= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dbc comments on Bayesians vs. Barbarians - 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 (270)
I found this post very disturbing, so I thought for a bit about why. It reads very much like some kind of SF dystopia, and indeed if it were necessary to agree to this lottery to be part of the hypothetical rationalist community/country, then I wouldn't wish to be a part of it. One of my core values is liberty - that means the ability of each individual to make his or her own decisions and live his or her life accordingly (so long as it's not impeding anyone else's right to do the same). No government should have the right to compel its citizens to become soldiers, and that's what it would become, after the first generation, unless you're going to choose to exile anyone who reaches adulthood there and then opts out.
Offering financial incentives for becoming a soldier, as has already been discussed in the comments, seems a fairer idea. Consider also that the more objectively evil the Evil Barbarians are, the more people will independently decide that fighting is the better decision. If not enough people support your war, maybe that in itself is a sign that it's not a good idea. If most of the rationalists would rather lose than fight, that tells you something.
It's quite difficult to know the right tone of response to take here - the Evil Barbarians are obviously pure thought-experiment, but presumably most of us would view a rationalist country as a good thing. Not if it made decisions like this, though. Sacrificing the individual for the collective isn't always irrational, but it needs to be the individual who makes that choice based on his or her own values, not due to some perceived social contact. Otherwise you might as well be sacrificed to make more paperclips.
If it was intended as pure metaphor, it's a disquieting one.
How do you feel about desertion?
It's psychologically understandable, but morally wrong, provided the deserter entered into an uncoerced agreement with the organization he or she is deserting. If you know the terms before you sign up, you shouldn't renege on them.
In cases of coercion or force (e.g. the draft) desertion is quite justified.
The topic of this article is how rational agents should solve a particular tragedy of the commons. Certainly, a common moral code is one solution to this problem: an army will have no deserters if each soldier morally refuses to desert. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to think that common morality is the best, or perhaps only solution.
I think Eliezer is more interested in situations where this solution is impractical. Perhaps the rationalists are a society composed of people with vastly differing moral codes, but even in this case, they should still be capable of agreeing to coordinate, even if that means giving up things that they individually value.
Yes, I see a common moral framework as a better solution, and I would also assert that a group needs at least a rudimentary version of such a framework in order to maintain cohesion. I assumed that was the case here.
The rational solution to the tragedy of the commons is indeed worth discussing. However, in this case the principle behind the parable was obscured due to its rather objectionable content. I focused on the specifics as they remained more fixed in my mind after reading than the underlying principle. A less controversial example such as advertising or over-grazing would have prevented that outcome.
I know that's a personal preference, though, and it seems to be a habit of Eliezer's to choose extreme examples on occasion - I ran into the same problem with Three Worlds Collide. It's an aspect of his otherwise very valuable writing that I find detracts from, rather than illuminates the points he's making. I recognize that others may disagree.
With that in mind, I'm happy to close this line of discussion on the grounds that it's veering off-topic for this thread.