I don't have a child and I'm only really close with one family member, but if I had the opportunity to destroy an organization that kills hundreds of thousand of people and probably will kill a whole lot more if left unchecked, then I'd probably do my best no matter how many family members I lose, or I myself die. While fighting them I'd also be doing my best to make sure the system that will replace them will help people instead of kill them.
It's kind of like how I see today's society. We're almost all taught that success is to earn money; and that money is created out of nothing and has a value controlled by the corporations who have the most of it. Because they have so much money, they can control much of the world. Many politicians they have close ties to are funded and become a congressman or even President. They control the law and they control the industry.
They don't like people who spread this knowledge, but they're not much of a threat yet as the great majority do as they're taught and condemn them as crazy conspiracy theorists without getting any information on the topic or giving it a single thought. More of a threat are political leaders who want what is best for their people and start using the country's resources for them. They get bribed, threatened and scandalized or killed--in that order--if they're unwilling to be swayed.
Nowadays they just don't come to power. In countries where such leaders are elected by other politicians they are lumped together with the crazy conspiracy theorists. In countries where the people elect them, we get people like Aung San Suu Kyi who are isolated and ignored for 20 years while the world twirls its thumbs like they can't do anything.
I'd risk my life to change this system, which is what I believe people will eventually have to do if there is to be any change. It's the reason we have competition over resources we can make abundant with our technology; war, poverty, starvation etcetera are all results of the system, which thrives on scarcity, not abundance. That's why we use oil and diamonds for example, because they're scarce and therefore can be sold at a high price.
You know, this model of reality is really not true-- but before you cut me off as one of the great majority that does as it's taught, I'd like to point out that I disagree for reasons unlike those that you probably encounter most of the time. I don't think that reality is better than what you claim, and I'm not going to say that you're nuts. Unfortunately, I think that reality is worse than what you just said. Please take the time to read my post and hear me out, because I feel that this is important.
There is no conspiracy. There is no system, or at least ...
This is Part 2 of the discussion of Alicorn's Twilight fanfic Luminosity.
LATE BREAKING EDIT: Part 3 exists now, so new comment threads should be started there rather than here.
In the vein of the Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion threads this is the place to discuss anything relating to Alicorn's Twilight fanfic Luminosity. The fanfic is also archived on Alicorn's own website.
Here is Part 1 of the discussion. Previous discussion is hidden so deeply within the first Methods of Rationality thread that it's difficult to find even if you already know it exists.
Similar to how Eliezer's fanfic popularizes material from his sequences Alicorn is using the insights from her Luminosity sequence.
The fic is really really good but there is a twist part way through that makes the fic even more worth reading than it already was, but that makes it hard to talk about because to even ask if someone is twist-aware with any specific hints is difficult. The twist is in the latter half of the story. If you are certainly not post-twist and want to save the surprise, then you should stop reading here and fall back to Part 1 discussion or to the fic itself.
If you think you're pretty sure you are post-twist and are safe to read the rest of this, try reading this rot13'ed hint and see if what you've read matches this high level description of the twist...
Rqjneq unf qvfpbirerq gur frperg gung Vfnoryyn jnf xrrcvat sebz uvz "sbe uvf bja tbbq" bhg bs srne bs Neb ernqvat Rqjneq'f zvaq. Va gur nsgrezngu, fbzrguvat unf punatrq nobhg gurve eryngvbafuvc gung znl unir pnhfrq lbh gb pel sbe n juvyr, naq juvpu znlor urycf gb rzbgvbanyyl qevir ubzr gur pbzovarq zrffntr bs YJ'f negvpyrf nobhg "fbzrguvat gb cebgrpg" naq "ernfba nf n zrzrgvp vzzhar qvfbeqre" naq gur jnl gurl pna fvzhygnarbhfyl nccyl gb crbcyr jub unir abguvat zber va gur jbeyq guna fbzr fvatyr crefba jub gurl ybir.
If the answer to the hint is obvious, then just to be sure that there is not a double illusion of transparency at work, here is the cutoff point spelled out explicitly:
Gur phgbss cbvag sbe cbfgvat urer vf gung lbh unir ernq hc gb puncgre svsgl svir (va gur snasvpgvba irefvba) be puncgre gjragl rvtug ba Nyvpbea'f jrofvgr jurer Rqjneq jnf cebonoyl vapvarengrq, Vfnoryyn fheivirf na nggrzcgrq vapvarengvba, naq fur unf gb ortha gb jbex bhg jung gb qb jvgu gur jerpxntr bs gur erfg bs ure "rgreany" yvsr.