= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
At this point, it is extremely unlikely that the United States will return to a general draft any time soon. This is politically untenable. (This may be unfortunate: there's a decent argument that drafts make people less likely to support war when they know their kids may be called up.) In any event, I'd estimate around a 1% chance of a draft in the next decade, moving to 5% in the next 20 years, in which case you will almost certainly be well above draft age before it is activated. Speaking more generally, these don't seem like major issues to worry about, aren't connected that much to rationality, and are things involving legal issues which can be better served by asking a lawyer rather than a general internet forum.
In response to
Donation tradeoffs in conscientious objection
I agree with much of this, but I would say that 1-5 % is a large chance, relative to how much I would get negative utils from such an experience.
Legal advice is a big component of my question, but there's another component that is best served by asking about tradeoffs between different behaviors, like donating. Maybe that doesn't overlap strongly enough with rationality to make it relatable to the extent that true optimal philanthropy posts would be, but it's still something and I feel it's fine at least for the discussion area.. certainly not a topic for a main post or anything.
p(Draft Board is even AWARE of p4wnc6 really being John Smith) TIMES p(Draft Board even bothering with Google) TIMES p(LessWrong is a top result) TIMES p(An old thread is high on Google) AND/OR p(They spend time going through all their old threads)
So, um... seriously? You consider that compound possibility MORE LIKELY than LessWrong producing useful draft-dodging advice? I can't help but think that would be strong evidence that LessWrong is bloody useless at problem solving, if it were true.
I allude to this point and get -3 votes. I appreciate this point. There are many good criticisms of what I've written. But this idea that I should be worried about an "internet trail" about it is not one of them.
In response to
Donation tradeoffs in conscientious objection
If worst comes to worst, refuse to sign any papers what so ever, you'll go to prison for a few years. Or shoot yourself in the foot on accident, that flips burden of proof. It's called non-violent resistance. I don't think US would allow any other form of objection (edit: besides e.g. being Amish). There are 2 types of conscription. Total war conscription to win an important war where you have a lot to lose; this one would go nuclear within the first hour. And majority enslaving minority, the only type of conscription possible in the US.
I guess one could just expand the question like so:
1) Avoiding combat where I cause harm or death is the first priority, so if I have to go to jail or shoot myself in the foot to avoid it, so be it and if it comes to that, it's what I'll do. This is priority number one.
2) I can do things to improve my odds of never needing to face the situation described in (1) and to the extent that the behaviors are expedient (in a cost-benefit tradeoff sense) to do in my life, I'd like to do them now to help improve odds of (1)-avoidance later. Note that this in no way conflicts with being a genuine pacifist. It's just common sense. Yes, I'll avoid combat in costly ways if I have to. But I'd also be stupid to not even explore less costly ways to invest in combat-avoidance that could be better for me.
3) To the extent that (2) is true, I'd like to examine certain options, like donating to charities that assist with legal issues in conscientious objection, or which extend mental illness help to affected veterans, for their efficacy. There is still a cost to these things and given my conscientious objection preferences, I ought to weigh that cost.
I appreciate your willingness to engage me on the actual point of my question, rather than solely looking at the signal faker aspect like other commenters. But I still think there's much to discuss here.
If I understand correctly, the grandparent is a quote of the question to which the great-great-grandparent is a response.
In other words:
I'm asking about how to efficiently signal actual pacifism.
And the best way to do that is:
Replace "serious injury or death" with "causing serious injury or death".
The elaborated version is that showing first and foremost that you care strongly about not causing serious injury or death will be much more efficient for signalling purposes.
This reminds me of the musician-programmer thing in social science and attraction; If you first show yourself as a guitar player, and then reveal that you also do programming, you're a cool and smart person. If you first reveal yourself as a programmer, and only then show that you play the guitar, you're a nerdy freak trying to show off.
This is the advice that is being given, as my first guess. Show that you care about not causing injury first, before showing that you also want to not be injured and also would like not to be conscripted / imprisoned.
