= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Blind Spot: Malthusian Crunch - 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 (184)
I am not sure that's true. Consider a similar analogy: "let's not develop agriculture" is more robust than "dependence on fickle weather or intricate irrigation system". Is that so? Not likely -- you just get hit by a different set of risks. One day a lot of pale people with thundersticks appear, they kill your men and herd women and children into reservations to die.
Given the fate of the societies which did not climb the technological tree sufficiently fast, I'd say throttling down progress sure doesn't look like a wise choice.
I completely agree, that's a great point! The sixth one, to be exact.
Being willing to take on greater existential risks will definitely help in short- or medium-term competition, as your example shows (greater risk of famine in exchange for ability to conquer other societies). So no, I don't think we can necessarily coordinate to avoid a "brittle" situation in which we are vulnerable to catastrophic failure. That doesn't mean it's not desirable.