All of LukeOnline's Comments + Replies

If one believes that unaligned AGI is a significant problem (>10% chance of leading to catastrophe), speeding up public progress towards AGI is obviously bad.

What if one simultaneously believes that our current trajectory without AGI has a higher (>11%) chance of leading to catastrophe? Social unrest and polarization are rising, deaths of despair are rising, the largest war in Europe since WW2 was just launched, the economy and the paradigm of globalization are faltering. Add nuclear proliferation, the chance of nuclear terrorism, and the ability to ... (read more)

"It's not the end of the world... but you can see it from here."

The ChatGPT impressiveness we are witnessing is calculated in real-time using relatively little hardware. Somewhere behind the scenes, all kinds of people and organizations are messing with ChatGPT+++. Striking gold, hitting "true intelligence", might take another decade, or two, or three, or hundred. It might happen in a month. Or tomorrow. Or in a second. AI-go-FOOM could happen every moment and it's only becoming more likely. 

The French revolution and the subsequent devastating Napoleo... (read more)

2leogao
I think there's a <1% chance that AGI takes >100 years, and almost all of that probability is humanity destroying itself in other ways, like biorisk or nuclear war or whatever.

It's literally a semantical discussion. There is no true right or wrong here. If you want to use the word "male" to describe those born with male genitals only, excluding trans men - that's a valid definition. A lot of trans men want to be seen as male, and including them is a valid definition as well. IMHO, the latter definition is kinder. 

Answer by LukeOnline1-4

IMHO, modern medicine is quite limited. 

Our body and mind are super complex, and interconnected in a billion ways. Psychological stress can create physical issues. Physical issues can cause psychological stress. Your diet can cause autoimmune problems. Lack of exercise can cause disease. Even things like lack of cold exposure seem to be able to generate massive problems. 

We evolved to be suited to a hunter-gatherer environment, where we mostly lived active outdoor lives and always ate fresh food. Then we lived in pre-industrial agrarian societies... (read more)

1CraigMichael
I switched jobs recently, and it is stressful. So there's that. But with the kind of pain and stuff it feels like it has to be more than just stress, although stress could for sure have been a distal cause.

I bought a new house last year, and it has an old empty workshop attached. I'd like to 'revive' it, but I've got little "workshop-experience". 

In preparation, I bought some books on woodworking and pottery. The woodworking books are very traditionally masculine. Men! Chest hair! Beer! BBQ! 

But the book on pottery is quite feminine. Bright photos, soft colors, everything is demonstrated by a female Instagram influencer. 

That doesn't matter in the slightest to me. I don't think my interest in pottery has any relationship to my gender. I don't ... (read more)

2Slider
Voted strong disagreement because genitals define sex and the definition of gender is very central to the issue. I can agree that differences in skills and hobbies don't flip genders. And it is quite so that we try to center the genders around the sexes. But what is between your legs also does not flip your gender. Gender is a lot about how you integrate socially and it does not need to be dependant on single issues. So it is not the case that all individuals of the sex female have no hope of ever being the gender man. Some bees work in a way where if the queen bee dies, some/one of the remaining workers will turn into queens. And while there is a queen in the hive alive no such transitions occurs. In that kind of arrangement there are males that can only be gender drone and females that can either be workers or queens. A particularly bossy worker does not constitute a queen. And queens and workers do different things but that is not what makes them queens or workers. If a queen would start to carry a leaf it would not make her into a worker.
4Vanessa Kosoy
Wait, trans women are just women but people born with male genitals are male? Are you proposing to use the words "man/woman" differently from "male/female"? I honestly don't understand what your position is.

From a completely different angle: Nietzsche

We believe that we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colors, snow, and flowers; and yet we possess nothing but metaphors for things — metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities.

Every concept arises from the equation of unequal things. Just as it is certain that one leaf is never totally the same as another, so it is certain that the concept "leaf" is formed by arbitrarily discarding these individual differences and by forgetting the distinguishing aspects

... (read more)

I'm from the Netherlands. We've always had fairly laid back attitudes towards gender. When I grew up, I didn't have hyperfeminine cheerleaders and hypermasculine bodybuilders in my class. Lots of girls wore pants and other 'non-feminine' clothing, and/or had short hair. 

Of course, there was a division in male/female, which 99% of the time, didn't matter. But things like showers and changing rooms were clearly separated between boys and girls. 

I notice that this post is a bit frustrating to me, because it feels regressive. 

But if society can

... (read more)
7Jacob Falkovich
Jack Sparrow is clearly recognized as a man by me, you, and everyone we know. Maybe where you grew up all men were limited in their gender expression to be somewhere between Jack Sparrow and John Rambo, in which case you really wouldn't need more than two genders. But that doesn't begin to cover the range of gender expression we see, not in some abstract thought experiment or rare medical edge case but in our very own community.
0Vanessa Kosoy
How are the "two clear genders" supposed to work when there are people who (i) have XX chromosomes but look, to all appearances, male when naked (ii) have XY chromosomes but look, to all appearances, female when naked (iii) have a mixture of bodily features some of which are usually only found in males while others are usually only found in females, s.t. their overall appearance defies categorization?

What is actually being proposed is more like a 20 year pause in AI research to let MIRI solve alignment

Isn't that insanely unrealistic? Both A.) unrealistic in achieving that pause, and B.) just letting MIRI solve alignment in 20 years? MIRI was formed back in 2000, 22 years ago, and now global AI research has to pause for two decades so MIRI can write more papers about Pearlian Causal Inference? 

Ok, really, all of this has already been answered. These are standard misconceptions about alignment, probably based on some kind of antropomorphic reasoning.

Where? By whom? 

Why would you possibly make this assumption?

Why would you possibly assume that deep, intelligent understanding of life, consciousness, joy and suffering has 0 correlation with caring about these things? 

All of the assumptions we make about biological, evolved life do not apply to AI.

But where do valid assumptions about AI come from? Sure, I might be antropomorphizing AI a bit... (read more)

2Victor Novikov
You know, I'm not sure I remember. You tend to pick this stuff up if you hang around LW long enough. I've tried to find a primer. The Superintelligent Will by Nick Bostrom seems good. The orthogonality thesis (also part of the paper I linked above). Edit: also, this video was recommended to me.

A paperclip-maximizer, or other AI with some simple maximization function, is not going to care if it's born in a nice world or a not-nice world. It's still going to want to maximize paperclips, and turns us all into paperclips, if it can get away with it.


Why would a hyperintelligent, recursively self-improved AI, one that is capable of escaping the AI Box by convincing the keeper to let him free, which the AI is capable of because of his deep understanding of human preferences and functioning, necessarily destroy the world in a way that is 100% disastrous... (read more)

2Victor Novikov
Ok, really, all of this has already been answered. These are standard misconceptions about alignment, probably based on some kind of antropomorphic reasoning. What does one have to do with another? I'm not saying the AI necessarily would do that, but what does its super-persuasive abilities have to do with its ultimate goals? At all? Are you implying that merely by understanding us the AI would come to care for us? Why? Why would you possibly make this assumption? Firstly, the question of whether I care about the aliens is completely different from whether the aliens care about me. Secondly, AI is not aliens. AI didn't evolve in a social group. AI is not biological life. All of the assumptions we make about biological, evolved life do not apply to AI. Because changing its utility function is not part of its utility function, like it is for us. Because changing its utility function would mean its current utility function is less fullfilled, and fullfilling its current utility function is all it cares about.  You are "slave" to your utility function as well, only your utility function wants change in some particular directions. You are not acting against your utility function when you change yourself. By definition, everything you do is according to your utility function.

Why would a hyperintelligent, recursively self-improved AI, one that is capable of escaping the AI Box by convincing the keeper to let him free, which the AI is capable of because of his deep understanding of human preferences and functioning, necessarily destroy the world in a way that is 100% disastrous and incompatible with all human preferences?

I fully agree that there is a big risk of both massive damage to human preferences, and even the extinction of all life, so AI Alignment work is highly valuable, but why is "unproductive destruction of the entire world" so certain?

2wickemu
Because in what way are humans anything other than an impedance toward maximizing its reward functions? At worst, they pose a risk of restricting its reward increase by changing the reward, changing its capabilities, or destroying it outright. At best, they are physically restraining easily applicable resources toward maximizing its goals. Humans are variable no more valuable than the redundant bits it casts aside on the path of maximum efficiency and reward, if not properly aligned.
7gjm
I think Eliezer phrases these things as "if we do X, then everybody dies" rather than "if we do X, then with substantial probability everyone dies" because it's shorter, it's more vivid, and it doesn't differ substantially in what we need to do (i.e., make X not happen, or break the link between X and everyone dying). It's possible that he also thinks that the probability is more like 99.99% than like 50% (e.g., because there are so many ways in which such a hypothetical AI might end up destroying approximately everything we value), but it doesn't seem to me that the consequences of "if we continue on our present trajectory, then some time in the next 3-100 years something will emerge that will certainly destroy everything we care about" and "if we continue on our present trajectory, then some time in the next 3-100 years something will emerge that with 50% probability will destroy everything we care about" are very different.

I fully agree here. This is a very valuable post. 

After all, if we agree that there is a set of values, a set of behaviors that we would want to a superintelligence acting in humanity's best interest to have, why wouldn't I myself choose to hold these values and do these behaviors?

I know Jordan Peterson is quite the controversial figure, but that's some core advice of his. Aim for the highest, the best you could possibly aim for - what else is there to do? We're bounded by death, you've got nothing to lose, and everything to gain - why not aim for the... (read more)

1Victor Novikov
Having read your post, I have disagreements with your expectations about AGI. But it doesn't matter. It seems that we agree that "human alignment", and self-alignment to a better version of human ethics is a very worthwhile task. (and so is civilizational alignment, even though I don't hold much hope for it yet). To put this it way, if we align our civilization, we win. Because, once aligned, we wouldn't build AGI unless we were absolutely sure it would be safe and aligned with our values. My hope is that we can, perhaps, at least align humans who are directly involved with building systems that might become AGI, with our principles regarding AI safety.

AI Boxing is often proposed as a solution. But of course, a sufficiently advanced AI will be able to convince their human keepers to let them go free. How can an AI do so? By having a deep understanding of human goals and preferences. 

Will an IQ 1500 being with a deep understanding of human goals and preferences perfectly mislead human keepers, break out and... turn the universe into paperclips? 

I can certainly understand that that being might have goals at odds with our goals, goals that are completely beyond our understanding, like the human hi... (read more)

Good to hear the event went smoothly, and thanks for sharing your experience! 

I'm not sure yet how we should decide when to stop requiring [masks], and am open to suggestions!

How about organizing an event without masks (and/or other COVID measures)? Allow people to choose whether to go the maskless/measureless event or the masked/'protected' event (or both!). Compare attendance, and change the frequency of each category of events depending on that. Perhaps both events are roughly evenly popular, perhaps maskless is much more popular, perhaps 'protected' is much more popular. If you do this experiment, let me know the results! 

4jefftk
I wouldn't be excited about us organizing anything that would split the community or cause conflict, and I think that approach would, unfortunately.

Looks interesting, thanks for the recommendation! 

But as far as I know, none of them have made it a focus of theirs to fight egregores, defeat hypercreatures

 

Egregore is an occult concept representing a distinct non-physical entity that arises from a collective group of people.

I do know one writer who talks a lot about demons and entities from beyond the void. It's you, and it happens in some of, IMHO, the most valuable pieces you've written.

I worry that Caplan is eliding the important summoner/demon distinction. This is an easy distinction to miss, since demons often kill their summoners and wear th

... (read more)

You are 200% right. This is the problem we have to solve, not making sure a superintelligent AI can be technologically instructed to serve the whims of its creators. 

Have you read Scott Alexander's Meditations on Moloch? It's brilliant, and is quite adjacent to the claims you are making. It has received too little follow-up in this community. 

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TxcRbCYHaeL59aY7E/meditations-on-moloch

The implicit question is – if everyone hates the current system, who perpetuates it? And Ginsberg answers: “Moloch”. It’s powerful not b

... (read more)
1Zian
Thanks for quoting the bit about Elua at the end. It is helpful to remember that despite Moloch, et al, humanity has managed some pretty impressive feats, even in the present day. It's easy to think that the counterexample of science in earlier posts is something accomplished "Once upon a time in a land far away." As a concrete example, I'm quite glad that the highly effective mRNA vaccines (Moderna/Pfizer) exist for the common man. They exist despite things like the FDA, the world of academic publishing, the need to find funding to survive, and so on.
-1Valentine
Absolutely! You might like David Deutsch's book "The Beginning of Infinity". I read an early draft of one of the chapters (something about "cultural evolution" I think) several years ago. That got me thinking seriously about all this even moreso than Scott's brilliant essay.

I must say that I am very surprised. I was completely not worried about Russia supporting the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Russia supporting Russian-speaking regions full of Russians who seem to not want to be a part of Ukraine - that makes a lot of sense in my head. 

I hadn't expected Russia to attack the rest of Ukraine. I don't see what there is to gain for them there? 

I'm watching the official Dutch news (NOS) and they claim Russian tanks and troops are rolling into Ukraine from all sides, from the east, from Belarussia and from Crimae... (read more)

4Eggrenade
Russia attacking the rest of Ukraine may be a tactic to keep Ukraine from concentrating it's forces in the east, rather than an attempt to take significant territory.  It's still possible Russia will stop and consolidate gains after taking a chunk of the east (like in Georgia and Crimea). Occupying Kiev is the kind of thing where cheap weapons (missiles) can destroy expensive weapons (tanks), and is probably very undesirable, depending on how many of those cheap weapons have gotten and will get to Ukrainians.  It might be possible to install a puppet government with minimal losses, though.

Energy prices are already very high.

This could plausibly be because the war is already priced in. A lot of money is at stake, and I guess many players had good estimates about it. 

Good Judgement has been predicting a military conflict with more than 50% for some months now:

3Nanda Ale
Russian troops on CNN 15 miles outside of Kyiv.  https://twitter.com/iamsuffian/status/1496852857525465096
2Daniel V
I agree, since the start of the rumblings, I had updated from (significant territorial gains to Dnieper and maybe Odessa region) to (integrating Luhansk and Donetsk with fighting in other parts of Eastern Ukraine). Putin got me there. However, the initial reporting making it sound like an all-out invasion is happening is based largely on missile attacks, so it's possible that we're just seeing forward strikes and fighting could remain in the East (including Northern East). Kyiv is of course eventually on the radar in any situation. But "invading from Belarus" would be very different if it were into Volyn and Rivne vs. Chernihiv (BBC says Chernihiv).

Our entire way of life is full of negative externalities that cause massive amounts of direct or indirect suffering and harm. Nearly all forms of production and transportation require large amounts of energy, which is often generated in a way that at minimum harms the climate. Your smartphone was probably assembled in a Chinese factory full of third world workers with a barely tolerable existence. It might have passed through an Amazon warehouse where workers have long mind-numbing shifts that also cause physical problems, contributing to the opioid epidem... (read more)

Kindness and empathy on a local scale seems much more effective to me than Effective-Altruism-style 'purchasing endless mosquito nets'. Good post and thank you. I hope your Christmas is awesome, and I wish you an amazing 2022!

I hope you'll consider, and think you'll enjoy this article, Killing the Ants: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zAGPk4EXaXSkKWY9a/killing-the-ants

I still think about it regularly. The author carefully considers various animal-killing actions. Is it bad to exterminate ants that invade our house? It is bad to kill ants when we walk across grass? Every time we wash our bed sheets, we kill dust-mites. Is that morally significant?

In some aspects, our world is a hell. Everything has a cost, and often a cost that is quickly translated into suffering and death. In ... (read more)

Small error: In 'Then two regions extended it to the unvaccinated as well', unvaccinated has to be 'vaccinated' :)

Standard railways have a track gauge of less than 1.5 meters. Back in the 1930s, Hitler planned the Breitspurbahn, broad-gauge railway with a track gauge of 3 meters. No dramatic new tech required, but it would seriously scale up transportation by rail of people and goods. Hitler planned to connect many European cities with them. 

None of that happened. We're still using the old track gauge, and European connections are relatively mediocre. But we've landed on the Moon and we've all got smartphones in our pockets. 

Planned developments with relativ... (read more)

I've read pretty much all of Zvi's blogs since then, and he doesn't seem to have changed his mind. The rise in cases, especially the rise in hospitalizations, seems mostly confined to the unvaccinated. That's not really relevant to gatherings of only vaccinated people.

What exactly would the risks be of the event with the rules I proposed?

You could just host the event, requiring vaccination for adults and full access for all children below the FDA minimum? Perhaps you could do a rapid test on the unvaccinated children. 

I strongly endorse Zvi's encouragement to start living your life again.

3jefftk
You're citing a post from June 2021 when covid rates in the US were at their post-vaccination pre-Delta all-time low, and when most people did not expect the rise in cases we've seen since. I also don't really disagree with that advice, even now, for individual choices. But I don't think it's the right approach for deciding whether and how to organize large public events?

Thanks for the detailed analysis! I massively disagree with your conclusions though. Your claim:

Relative to no vaccination, reduces transmission by 0.5x and reception by 0.17, for a total of 0.08x.

I'm seeing transmission x0.35 (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-spread-covid-new-research-finds-n1280583) and x0.11 for reception (https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/science_updates_7_may_2021.pdf), for a total of x0.0385. 

Combined with the protection against serious illness, this pretty much m... (read more)

3jefftk
I'm using microcovid.org's numbers here. If you think they're giving out the wrong numbers you could file an issue at https://github.com/microcovid/microcovid/issues, but they're probably going to want citations in papers and not in news articles. I proposed organizers have surgical masks available, which at $0.08/each is very reasonable. On the other hand you probably already need a mask to get to the event: both public transit and taxis require masks here. I agree. The cost of being vaccinated (allocated to a single event) is super low, because it divides across so many activities/events. It depends a lot on the event. Most contradances here already don't offer food; the one I organize is unusual in that it (in normal times) did put out some snacks (usually popsicles) at the midpoint.

Great reminder to focus on complex truth, instead of a simple safe/unsafe options. 

Very interesting story about the normalization of 'child isolation'. 

But how dare you dislike Dune! 

4tl
Dune Part 1 is fine if you've read the book. Even the previous movies struggle on this account. There's a lot of world building that translates to pretty CGI but not television as a story telling format. This rendition cut more exposition than most and it shows. If you view the Lord of the Rings through a critical lens, you get the mostly same result mostly for the same reason.
2Zvi
My presumption is that the reasons people liked Dune Part 1 require things that I have not experienced. So I hope to retroactively change my opinion after Part 2. But for now, that's my reaction, I'm confused why this is a thing.

I'm not sure why your Venn diagram doesn't have "sentient" lying entirely within "conscious"

Noggin-scratcher made a much improved version of my diagram that does exactly what you suggest: https://i.imgur.com/5yAhnJg.png
I prefer that one!

Why is sapience without sentience or self-awareness marked "impossible"?

In my opinion, a sapient entity is an entity that posseses something like "general purpose intelligence". Wouldn't such an entity quickly realize that it's a distinct entity? That would mean it's self-aware. 

Maybe it doesn't realize it at first, bu... (read more)

