I looked at it considering that the coup attempt never started, and figured that he was claiming that someone dropped a tip and stopped it.
I don’t know if ~80 people could complete a coup; it would seem that if the military is loyal to the existing regime, it would fail, and if the military was disloyal no mercenaries are needed.
I’m not sure how to interpret Eliezer’s “unsung humanitarian heroes” comment other than as an endorsement of the coup attempt.
Or maybe I’m just missing some sarcasm.
I’ll take option B, in the form of reductio ad absurdum, on the claim that a human life is worth 100 barrels of oil.
I was baffled by that too. They attempted to overthrow a nasty dictator . . . but they did it for the oil money they’d get from the new government.
I believe your sarcasm detector may be improperly calibrated.
I believe Eliezer is more concerned with whether the coup would have led to an increase in utility than the motives of the plotters.
I looked at it considering that the coup attempt never started, and figured that he was claiming that someone dropped a tip and stopped it.
I don’t know if ~80 people could complete a coup; it would seem that if the military is loyal to the existing regime, it would fail, and if the military was disloyal no mercenaries are needed.