m responding a bit lightly and teasingly, so I should clear up that I’m not claiming this is most probably the best strategy, I haven’t done much more than Fermi estimates, but so far its clear that its hard to deny it is a workable strategy.
And it keeps getting better and better looking the further away one puts his most likley singularity date, or even if one is sceptical of it ever occurring. But most LWers wouldn’t think of it straight away as a potential strategy. I think the reason is that this strategy is currently employed by people LWers don’t like, not only that it is a strategy that is low status in modern society. Perhaps we may be on average biased against it? No?
Again, my main point was this: