Lumifer comments on [POLITICS] Jihadism and a new kind of existential threat - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (143)
To be fair:
a) If advancedatheist was the leader of the US, and people would follow him, he probably could conquer or kill a billion through technological superiority without too much difficulty. Guerilla warfare might be less of a problem if, after an insurgent attack, all males of fighting age nearby had their first two fingers cut off, to act as both a deterent against future attacks and to stop them pulling triggers. Brutal? Yes, by modern standards, but very civilised compared to say, imperial Japan.
b) Are rationalist consequentialists meant to view empathy as anything other than 'warm fuzzies' which should be endorsed enough to stay sane, but otherwise ignored?
EDIT: Am I trying to say that empathy is wrong, or am I employing the Socratic method? Who knows?
That I would probably describe as a technofetishist fantasy set in some dystopian universe. Do you think it's relevant to reality?
Well, unless any of us have the ability to substantially alter politics, none of this is relevant to reality.
You're conflating whether you have an accurate map and whether you can actually travel.
Well, I would say that if "relevant to reality" means an accurate map of a counterfactual, then yes, my "technofetishist fantasy set in some dystopian universe" is relevant to reality.
LOL. All wrong maps are "accurate maps of a counterfactual" :-D
But not all "accurate maps of a counterfactual" are wrong.
None of them match reality.
I think models such as "If I had caught the bus, then I would have got to the meeting on time" match reality, even though they are describing events that did not happen in reality.