Yes, but my question is conditional. Assume that you already sincerely believe in conscientious objection, in the sense of personal ideology such that you could describe it to a draft board. Now that we're conditioning on that, and we assume already that your primary goal is to avoid causing harm or death... then further ask what behaviors might be best to generate the kinds of signals that will work to convince a draft board. Merely having actual pacifist beliefs is not enough. Someone could have those beliefs but then do actions that poorly communicate them to a draft board. Someone else could have those beliefs and do behaviors that more successfully communicate them to draft boards. And to whatever extent there are behaviors outside of the scope of just giving an account of one's ideology I am asking to analyze the effectiveness.
I really think my question is pretty simple. Assume your goal is genuine pacifism but that you're worried this won't convince a draft board. What should you do? Is donation a good idea? Yes, these could be questions a faker would ask. So what? They could also be questions a sincere person would ask, and I don't see any reason for all the downvoting or questions about signal faking. Why not just do the thought experiment where you assume that you are first a sincere conscientious objector and second a person concerned about draft board odds?
I'm asking about how to efficiently signal actual pacifism.
Yes?
I'm not asking about faking pacifism. I'm asking about how to efficiently signal actual pacifism. How else am I supposed to ask about that?
Replace "serious injury or death" with "causing serious injury or death".
Replace "serious injury or death" with "causing serious injury or death".
No. It's absurd to act like "real" conscientious objectors don't do other things like care about the probability that they would be sent to jail or sent to military service. It's as if, in your model, conscientious objectors are never allowed to speak about self interest. Which is preposterous.
This is a piece of writing criticism, not ethical-theory criticism:
not every post on this topic has to be about conscription ideology.
That's just false. An essay needs a point, and having too many weakens the essay. It's the difference between article Why it is unethical to eat meat and the essay Why it is unethical to eat meat - and by the way, pork tastes terrible.
In short, anything beyond the scope of "how do I show I'm a pacifist to the draft board" really distracts the reader.
As an aside, I think you over-estimate P( US institutes military conscription ). And you will never be forced into battle - prison for refusal to obey orders is always an option.
That's just false. An essay needs a point, and having too many weakens the essay.
I disagree. Not every essay on the topic of conscientious objection needs to be centered on the foundational basis for the belief. It is possible to begin a discussion by saying, "assume X," and then asking what you would do about Y or Z conditional on X. The point of my post could be muddied due to poor writing, sure, but not due to missing details about my personal feelings on the reasons for conscientious objection. Those details would be totally superfluous to the questions that I'm trying to ask.
In short, anything beyond the scope of "how do I show I'm a pacifist to the draft board" really distracts the reader.
It sounds like you're saying that no one can ever broach this topic unless they conform to what you think are boundaries on acceptable conversations about conscientious objection. I don't agree with the limits you're setting on the scope of the conversation.
A CO doesn't need to worry too much about serving against their will. During Vietnam, it was possible to end up in jail if you just peacefully refused to carry out any order.
I am not sure that I agree, but this is at least a cogent point. You are saying that I should not have the preferences that I do have (e.g. you think I should assign less weight to the possibility of conscription against my will). I still think this is non-sequitur to the point of the post. Just because you don't see a lot of reason to place a large negative weight on that possibility doesn't mean that asking about how best to avoid it should count as evidence of faking rather than genuine tradeoff planning.
Corroboration of Khoth: I also assumed this was a how-to-fake-Pacifism ask.
Both pacifists and fake!pacifists are interested in efficient signalling to a draft board.
Both pacifists and fake!pacifists are interested in efficient signalling to a draft board.
I don't see how this is relevant without additional information.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
The Applied Information Economics ideas are very reminiscent of decision tree algorithms. Would it be useful to try to extend the analogy and see if there's an extension of AIE that is like random forests?
Hanson's homo hypocritus idea may also be relevant. Perhaps, even subconsciously, people avoid measuring the dimensions or directions that will add a lot of info because they want to both (a) vociferously claim that they did measure stuff and the measures didn't help and (b) avoid any culpability for implementing changes they don't politically control, such as changes indicated by measuring very informative directions.
Just saying, a lot of people want to appear like they are productively exploring measures that yield changes and progress while tacitly sabotaging that very activity to retain political control over status quos.