RolfAndreassen comments on Rationality Quotes September 2012 - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Jayson_Virissimo 03 September 2012 05:18AM

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

Comments (1088)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: CronoDAS 06 September 2012 11:05:03AM 24 points [-]

“The goal of the future is full unemployment, so we can play. That’s why we have to destroy the present politico-economic system.” This may sound like the pronouncement of some bong-smoking anarchist, but it was actually Arthur C. Clarke, who found time between scuba diving and pinball games to write “Childhood’s End” and think up communications satellites. My old colleague Ted Rall recently wrote a column proposing that we divorce income from work and give each citizen a guaranteed paycheck, which sounds like the kind of lunatic notion that’ll be considered a basic human right in about a century, like abolition, universal suffrage and eight-hour workdays. The Puritans turned work into a virtue, evidently forgetting that God invented it as a punishment.

-- Tim Kreider

The interesting part is the phrase "which sounds like the kind of lunatic notion that’ll be considered a basic human right in about a century, like abolition, universal suffrage and eight-hour workdays." If we can anticipate what the morality of the future would be, should we try to live by it now?

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 06 September 2012 04:24:08PM 16 points [-]

If we can anticipate what the morality of the future would be, should we try to live by it now?

Not if it's actually the same morality, but depends on technology. For example, strong prohibitions on promiscuity are very sensible in a world without cheap and effective contraceptives. Anyone who tried to live by 2012 sexual standards in 1912 would soon find they couldn't feed their large horde of kids. Likewise, if robots are doing all the work, fine; but right now if you just redistribute all money, no work gets done.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 September 2012 12:56:57AM *  6 points [-]

Lack of technology was not the reason condoms weren't as widely available in 1912.

Comment author: shminux 06 September 2012 06:08:34PM *  5 points [-]

Right idea, not a great example. People used to have lots more kids then now, most dying in childhood. Majority of women of childbearing age (gay or straight) were married and having children as often as their body allowed, so promiscuity would not have changed much. Maybe a minor correction for male infertility and sexual boredom in a standard marriage.

Comment author: Desrtopa 06 September 2012 06:41:11PM 5 points [-]

Strong norms against promiscuity out of wedlock still made sense though, since having lots of children without a committed partner to help care for them would usually have been impractical.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 06 September 2012 07:50:38PM 7 points [-]

You seem to have rather a different idea of what I meant by "2012 standards". Even now we do not really approve of married people sleeping around. We do, however, approve of people not getting married until age 25 or 30 or so, but sleeping with whoever they like before that. Try that pattern without contraception.

Comment author: CCC 07 September 2012 07:49:29AM 2 points [-]

We do, however, approve of people not getting married until age 25 or 30 or so, but sleeping with whoever they like before that.

You might. I don't. This is most probably a cultural difference. There are people in the world to day who see nothing wrong with having multiple wives, given the ability to support them (example: Jacob Zuma)

Comment author: Alicorn 06 September 2012 05:42:53PM 3 points [-]

Anyone who tried to live by 2012 sexual standards in 1912 would soon find they couldn't feed their large horde of kids.

Not if they were gay.

Comment author: [deleted] 06 September 2012 05:53:10PM *  -2 points [-]

Then they'd just be dead, or imprisoned.

Comment author: Alicorn 06 September 2012 05:58:35PM 9 points [-]

We're talking about morality that is based around technology. There is no technological advance that allows us to not criminalize homosexuality now where we couldn't have in the past.

Comment author: [deleted] 06 September 2012 06:12:21PM 0 points [-]

Naming three:

  1. Condoms.
  2. Widespread circumcision.
  3. Antibiotics.
Comment author: [deleted] 07 September 2012 01:00:14AM 7 points [-]

Widespread circumcision.

What?

Comment author: CCC 07 September 2012 07:43:14AM 2 points [-]

Didn't the Jews have that back in the years BC? It's sort of cultural, but it's been around for a while in some cultures...

Comment author: CronoDAS 06 September 2012 07:50:23PM 6 points [-]
Comment author: Alicorn 06 September 2012 06:40:13PM 5 points [-]

I didn't specify promiscuous homosexuality. Monogamously inclined gay people are as protected from STDs as anyone else at a comparable tech level - maybe more so among lesbians.

Comment author: [deleted] 06 September 2012 07:09:02PM *  4 points [-]

Neither did I, but would rather refrain from explaining in detail why I didn't assume promiscuity.

It's really annoying that you jumped to that conclusion, though. Further, I'm confused why the existence of some minority of a minority of the population that doesn't satisfy the ancestor's hypothetical matters.

Comment author: shminux 06 September 2012 06:26:57PM *  1 point [-]

Homosexuality was common/accepted/expected in many societies without leading to any negative consequences, so technology is not an enabler of morality here.

Comment author: Salemicus 06 September 2012 06:54:26PM 4 points [-]

Homosexuality has certainly been present in many societies.

However, your link does not state, nor even suggest, that it did not lead to any negative consequences.