This post seems incomplete. If it is complete, it seems almost...confused? I don't understand what the point of your post is.
The post avoids making an explicit argument about what an optimal LW would look like and comparing LW as it is now to that ideal. I think this serves two major purposes, one legitimate and one illegitimate.
It is legitimate to argue in favor of any of a broad and diverse range of alternatives as preferable to a specific policy, and vagueness is legitimate when used to do this. E.g. "Let's not drive to the theater. We can do something here instead" "You're saying we should stay home and eat all the silverware?!" "...no."
It is il...
I first attempted to post this in 2009, but bounced off the karma wall. Since then, MY forgetfulness and procrastination have been its nemesis.
I invite you to listen (read) in an unusual way. "Consider it": think WITH this idea for a while. There will be plenty of time to refute it later. I find that, if I START with, "That's so wrong!", I really weaken my ability to "pan for the gold".
Remember the Swamp!
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/when_you're_up_to_your_neck_in_alligators,_it's_easy_to_forget_that_the_initial_objective_was_to_drain_the_swamp
I looked over the tag cloud and didn't see:
Admittedly, searching on war did provide a few results.
I invite you all to let this concern guide your posts: humanity is on a path toward multiple futures, and way too many (IMHO) of them include our extinction or the destruction of our civilization. Not many people even think about it. We have become so numb to the nuclear fear that was so palpable in the 1950s - early 1960s. When I talk to people about it, they remember, and most agree thet the huge nuclear arsenals are a really bad idea. But, it's not present in their daily thought.
Think big and think far.
Think about how we can have the great mass of people, not just a few rationalists, become Less Wrong about what is important.
Thanks for your Consideration.