Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: sp1ky 18 April 2012 05:00:25AM 0 points [-]

Is there a Sydney meetup?

Comment author: sp1ky 18 April 2012 04:46:20AM -2 points [-]

A good article, if your goal is to save as many lives as possible from perishing. But I'm going to say, for most people, this is not their goal. Yes, if you ask someone directly "would you save a painting, or save 1000 lives", they would almost all say "lives of course". But in reality, people don't have an emotional attachment to 1000 people they have no idea about.

In my case, I really don't care if 1000 lives are lost if I don't do something. I know that makes me sound like a bad person. But what are people really? We're a self-replicating gene machines. There's 6 billion of us in the world. There is inherently very little value in saving 1000 lives out of 6 billion. It's like saying "if you give us money we can prevent a loon from destroying 1000 iPads just because he feels like it". Now, if in this world there were only 5000 iPads left, then I might consider preserving those doomed 1000 iPads.

I think you should apply this argument towards something else, and it really needs it: animal conservation efforts. The amount of disproportionate money and focus spent on certain animals over others is highly unfair. It happens because people give money according to their emotional attachment. Hence, whales over basking sharks, or seal pups over frogs, for example. Biodiversity is an asset with unlimited potential, but before we can gene sequence it all, we're losing this diversity in front of our lives. It's like, nature has served to us on a plate amazing designs patterns and strategies, but we don't care.

Comment author: rwallace 13 March 2012 12:59:37AM -2 points [-]

This used to be an interesting site for discussing rationality. It was bad enough when certain parties started spamming the discussion channel with woo-woo about the machine Rapture, but now we have a post openly advocating terrorism, and instead of being downvoted to oblivion, it becomes one of the most highly upvoted discussion posts, with a string of approving comments?

I think I'll stick to hanging out on sites where the standard of rationality is a little better. Ciao, folks.

Comment author: sp1ky 18 April 2012 02:19:57AM -1 points [-]

This post was ALL about rational debate. This is a highly calculated assessment of the fragility of Moore's Law. THis is the kind of stuff government advisors would probably have figured out by now. If you say this helps terrorists (which is ironic because the conclusion was only airbombing can stop fabrication, and terrorists don't have access to that yet), well this is also highly useful to anyone who wants to stop terrorists.

The conclusion is highly interesting. If a war was to break out today between developed nations, taking out the other's fabricators and nuclear capabilities must be the highest priorities.

Comment author: [deleted] 13 March 2012 02:52:25PM 3 points [-]

Gwern wouldn't advocate terrorism as a solution; he already has argued that it's ineffective.

Comment author: sp1ky 18 April 2012 02:15:23AM -2 points [-]

If it was effective, it doesn't mean it should be removed. Even more reason it should be known to be at risk.