= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alexandros comments on Single Point of Moral Failure - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (69)
That is a very good point. However, following that syllogism, assuming the massacres were indeed because of immature atheism, and knowing that there are no countries that have actually crossed the valley yet to reassure us that it is indeed finite and the next hill worthwhile, it would seem to cast a shadow of doubt on the whole project. Especially given the potential bodycount of any further experiments.
Also, I guess you could add a world-population percentage weighing to the slaughters, but I doubt the tally would come out different ...unless of course you are a bible literalist and count the Cain vs. Abel slaughter, single handedly wiping out 25% of the world's population :)
It's very hard to compare one example of genocide to another, particularly when you are comparing events that occurred in different eras. As the genocides of the 20th century proved, technology changes the game by making it easier to commit systematic mass murder. Therefore, comparing body counts or even the frequency of mass slaughter doesn't truly compare two ideologies.
Not to mention the simple expedient of having more people around.
As a percentage of the population, the Thirty-Years War, at least nominally between the Catholics and Protestants in 17th century Germany, was the bloodiest in history, with estimates of 20% to 25% of the population dying.
As far as I know, Pol Pot's government "wins" the democide contest, having killed off about 30% of the Cambodian population.
Valleys of rationality are never a reason to call off your own experiment.
If you have some reason to believe that you're in a valley (because they seem common or because someone trusted told you, perhaps), then simply act as if you hadn't entered the valley. Once you're convinced that you found your way out, you can use your new found knowledge.
If you don't think you're in a valley, then you'd think it's stupid to use your old decision making algorithms.
If you're talking about small influences on someone else considering progressing, then you just have to decide how much of your effort to use on warning of upcoming valleys. I suppose its possible that the person/organization in question can be persuaded to try/not try to become more rational, but not be persuaded about the reality/severity of valleys, but I don't think that's a common case.