Any existential risk angles to the US presidential election?

Stuart_Armstrong

Don't let your minds be killed, but I was wondering if there were any existential risk angles to the coming American election (if there isn't, then I'll simply retreat to raw, enjoyable and empty tribalism).

I can see three (quite tenuous) angles:

Obama seems more likely to attempt to get some sort of global warming agreement. While not directly related to Xrisks per se, this would lead to better global coordination and agreement, which improves the outlook for a lot of other Xrisks. However, pretty unlikely to succeed.
I have a mental image that Republicans would be more likely to invest in space exploration. This is a lot due to Newt Gingrich, I have to admit, and to the closeness between civilian and military space projects, the last of which are more likely to get boosts in Republican governments.
If we are holding out for increased population rationality as being a helping factor for some Xrisks, then the fact the the Republicans have gone so strongly anti-science is certainly a bad sign. But on the other hand, its not clear whether them winning or losing the election is more likely to improve the general environment for science among their supporters.

But these all seem weak factors. So, less wronger, let me know: are the things I should care about in the election, or can I just lie back and enjoy it as a piece of interesting theatre?

I can see three (quite tenuous) angles:

Obama seems more likely to attempt to get some sort of global warming agreement. While not directly related to Xrisks per se, this would lead to better global coordination and agreement, which improves the outlook for a lot of other Xrisks. However, pretty unlikely to succeed.
I have a mental image that Republicans would be more likely to invest in space exploration. This is a lot due to Newt Gingrich, I have to admit, and to the closeness between civilian and military space projects, the last of which are more likely to get boosts in Republican governments.
If we are holding out for increased population rationality as being a helping factor for some Xrisks, then the fact the the Republicans have gone so strongly anti-science is certainly a bad sign. But on the other hand, its not clear whether them winning or losing the election is more likely to improve the general environment for science among their supporters.

But these all seem weak factors. So, less wronger, let me know: are the things I should care about in the election, or can I just lie back and enjoy it as a piece of interesting theatre?

You pay with your vote (or other attempts to influence the political outcome), you get the moral right to complain about the collective idiocy of others.

I disagree. I'm having trouble understanding it, could you perhaps just stay away from metaphors and explain your moral reasoning here?

(you would have already lost the moral right to complain by helping depriving the legal right to complain from others)

First off I'm not sure which process you are using to make this moral judgement, so I'm unsure whether I grant your moral reasoning any weight or not. Secondly can you please make this for the sake of the debate a bit less personal? Considering the spirit of generosity we usually see on LW I'm quite shocked to see statements like this. You really won't be changing minds with this, least of all mine. I find if funny that fewer unfavourable things where said about my morality when I was arguing in favour of infanticide in a different thread... Voting is probably sacred to some people.

Regardless, If you check out my comment history I've strongly favoured freedom of speech and freedom of conscience in nearly every discussion I've had. Doesn't that buy me something in your moral system too?

If you really really want the right to complain (whether legal or moral), it's unlikely you'll find a system more suited for it than democracy.

I disagree here. Futarchy would provide at least as much and Neocameralism should in theory provide more freedom of speech than I currently have.

Futarchy would provide at least as much

I'll grant this, though I don't know how existing rules about insider trading would conflict with beliefs about society itself becoming officially the object of trade and profit.

and Neocameralism should in theory provide more freedom of speech than I currently have.

If I understand Moldbug's neocameralism, it would give the government the perfect right to behead you if it doesn't like your taste in shoes -- because in Moldbug's view there's no difference between the right to do something and the power to do s... (read more)

2ArisKatsaris14y

Okay, * "complaining about a person's vote" can mean two things: Either that I believe "they should have voted differently" or that I believe "they should not have voted at all.". * Therefore to have the moral right to honestly complain about their vote, I must either believe "everyone should have voted differently" or I must believe "everyone should not have voted at all." * Since I don't believe society would be better if nobody voted, then the only option I have if I want this moral right to complain is "they should have voted differently". * And therefore it would be hypocrisy if I likewise hadn't myself gone to vote differently. Now, the thing you're not getting is that I'm not really judging you. My first comment was about how it bought me the moral right to complain. Someone who really thinks the world would be better if nobody voted is exempt from this particular line of reasoning. Because as you said, non-voting can be a political act too.

-16

Any existential risk angles to the US presidential election?

-16

-16

-16

Any existential risk angles to the US presidential election?

-16

-16