MichaelBishop comments on This Failing Earth - Less Wrong

19 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 May 2009 04:09PM

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

Comments (158)

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

Comment author: CronoDAS 24 May 2009 09:20:18PM *  26 points [-]

Indeed, our Earth's Westphalian concept of sovereign states is the main thing propping up Somalia and North Korea. There was a time when any state that failed that badly would be casually conquered by a more successful neighbor.

I have to disagree here. First of all, North Korea has the world's third largest army. Any state that tried to conquer it would have its hands full. Additionally, counterinsurgency warfare has become damn hard these days - consider the Soviet failure in Afghanistan during the 1980s. As Stalin observed, it takes a generation and a half to pacify a country and convert it to your ideology by force.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, conquering poorly defended land isn't profitable any more; some time around World War I, conquest became far more trouble than it's worth. Nobody wants Somalia, even if the rest of the world would be okay with someone marching an army into it. It's just not worth anything. The British Empire, a more modern example of conquest for profit, never occupied Afghanistan. It would have cost far more to subdue the natives than it would ever produce in revenue. Today, far more wealth is created by Internet startups than could be stolen by a modern-day Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan.

To put the worthlessness of Somalia into perspective, here's some numbers:

  • The GNP of Somalia is $2 billion.
  • The market capitalization of Amazon.com is $32 billion. Its revenue in 2008 was $19.1 billion, and its net income was $0.64 billion.
  • Bernie Madoff convinced people to invest at least $10 billion in a completely fraudulent stock fund, and reported $50 billion in bogus returns.
Comment author: MichaelBishop 26 May 2009 03:05:48PM *  0 points [-]

17 points? That is how much karma CronoDAS has earned from this comment (as of this writing). Don't get me wrong, it's a fine comment, but 17 points? Maybe I should be more concerned about good comments with zero points, or stupid comments with two points, but this is one more observation leading me to question karma. If the community deems my comment a distraction, I apologize.

Sorry to pick on you CronoDAS, I'll go look through your history and vote up some of your under-valued comments.

Or maybe I'm wrong to think 17 points inappropriate, maybe I should think more on why the community judged it so highly. And/or maybe lots more comments should earn this much karma.

Added: LW is inevitably changing. One can see it in the quantity and character of top level posts, and in how posts and comments earn karma. I suggest that someone make a top level post to discuss it.

Comment author: Apprentice 26 May 2009 03:38:25PM 6 points [-]

I think the high rating of the comment is a reflection of the problem that Eliezer's post was sub-par (especially taking into account that he's, you know, brilliant). Voting up a (partial) rebuttal, even if it isn't great on its own terms, is a reasonably polite way to express this.

(But I'm very new here - this is my fourth comment - so maybe I have no idea what the dynamic is.)

Comment author: CronoDAS 27 May 2009 08:08:04PM 0 points [-]

I'm surprised, too...