lsparrish comments on Is Politics the Mindkiller? An Inconclusive Test - Less Wrong

14 Post author: OrphanWilde 27 July 2012 05:45PM

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

Comments (276)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: lsparrish 28 July 2012 05:23:35PM 2 points [-]

The impression I get is not so much that we avoid politics on principle but that there are more important "political" issues out there than those that most people understand and argue about. If more people would "taboo" (avoid) these arguments they would come across these more important issues much faster rather than being distracted before they get there.

Abortion for example: Even if we bite the right-wing bullet that humanity is killing thousands of innocent pre-conscious human entities (babies!) per day, it seems less significant in the context of the 100,000 fully sentient and conscious adults per day who perish automatically of aging, let alone the trillions upon trillions that could be created and destroyed if we don't do AI correctly.

Comment author: Dolores1984 29 July 2012 12:41:25AM 3 points [-]

I disagree: if you accept the premise that biological life (and not brain function) determines human value, then abortion becomes low-hanging fruit for saving human life-value. One law can prevent thousands of babies dying per day.

It's like religion. If you accept that God and Hell are real, then becoming a fundamentalist Christian and trying as hard as you can to convert as many people as possible is the only ethical option.

Comment author: wedrifid 29 July 2012 01:32:39AM *  9 points [-]

It's like religion. If you accept that God and Hell are real, then becoming a fundamentalist Christian and trying as hard as you can to convert as many people as possible is the only ethical option.

Nonsense. That is the most ethical of the options that your brain is willing to provide you when you ask it "what is the best option?" But if someone actually had that belief a more ethical option would be to murder as many Muslims, Atheists and Buddhists (of child bearing age) as you can. The chance that you will successfully convert any given individual is tiny and if you allow them to live to breed they will raise children doomed to hell.

An even better option is to kill all males who will not convert and keep all women (Christian and otherwise) pregnant constantly with twins (IVF, fertility drugs). The children are to be taken and raised to be loyal to your faith.

(Or you build an FAI to tile the universe with Christians with the minimum possible lifespan to qualify for heaven.)

Comment author: Grognor 29 July 2012 02:35:34AM 4 points [-]
Comment author: Dolores1984 29 July 2012 10:23:15AM 1 point [-]

The bible's more coherent passages to have pretty strong claims about killing and enslaving people. But disregarding that, you're probably right. That said, most people are not that creative. Those that are tend to wind up atheists.

Comment author: sketerpot 29 July 2012 10:44:00AM *  6 points [-]

The bible's more coherent passages to have pretty strong claims about killing and enslaving people.

So God frowns upon your sin of mass murder, but you will have saved numerous souls from Hell. "Shut up and multiply," I think the saying goes. It's better still if you run a government, and can force conversion by the sword.

Incidentally, similar reasoning applies to infanticide if you believe that dead children go to heaven automatically. In fact, this one is probably a better bet, since small children are easier to take in a fight, and killing them will directly guarantee their salvation.

(I enjoy this topic more than is strictly proper.)

Comment author: Dolores1984 29 July 2012 11:06:46AM 2 points [-]

If you believe that god has the authority to define morality, than violating divine edict is immoral, regardless of your feelings on Hell. Although, that has serious problems, since divine commandments are internally contradictory...

Comment author: DanArmak 01 August 2012 08:41:35PM *  0 points [-]

That's why some hold all humans are inherently and necessarily sinful.

Comment author: wedrifid 29 July 2012 10:49:17AM 3 points [-]

The bible's more coherent passages to have pretty strong claims about killing and enslaving people.

Yes, if you don't genocide the heathens you can be sentenced to death. I think you are only allowed to enslave foreigners too. The New Testament has a somewhat less positive attitude to slaughter---on the other hand it also says "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." then goes on to say that you just have to repent after you sin. It wouldn't be ethical to not slaughter all the heathens to preempt their breeding then repenting and feeling some shame about it. Kind of like with masturbation only it provides thousands of infinities of utility.

Comment author: prase 31 July 2012 03:44:02PM 2 points [-]

For a sufficiently fanatical believer the most moral act may be to genocide the heathens and then go to hell for it, thus sacrificing own eternity in order to save the heathens and their children from hell. Similar beliefs were held by the Romanian Iron guard movement (they were willing to go to hell to save their nation rather than the heathens but it's still sort of impressive).

Comment author: DanArmak 01 August 2012 08:38:35PM 1 point [-]

The bible's more coherent passages to have pretty strong claims about killing and enslaving people.

Yes. They say killing unbelievers is a duty, and enslaving is allowed within limits (except when killing is mandatory).

They don't say much about the need to evangelize and convert others, though.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 30 July 2012 03:26:59PM 0 points [-]

The bible's more coherent passages to have pretty strong claims about killing and enslaving people.

But you can still go to heaven via faith. And even if you can't, then you're sacrificing your own salvation to save others, which is very moral.

Comment author: DanArmak 01 August 2012 08:23:53PM 1 point [-]

One law can prevent thousands of babies dying per day.

I disagree - this is not known. Particularly the magnitude of the expected effect is hard to predict and a cost-benefit analysis requires a prediction.

  • The law would affect conception rates as well as birthrates, and we don't know how ahead of time.
  • It would also affect rates of unwanted babies born and given up for adoption or raised in unloving or too-poor or single-mother homes. These factors affect life expectancy (also through hightened poverty and crime), which have moral weight by the "biological human life" criterion.
  • Some women would still do illegal or at-home or out-of-state abortions. Some of the women would also die or be injured thereby.
  • Enforcement of the law costs money and resources and also depends on cultural support for the law in each community.
Comment author: [deleted] 29 July 2012 01:58:22PM *  0 points [-]

It's like religion. If you accept that God and Hell are real, then becoming a fundamentalist Christian and trying as hard as you can to convert as many people as possible is the only ethical option.

“God and Hell are real” doesn't imply that whoever is not a Christian will go to hell. Even some Christians (e.g. present-day mainstream Catholics) acknowledge that.

Comment author: BlazeOrangeDeer 01 August 2012 11:08:58AM 0 points [-]

I wonder what your last sentence implies, as I have found "present-day mainstream Catholics" to be more reasonable than many other denominations. Though it depends who you place in that group.

Comment author: DanArmak 01 August 2012 08:24:54PM 1 point [-]

Presumably the Pope is not a mainstream Catholic.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 August 2012 12:09:49PM 0 points [-]

"Even" as in "not only detractors of Christianity, but also some Christians themselves". Edited to make that clearer.

Comment author: DanArmak 01 August 2012 08:12:19PM *  1 point [-]

Political issues are generally those that many people, or powerful people, care strongly and disagree about.

At LW we discuss mostly issues that most people don't understand, know about, or care about. That's the only reason they are not "political". Suppose someone builds an AGI and it changes the world. Everyone will suddenly care about FAI, AI ethics, etc. The issues will become highly politicized and no doubt strong mind-killers for most people who talk about them. But I wouldn't want LW to then stop talking about those issues.