= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Apprentice comments on Dr. Jubjub predicts a crisis - 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 (65)
As usual, gwern has made a great comment. But I'm going to bite the bullet and come out in favor of the tree plan. Let's go back to the 1830s.
My fellow Swedes! I have a plan to plant 34,000 oak trees. In 120 years we will be able to use them to build mighty warships. My analysis here shows that the cost is modest while the benefits will be quite substantial. But, I hear you say, what if some other material is used to build warships in 120 years? Well, we will always have the option of using the wood to build warships and if we won't take that option it will be because some even better option will have presented itself. That seems like a happy outcome to me. And wood has been useful for thousands of years - it will surely not be completely obsolete in a century. We could always build other things from it, or use it for firewood or designate the forest as a recreational area for esteemed noblemen such as ourselves. Or maybe the future will have some use for forests we cannot yet anticipate [carbon sequestration]. I don't see how we can really go wrong with trees.
Back to the present. I'm concerned with avoiding disasters. "The benefits of this long-term plan were not realized because something even better happened" is only a disaster if the cost of the plan was disastrous. Of course, some people argue that the costs of addressing some of Dr. Jubjub's problems are disastrous and that's something we can discuss on the merits.
Do show your analysis :-) Don't forget about discounting and opportunity costs :-D
For the sake of argument I'm assuming the plan made prima facie sense and was only defeated by technological developments. Sufficiently familiarizing myself with the state of affairs in 1830s Sweden to materially address the question would, I think, be excessively time-consuming.
Correct, but then you shouldn't handwave into existence an assertion which is really at the core of the dispute.
The issue is whether this was a good decision and let's say "good" is defined as low-cost and high-benefit. You are saying "let's assume 'the cost is modest while the benefits will be quite substantial' and then, hey, it's a good decision!".
The argument I am trying to approach is about proposals which make sense under the assumption of little or no relevant technological development but may fail to make sense once disruptive new technology enters the picture. I'm assuming the tree plan made sense in the first way - the cost of planting and tending trees is such and such, the cost of quality wood is such and such and the problems with importing it (our enemies might seek to control the supply) are such and such. Other projects we could spend the same resources on have such and such cost benefit-evaluations of their own. And so on and so forth. In this thought experiment you could assume a very sophisticated analysis which comes up smelling like roses. The only thing it doesn't take into account is disruptive new technology. That's the specific issue I'm trying to address here so that's why I'm willing to assume all the other stuff works for the sake of argument.
In actual history, maybe the tree plan never even made any sense to begin with - maybe wood was cheap and plentiful and planting the oak trees was difficult and expensive. For all I know the whole thing was a ridiculous boondoggle which didn't make sense under any assumption. But that's just an uninteresting case which need not detain us.