= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Punoxysm comments on What is the most anti-altruistic way to spend a million dollars? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (93)
I am absolutely not advocating violence or asking anyone else to, and I am frankly disturbed that you read that into my question. But I have edited phrasing a bit.
Basically you can't think of a way to do huge damage while still not violating laws. That's exactly why we should not discuss in detail how to go about creating huge damage while not violating laws.
If the current set of laws is sufficient to prevent huge damage, then looking for loopholes doesn't risk huge damage.
If the current set of laws is insufficient to prevent huge damage, then how could anyone fix the problem without discussing it in detail first?
If no practical set of laws is sufficient to prevent huge damage, then we might as well try to delay the damage by all shutting up, but I don't think this third possibility is likely.
I like free speech laws. I wouldn't want to have huge censorship even if it prevents some speech that makes people come to harm.
Not so, I just believe that most proposals will in fact look relatively mundane compared to what people have actually done. For instance "Start a tobacco farm" could contribute negatively to many people's health, but it has several drawbacks (in terms of anti-altruism) in terms of the employment it provides, and the slight cheapening of a commodity.