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.

adamzerner comments on Effective altruism and political power - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: adamzerner 17 June 2015 05:47PM

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

Comments (50)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 June 2015 06:24:05PM *  2 points [-]

would any of the big names in tech have a chance at being elected president of the US?

No.

As far as maximizing altruistic impact goes, would it be a good idea for them to become president? ... Do these people care about maximizing altruistic impact?

The impact of what? The whole of the US policy? That's an unrealistic goal. Besides, I don't know if any of them is particularly altruistic. They have lots of money which means that giving away large (in absolute terms) chunks of it leads to zero marginal impact on their life, but that's a different thing.

I also find it... ironic that Bill Gates is missing from your list.

What other "sane" people have enough reputation in the public eye to have a chance at acquiring a lot of political power?

You're thinking technocracy and that's not necessarily a good idea. What you want above all in a political leader is that his value system be aligned to yours. If it is not, the fact that he is effective at reaching his goals becomes a threat, not a benefit.

It is also the case that the US political process is set up to filter away the sane people. Would anyone sane really want a team of competent and malicious lawyers and investigators to go through his entire life with a fine-toothed comb looking for any dirt (or for what can be made to look like it)?

P.S. You should distinguish between actually running for Presidency and "let's pretend I'm running for President because it will be fun and I'm an attention whore, anyway".

Comment author: adamzerner 17 June 2015 06:26:20PM 0 points [-]

I also find it... ironic that Bill Gates is missing from your list.

I thought about him, but it seems "too obvious"(?). Like I'd think that it's sort of clear that he has a solid chance at running and winning if he wanted to. But he doesn't, so I take that as evidence that he doesn't want to. Although I didn't think much about it, and it very well may be bad reasoning.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 June 2015 06:37:07PM 2 points [-]

it's sort of clear that he has a solid chance at running and winning if he wanted to.

Really? Have you asked any "regular" people -- cashiers in a Walmart, car mechanics, secretaries -- whether they think Bill "Why isn't my computer doing what I want?" Gates would make a good POTUS..?

But the ironic part actually has to do with Gates demonstrating much more altruism than other names on your list.

Comment author: adamzerner 17 June 2015 10:09:32PM 0 points [-]

I think you're right. My previous comment was just what my original thought process was, but now I think you're right.