= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mushroom comments on Open thread, Nov. 24 - Nov. 30, 2014 - 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 (317)
The year is 1800. You want to reduce existential-risk. What do you do?
Are you a time-traveler or a native?
A native (but optionally a very insightful and visionary native).
EDIT: I said native, but all that I really want to avoid is an answer like "I would use all my detailed 21-st century scientific knowledge to do something that a native couldn't possibly do".
How about "I would use all my detailed 21-st century scientific knowledge to be concerned about something that a native couldn't possibly be concerned about"?
Sure, if it leads to an interesting point.
For example, if you were trying to avoid suffering: "I would kill 12 year old Hitler" isn't very interesting, but "I would do BLAH to improve European relations" or "There's nothing I could do" are interesting.
Did you mean 1800 or 1900?
I didn't mean that example to refer to original question; I just wanted to demonstrate a vague but somewhat intuitive difference between "fair" and "unfair" use of future knowledge.
Well, being concerned about existential risk in 1800 probably means you were very much impressed by Thomas Malthus' An Essay on the Principle of Population (published in 1798) and were focused on population issues.
Of course, if you were a proper Christian you wouldn't worry too much about X-risk anyway -- first, it's God's will, and second, God already promised an end to this whole life: the Judgement Day.
Still true today.
Sure, but the percentage of fully believing Christians was much higher in 1800.
Vaccination for everyone! Aqueduct (AND toilets) for everyone!
Make good publicity for Mr. Volta's new chemical battery, and convince everyone of how ugly the world is when tainted by coal smoke. This has a dual purpose: ease the way for early development of electric cars, thus fighting global warming, and delay Western meddling in the Middle East for oil extraction purposes, which contributed largely to the mess the region is now.
Find Mr. Heinrich Marx at his law practice in Trier and quietly castrate him.
Popularize DIY production of blue cheese and thus increase the chances that someone playing with Penicillium fungi will get creative.
Recruit would-be Temperance Leagues and redirect their strength to strangle the tobacco industry in its crib.
Edited to add: only massive distribution of aqueducts and toilets would be obvious to a true native of 1800.
Batteries still mean that you need electricity and that means burning coal.
Uranium was discovered in 1789 in Saxony. What's the minimal technological path from there to reasonably-safe reactors? I would imagine it involves not only the obvious physics, but photography (to detect radiation) and significant advances in metallurgy (to refine ores) ....
Start an insurance company with a focus on risk mitigation.
(Amass resources, collect information, you get the idea.)
I give Napoleon a hand, on the basis that he was one of the more scientifically-minded world leaders, and the theory that a strong France makes our future more multipolar. For the same reason I try to spread the notion of the limited-liability corporation in the islamic world (no idea how to do that though). I might try to convince nations of the (AIUI genuine) non-profitability of colonialism.
If you want multi-polar, Napoleon is the last person you should help. He was clearly acting to reduce the number of Great Powers to 1. He even succeed for a bit re: Prussia & Austria.
Alternatively, if he wins, how do you prevent France v. USA instead of Russia v. USA.
If it ends up more even and more positive-sum, I call that a win.
Why would you expect any different outcome at all? Two-power dynamics often unstable - absent external stabilizer like MAD.
You just have to keep the Canadian-Mexican border quiet :-)