You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Konkvistador comments on Open thread, September 15-21, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: gjm 15 September 2014 12:24PM

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

Comments (339)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 17 September 2014 05:40:53PM *  -1 points [-]

I should probably update this prediction. Considering Yudkowsky's recent pwnedness and pieces like this becoming common it is at least 10%.

Moldbug in 2008.

There is a very easy resolution to this problem: adopt the principle that no person is illegal. This rule is perfectly consistent with "applied Christianity." It is taught at all our great universities. It is implied every time a journalist deploys the euphemism "undocumented." And I'm sure there are dozens of ways in which it could be incorporated into our great Living Constitution. There is only one problem: the people are not quite ready for it.

But perhaps in thirty years they will be. Perhaps? I would bet money on it. And I would also bet that, by the time this principle is established, denying it will be the equivalent of racism. Us old fogeys who were born in the 1970s will be convulsed with guilt and shame at the thought that the US actually considered it ethically acceptable to turn away, deport, and otherwise penalize our fellow human beings, on the ridiculous and irrelevant grounds that they were born somewhere else.

So the Cathedral wins coming and going. Today, it does not suffer the political backlash that would be sure to ensue if the Inner Party endorsed opening the borders to... everyone. Still less if it actually did so. (Unless it let the new Americans vote as soon as they set foot on our sacred soil, which of course would be the most Christian approach.) And in 2038, having increased North America's population to approximately two billion persons, none of them illegal, and all living in the same Third World conditions which it has already inflicted on most of the planet, our blessed Cathedral will have the privilege of berating the past with its guilt for not having recognized the obvious truth that no person is illegal. Ain't it beautiful?

Comment author: knb 17 September 2014 06:56:47PM 7 points [-]

Two billion is a crazy population prediction even if open borders was enacted. Relative quality of life would decline very quickly with open borders, and the immigration level would slow down dramatically.

I also read some estimate that "only" 500 Million people world wide want to immigrate to the US. Overall I expect the quality-of-life gap between USA and the 3rd world to continue declining over the next couple decades.

Comment author: Nornagest 17 September 2014 06:57:12PM *  6 points [-]

I'll bet a thousand 2014 dollars at even odds that it's less than a quarter of that.

(Clarification: I'm talking about the population of the US, as per the PredictionBook entry, not of North America as per Moldbug's quote; the population of the latter is already over 500 million. Should probably stipulate present borders too, just in case. 2 billion isn't credible in any case, though.)

Comment author: [deleted] 22 September 2014 08:16:37AM 5 points [-]

Yudkowsky's recent pwnedness

I'm not under the impression he was much less pwned in 2007. Are you thinking of something in particular?

Comment author: Lumifer 17 September 2014 06:42:50PM 5 points [-]

As a counterpoint look at the rise of anti-immigration movements in Europe and e.g. the success of Marine Le Pen in France.

Comment author: shminux 17 September 2014 09:04:04PM 8 points [-]

Is this post just an excuse for an NRxic quote? And what does the "Yudkowsky's recent pwnedness" swipe refer to?

Comment author: ChristianKl 18 September 2014 11:27:38PM 3 points [-]

And what does the "Yudkowsky's recent pwnedness" swipe refer to?

Probably the idea of relocating to a place outside of the US where it's easier to get visas.

Comment author: [deleted] 19 September 2014 08:34:37PM *  2 points [-]

Is this post just an excuse for an NRxic quote?

No. I honestly think the probability of this prediction coming true has increased.

Comment author: ChristianKl 20 September 2014 03:10:24PM 3 points [-]

If that's the case why don't you simple update your predictionbook entry?

Comment author: [deleted] 22 September 2014 07:05:32AM *  4 points [-]

Trivial inconvenience of forgetting my password, also I wanted to talk about it with other people.

Edit: Predictionbook entry updated.

Comment author: ChristianKl 22 September 2014 10:45:28AM 2 points [-]

Trivial inconvenience of forgetting my password

Software like KeePass really helps for that purpose.

Comment author: jaime2000 20 September 2014 08:22:59PM *  1 point [-]

And what does the "Yudkowsky's recent pwnedness" swipe refer to?

For what it's worth, when I asked Nyan Sandwich and Nydwracu whether they thought Eliezer Yudkowsky was pwned, they cited his support for open borders and his evangelical polyamory as evidence that he was, indeed, pwned.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 17 September 2014 06:26:05PM 3 points [-]

I'm dubious about borders getting opened that soon, considering how long it's taking to make moderate moves towards drug legalization.

Comment author: Sarunas 21 September 2014 04:17:29PM 2 points [-]

Curiously, the anti-immigration movement in the US would be very different than those in Western Europe, and, I would guess, significantly weaker. While economic arguments are somewhat similar in both countries (although e.g. studies differ whether (and what level of) immigration actually increases unemployment levels as in the short run immigrants seem to go to the countries where the unemployment is decreasing), in Western Europe immigrants are vastly overrepresented in crime statistics compared to local population, which is not the case in the US. Nor (it was my impression, I am not from the US) immigrants are often thought as a demographic group whose individuals are the most prone to commit crimes (it must be noted, however, that immigrants aren't a homogeneous group (both in Western Europe and the US) and their effect (and/or the perception thereof) on a country of destination might differ), and as they are not at the top of crime statistics, they are less likely to be a target of blame. Furthermore, it was my impression that due to the long history of immigration, the national identity of the US is not based on ethnicity, while in most European countries it definitely is. As you can see, it is not surprising that Americans are somewhat more likely than Europeans to think that immigration should be increased, and about two thirds of them think that on the whole immigration is a good thing, only in Sweden we find similar support for it.

Nevertheless, even given this unusually positive attitude towards immigration, I would guess that the US population reaching even 600 million (let alone 2 billion, which I believe must have been a hyperbole) by 2038 (U.S. Census Bureau projects approximately 400 millions) has a probability less than 1-2 percent. The reason is that while for a pundit it is often a good strategy to make bold claims about e.g. opening all borders, as it gains him attention (therefore I can believe that we will hear a lot of such claims from people who compete for attention) whether or not the claims about doubling World's GDP are correct (in the long run it may be correct, I do not know), it might not be such a good thing for a politician or a civil servant to do bold actions as it is a risk of losing control of the situation and/or getting fired, and, as a general rule, politicians and civil servants want neither of those, therefore , I would guess, they have to more cautious when they become actual decision makers. Therefore, even if one wants to promote the idea of open borders and free mobility, one could probably try to encourage more Schengen/EU style regional agreements and then gradually "merging" them with new bilateral agreements between those unions, as it seems less risky than simply welcoming all immigrants. And in the far future it may happen that large parts of the world is covered by a Schengen-like agreement making "nobody illegal" in a similar sense that it is relatively easy for a person from one EU country to work in another. But that would probably take much more than 25-30 years. However, I would guess that even then it seems highly unlikely that US population would exceed even 1 billion, let alone 2 billion, since as the economies of the developing countries improve, there will be less incentives for people to leave them for the US. One would expect a huge influx of immigrants only if US government loosens immigration restrictions "faster" than developing countries manage to improve.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 September 2014 07:06:26AM *  3 points [-]

Good counter-argument, updated

Though I will point out civil servants in the position to decide such things are practically unfierable and that politicians' public persona are down-stream from public opinion, if the media and academia that are mostly upstream decide open borders really is a moral crime akin to segregation (not hard since it fundamentally is segregation - not that I think this in itself makes it immoral), then public opinion would try to resist by a few populist politicians but would eventually succumb like it has on all other issues where its interests or opinions were pitted against the former.