Vladimir_Golovin comments on Science vs. art - Less Wrong

4 Post author: PhilGoetz 16 March 2009 03:48PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (34)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Vladimir_Golovin 16 March 2009 08:33:31PM *  2 points [-]

And which would you rather be - a great scientist, or a great artist of some type? (Pretend that great scientists and great artists are equally well-paid and sexually attractive.)

In a world where war, death and suffering are dealt with for good, I'd be an artist (Edit: who, nevertheless, is intrinsically interested in some scientific problems such as abiogenesis, origin of sexual reproduction, life based on non-DNA replication, Fermi paradox, simulation hypothesis etc.)

In today's world, I'd be a scientist -- even if scientists had less money and sexiness than artists.

Edit: Haven't noticed this: "Also, ignore the possibility that your scientific work can make a safe Singularity. That would be science as instrumental value. I'm asking about science vs. art as intrinsic values." In my reply above, I chose science because it can fix the world, so it looks like I was going for its instrumental value.