The long run... has to stop somewhere, if you want to make an evaluation. Otherwise, like Dr. Manhattan said, there's no such thing as "in the end". Societies face very different challenges depending on the era they are in, and what is good at one time may not be good at another. However, * if you think in terms of humanity as a whole, rather than any group in particular, then * a state of sustainability and optimal distribution of tasks and wealth for maximal stable formidability-happiness compromise * (being formidable is a source of happiness in itself, as well as a source of sources of happiness, but is, by itself, insufficient to achieve it: in economic terms, think of Stalin's Quinquennial plans and the complete emphasis on developing production goods and military might over consumption products and end-user services), * would, I *think, require all the things I said and more.

Of course, that entire statement depends on what we define as "happiness" and "formidability"... and how much weight you give to each aspect of it

Happiness as achievement of will-to-power: heavily dependent on the feelings of growing stronger and achieving great things and overcoming difficulties and challenges. One way of achieving this in the maximum capacity for the maximum number of people requires that the rules be as fair as possible. "Fair?" Well: feelings of being given handouts spoil one's sense of achievement, but victories that are too easy do that too, so one may want to handicap oneself, increase the difficulty of a course and/or give unworthy adversaries a head start. * Field-leveling rules, such that, ideally, everyone starts out with the exact same chances of success save for genetic difference, would be an extension to that, as would rules that enforce that you won't be discriminated over factors you have no control of and that do not affect your social value, such as race or sexual preference. * No-retroactivity is another aspect of "keeping things fair", as are * clear and accessible rules, * transparent rules-making, and * not allowing the rule-making to fall in the hand of a particular set of players that would spoil the fun of the game by giving themselves too many advantages: hence: "democracy" * helping newbies out (giving rights to children), free, top-quality public education for everyone, and other forms of avoiding the Original Position Fallacy by rule-writing while wearing the Veil Of Ignorance.

Maybe what you meant by

What is wrong is the human tendency to assume that things that we like also make us more capable or are the best course of action in the long run.

was "Happiness-as-contentment", a numb, pleasant stupor... The happiness of a full stomach and a warm bath. If that alone is what is sought, then societies like Huxley's Brave New World and their narcotic soma would work just fine. But the fact that people consistently find Brave New World horrifying could be seen as evidence that this type of happiness is not the one with the most weight, and/or is insufficient or even counter-productive in the absence of the other kinds. But it is necessary: humans need to rest on occasion, simmer down, regenerate. In order to properly enjoy the game, one must be able to take certain things for granted, to only need to worry about a limited amount of sources of conflict. Hence why "social welfare", "full public health insurance", and so-on, that protect players even after they have left the "newbie/tutorial stage" and entered the game with the only difference between them being their quality as players.

Then there's Happiness As Sensuous Stimulation: the other side of "fun", the easy pleasures, the instant gratification, the local maxima, the happiness that doesn't create or achieve, conserve or rebuild, but destroys and consumes and burns. It's the antithesis of Formidability-building (even Resting can be justified as "formidability-consolidating"). But it appears that it's a necessary spice for the recipe of happiness...

And there's also Happiness As Social Status: feeling loved, feeling important, feeling helpful, feeling helped, feeling that you matter, feeling that you are liked, needed even.... Being these things is important for formidability, but why is it so important to most people's happiness that they feel they are these things, even more so than being them (this is, according to recent research which I'd rather not have to look up, the main reason clients pay for prostitutes: they want to feel feminine if they are women, masculine if they are men, they want to feel loved and young and powerful and wanted, and even though they know those feelings to be based on fiction, they are still ready to expend an enormous amount of effort/resources/power to purchase that fictional ersatz).

In order to achieve all four forms of happiness (there's probably more, but I haven't thought of them yet :P) to the fullest combined extent for the sum of all humans, the intellectual and material output of humanity as a whole, its material enabling of the freedoms and powers to achieve these results, then human groups barriers, the very idea of Blue VS Red, Us versus Them, "looking out for our own and screw everyone else", must go die in a fire, as a sheer matter of augmenting everyone's labour's marginal utility by cooperation and specialization, and of eliminating the grotesque overhead in negative-sum games such as arms-racing and crab-bucketing.

This would also apply to everyday individuals: Tall Poppy Syndrome is another error that should be confined to the vaults of history. Will-to-power isn't just about overcoming others, it's about overcoming oneself and nature (one could say they are the same thing): the game need not, should not be zero-sum, and should be set up in such a way that "the best outcome for everyone on the whole" is where the Nash Equilibrium rests.

Hm. I'd think there's material here for a top-level post, but I somehow feel like I'm just regurgitating the Fun Theory Sequence with a Socialist flavor... Do you think I've said anything new or worthwhile here?

I think it is where I first came upon the random walk challenge to allegedly "observed" moral progress. I do think I upgraded the argument even in that basic post, please tell me if you disagree.

Also I think Eliezer was basically working to rescue the notion of moral progress because that is what he sees as "adding back up to normality". I disagree, I think normality is the futility of preserving your values or their coherently extrapolated successors. Finding a way to make something like "moral progress" real or even preserve currently held values would be a massive project comparable in difficulty and perhaps even importance to developing FAI (which is one potential solution to this problem). I find it telling he dosen't seem directly touch on the subject afterwards.

Yeah, I read the Metaethics Sequence twice so far, but I'm still not really convinced by it. Though that doesn't mean that I know of better metaethical theories than Eliezer's, I'm just confused and very uncertain so I would like to hear Konkvistador's arguments.

But this would completely change our public discussions on morality, far more than the transition from a very religious to a secular society. It would also shatter our shared historical narrative of moral progress.

Ohmygosh, another paradigm shift. How could we possibly cope? It's not like we've had many of those throughout history...

Eee-nope. Adaptation executers not fitness maximizers.