skeptical_lurker comments on Neo-reactionaries, why are you neo-reactionary? - Less Wrong

10 Post author: Capla 17 November 2014 10:31PM

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

Comments (616)

Sort By: Leading

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

Comment author: MichaelAnissimov 20 November 2014 09:09:26AM 1 point [-]

Yes. In communities where the strength of the family is irrelevant and the only focus is on the self, such behaviors are common. These communities are slowly being replaced by others due to their failure to reproduce.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 20 November 2014 08:35:00PM 4 points [-]

If I understand you correctly, transsexuals are not the problem, lack of family values and low testosterone are the problem, and transexuals are one symptom.

Assuming, for sake of argument, that this is true:

1) A lot of people are pro traditional family values. What do you think the marginal utility of one more advocate is? Or is advocating it amoung certain groups (e.g. LW) more important because we need intelligent people to keep breeding?

2) You say "These communities are slowly being replaced by others" - has your estimate for when the singularity occurs moved far back in time? Concerns about family values seem of little importance if non-biological intelligence is likly to turn up soon.

Comment author: MichaelAnissimov 20 November 2014 08:54:29PM 7 points [-]

In reference to your first comment, basically yes.

1) The only reason I joined this thread in the first place is because someone attacked me, I don't particularly advocate neoreaction among LW groups, because I understand the community is hyper-liberalized to the point of absurdity.

2) Yes, my estimates of when the Singularity will occur moved from 2030-2040 to 2070-2080 over the last five years. This change is partially what has caused the neoreaction thing. I think there is a real risk that Western civilization will fall apart before we get there.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 November 2014 08:06:47PM 5 points [-]

Is it really useful to give one numerical answer here? "2070-2080" doesn't capture the same amount of information as "if not before (say) 2050, not for a few centuries".

(Of course, the standard LW memeplex hardly has a reason to look forward to a non-Western singularity -- wouldn't it be almost certainly unfriendly by Western standards?)

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 20 November 2014 09:08:44PM 2 points [-]

1) I would agree that its probably best to keep NRx and LW separate. Still, this leaves the question of what is the marginal utility of advocating traditional family values?

2) I see, this does make your NRx position more understandable. I too have moved my estimates somewhat backwards.

Comment author: MichaelAnissimov 20 November 2014 09:14:13PM 5 points [-]

1) Way too many to list here.

2) I still consider a near-future Singularity possible but not likely.

Comment author: HBDfan 21 November 2014 12:52:55AM 0 points [-]

The LW tone has improved this year and this post is refreshing.