And when we get to solving these, in the way that shelter etc. are already solved problems for the more prosperous parts of the world today, I expect there will be other things to occupy us, even if we don't know what they will be.

Comment author: terasinube 03 March 2014 09:42:30AM -1 points [-]

Developing fusion power. Defeating disease. Defeating death. Colonising space. AGI. And so on.

Oh... I meant what would a single individual spend the money on, what would be the incentive to get more money for oneself. In the society I was mentioning... the rest of the resources would have been redirected in activities related to the furthering of the human evolution.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 03 March 2014 10:07:25AM 3 points [-]

In the society I was mentioning... the rest of the resources would have been redirected in activities related to the furthering of the human evolution.

Redirected? How, and by whom? This sounds like a society in which everything that someone has beyond the satisfaction of their basic needs, from shelter to transportation, is expropriated by the state. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

What happens in this society, if I want a bigger house than the state thinks I need?

Comment author: terasinube comment score below threshold [+] (33 children)

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 March 2014 11:53:26PM 4 points [-]

MIRI exists because Peter Thiel is a billionaire and has free money to spend on courses he finds worthwhile. No representative body funds the kind of work MIRI is doing.

The private money that goes into space exploration and mining asteroids seems to be much smarter than NASA money.

Plurality is an important concept. Decentralizing resources is useful.

Comment author: terasinube 04 March 2014 07:12:18AM -1 points [-]

I agree with you. This is the world as we know it.

We are, however, exploring here. What would be the point of an exploration if we remain stuck in the old paradigms. Just because most of this world is a masked oligarchy where people with money control public policy does not mean that a more just and rational political representation can ever exist.

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 March 2014 09:47:18AM 2 points [-]

We are, however, exploring here.

As far as exploring goes, good exploring is about describing how alternatives could work.

I agree with you. [...] What would be the point of an exploration if we remain stuck in the old paradigms.

No, I don't think you understand me. I'm not the person to advocate staying in old paradigms. It's just that being a heretic is hard work.

The argument that you are making isn't a new paradigm it's not much different from what Marx said 150 years ago. It's old. A new argument about that we have measurement about rich people having less empathy but otherwise it's all old and boring.

As far as what I wrote lately about my political philosophy the posts I wrote in http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/jmt/some_tools_for_optimizing_our_media_use/ might be interesting for you.

Comment author: terasinube 04 March 2014 10:17:48AM -1 points [-]

It's just that being a heretic is hard work.

I agree. I'm only at the beginning. One of the reasons I started to lurk around here is a need for clarity in my own thinking. I often am vague and expose half baked ideas. I hope that this will change in time.

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 March 2014 01:30:30PM 0 points [-]

I agree. I'm only at the beginning. One of the reasons I started to lurk around here is a need for clarity in my own thinking.

You need more than clarity in your own thinking. You also need to understand the positions of others.

I know how a German political party works from the inside. I have to extrapolate from that if I'm talking about US politics but I don't just say that something is bad because I don't understand what it's good for.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 03 March 2014 02:00:33PM 2 points [-]

I guess...I guess...some sort...I don't know...I imagine...some kind...could be...could provide

In fewer words: you have no idea.

Comment author: terasinube 03 March 2014 02:20:27PM -2 points [-]

In fewer words, I don't have a blueprint, nor a crystal ball. ;)

If you require either in order to have a conversation about the future... oh well... sorry to disappoint. ;)

Comment author: RichardKennaway 03 March 2014 02:32:29PM 3 points [-]

I do expect rather more justification of a proposal that the state shall direct all resources beyond the basic needs (as defined by that state) of individuals than merely "somehow". Especially given the record of the totalitarian states of the last century.

Comment author: terasinube 03 March 2014 03:58:36PM -2 points [-]

Well... I did mentioned the fact that increase in wealth correlates with decrease compassion. There is also the flat-lining of experiential happiness above a certain income as described by Kahneman.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are expecting. Could you give more information about what kind of information would you like to receive?

Also, I lived my entire childhood in such a totalitarian state. I am aware of how bad state involvement in these matters can be.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 03 March 2014 08:50:21PM 1 point [-]

Also, I lived my entire childhood in such a totalitarian state. I am aware of how bad state involvement in these matters can be.

Which makes it all the stranger that you propose, without seeming to have given it any thought, a totalitarian state that will somehow just work. Can you imagine no other way the world could work than as a totalitarian state somewhere on a spectrum of bad to good?

Which one, by the way?

Comment author: terasinube 03 March 2014 09:26:40PM -1 points [-]

I haven't proposed a totalitarian state. This is something that you inferred from what I've wrote.

I was talking about a society with certain characteristics.

I was thinking more about a StarTrek kind of thing than an old soviet republic.

One practical, slow way in which I see this happening is by shifting the focus on cooperation in education and slowly limiting the massive accumulation of wealth together with strong regulations regarding ecological impact and labour compensation.

One very fine idea I found was in a Howard Gardner interview for BigThink (scroll down to " What is the US getting wrong?" )

Another interesting approach was an initiative called 1:12 proposed in Switzerland. Unfortunately, that initiative got hit massively with FUD from the competition which was able to outspend it in terms of advertising 40:1.

continue this thread »

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 March 2014 11:40:11PM 0 points [-]

Oh... I meant what would a single individual spend the money on, what would be the incentive to get more money for oneself.

If you would give me a million I would spend a significant part of that money on the project of defeating death. I would however spend that money in a very different way than the NIH.

Comment author: terasinube 04 March 2014 10:05:06AM -1 points [-]

Maybe NIH is not spending the money effectively. Maybe a rational discourse could make your way one of the official ways.

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 March 2014 12:59:23PM 1 point [-]

There were times when I was meditating 4 hours per day. I think about the human body very differently than the average academic. That doesn't mean that academics don't do anything useful but they won't spend money on certain projects because they lack certain experiences. Teaching new phonological primitives takes years.

I'm wise enough to know that giving people like myself the power to allocate all money isn't the solution either. There are many things I don't understand.

I believe that monocultures are generally bad. It's important to have various institutions with different philosophies, world views and interests.

Just having more rational discourse about how to allocate NIH money is not enough. Centralized power is bad in principle.

Comment author: terasinube 04 March 2014 04:06:10PM -1 points [-]

I'm wise enough to know that giving people like myself the power to allocate all money isn't the solution either. There are many things I don't understand.

It doesn't have to be black and white.... all to NIH OR all to projects like yours.

To me... investing money in exploration, in research is a defensible position and research... by its very nature is unknown territory. As long as you can make a rational argument for why you think the allocation of resources is warranted, you should have a chance of getting some. ;)

terasinube comments on Proportional Giving - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (86)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (86)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login