J_Thomas2 comments on Anthropomorphic Optimism - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 04 August 2008 08:17PM

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

Comments (51)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: J_Thomas2 05 August 2008 06:26:54AM 5 points [-]

Humans faced with resource constraints *did* find the other approach.

Traditionally, rather than restrict our own breeding, our response has been to enslave our neighbors. Force them to work for us, to provide resources for our own children. But don't let them have children. Maybe castrate the males, if necessary kill the female's children. (It was customary to expose deformed or surplus children. If a slave does get pregnant, who's child is surplus?)

China tried the "everybody limit their children" approach. Urban couples were allowed one child, farm couples could have two. Why the difference? China officially did not have an "other" to enslave. They had to try to make it fair. But why would the strong be fair to the weak? Slaves are bred when there's so much room to expand that the masters' children can't fill the space, and another requirement is that it's easier, cheaper, or safer to breed them than to capture more.

Traditionally slavery was the humane alternative to genocide.

Why didn't Eliezer think that way? My guess is that he is a good man and so he supposed that human populations would think in terms of what's good and fair for everyone, the way he does.

He applied anthropomorphic optimism to human beings.