= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Musk, Mars and x-risk - 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 (64)
Sorry, I edited immediately and added a disclaimer on what I meant by that, but it seems that the final edit of my post hasn't submitted. In the disclaimer I explained that I mean nothing to happen with the resources (which still wasn't a good explanation of what I meant) and tried to add a different explanation because of my bad wording that I pretty much mean that 'If you'd rather have event over ~event than..'
If you are against everything you must (as in it is logical that) you must hate the situation. Anyway, the hate was not the point, the point was that no use of resources is optimal.
This doesn't follow at all unless one is using a non-standard notion of hate. For example, given the choice I'd rather watch Casablanca than Field of Dreams, but they are both excellent movies. I wouldn't "hate" watching Field of Dreams.
This makes me even more confused. How do I know that no use is optimal? Moreover, even if there isn't any optimal use, how does that not make some uses substantially more optimal than others?
Theoretically there is an optimal use, practically you can't calculate the optimal use and nothing you do is optimal. Anyway I retracted my previous 2 comments because this is kind of going in circles.
It doesn't follow from the fact that you don't know the optimal use of resources that you should settle for anything slightly positive.
Yes!