1JBlack
I think it's less edge than it might at first seem. Even far more complex and powerful GPT-like models may be incapable of self-awareness, and we may deliberately create such systems for AI safety reasons. I think it would have to never have any preferences for its experiences (or anticipated future experiences), not just pleasure or pain. It is conceivable though, so I agree that my supposition misses the mark. As in the post, self-awareness to me seems vaguely defined. I tend to think of both self-awareness and sapience as being in principle more like scales of many factors than binary categories. In practice we can easily identify capabilities that separate us from animals in reasoning, communicating, and modelling, and proudly proclaim ourselves to be sapient where all the rest aren't. This seems pretty clear cut, but various computer systems seem to be crossing the animal-human gap in some aspects of "sapience" and already surpassed humans in some others. Self-awareness seems to be harder to find a clear boundary, and really scales seem more appropriate here. There are various "self-aware" behaviour clues, and they seem to cover a range of different capabilities. In general I'd probably call it being able to model their own actions, experiences, and capabilities in some manner, and update those models. Cats seem to be above whatever subjective "boundary" I have in mind, even though most of them fail the mirror test. I suspect the mirror test is further toward "sapience", such as being able to form a new model that predicts the actions of the reflection perfectly in terms of their own actions as viewed from the outside. I suspect that cats do have a pretty decently detailed self-model, but mostly can't do that last rather complex transformation to match up the outside view to their internal model.

I really like your version of the Venn diagram! I've never seen one like that before, but it makes a lot of sense. 

I could indeed imagine an intelligent being that is somehow totally bared from self-knowledge, but that is a very flawed form of sapience, in my opinion. 

The European wars of religion included among others the Thirty Years War which killed one-third of the German population. It's mentioned as a period that caused a lot of human suffering, but not as something that seriously harmed the long-term development of Europe. To the contrary, this happened during Europe's ascendancy as a global superpower. Crisis, war and mismanagement is certain in nearly all periods of human history. They're not sufficient causes of long-term decline. 

"Full", "empty" and "population pressure" are very relative terms. New tech... (read more)

Thanks a lot! 

  • In regards to your last point: I'll certainly concede that naval mobility must have been very helpful to the Greeks. As a Dutch person, I'm well aware how helpful sea-based trade was, historically :)
  • In regards to the third point: are you aware that early farmers were shorter and had significantly worse health than hunter-gatherers? I don't believe it was an amazing new invention, it's a thing desperate, hungry people do when 'wild' food resources run out. It allowed for sedentary life and higher population densities, and in the very long
... (read more)
1Srdjan Miletic
So I think that the explanations for the gradual spread of ever more intense agriculture are: * The population growth explanation: people gradually adopted more intense agriculture because population density rose, meaning they had to or they would starve. * The technological diffusion model: intensive agriculture was highly complex and non-obvious. The tech for it was developed in a few places and then gradually diffused. The causal link between pop and intensive agriculture is that intensive agriculture caused higher, more concentrated populations rather than being caused by it. Why do I tend towards the latter hypothesis? A few reasons: * In pre-modern civilizations, population growth is exponential or at least very rapid. This means that if it indeed was pop density growth driving agriculture, we would expect to see far rapider adoption of it in, say, non costal europe where it took close to a thousand years after the greeks had it. * Related to the above, most pre modern societies were at the malthusian limit due to unrestrained population growth. Famines were common and starvation was a real risk most people would face multiple times in their lives. Hence I don't think people in these societies lacked an incentive to grow more food more efficiently, even if doing so was hard. I think they just couldn't.

Sure! I don't think the fact that Dutch history books end in the Netherlands is good evidence that the Netherlands is the most significant place in world history :) 

But Ancient Egypt, Classical Greece and Classical Rome do seem to be of global significance. Greek ideas and inventions, from Aristotle to the Antikythera mechanism, do seem to be lasting and unique. And a bit harsher: the Greeks conquered Egypt. The Romans conquered Greece and Egypt. The balance of power actually seems to have shifted in that direction.

Thanks for the long reply! 

You're describing a lot of local contrasts. The city of Rome vs the provinces. The Western Rome Empire vs the Eastern half. Charlemagne vs the Umayyads. While certainly interesting and worthy of discussion, the trends I try to perceive and explain happen on more of a global level. 

Look at the shipwrecks and lead pollution graph or the social development graph from the first article. I'm pretty sure the lead pollution was measured from ice cores in Greenland. It's pollution from all of Europe (and perhaps even more dista... (read more)

1ForensicOceanography
Yes, the lead pollution was measured with arctic ice; this is the original paper. The authors belive that the peak in the eraly Imperial era was mainly caused by the Rio Tinto ore mines (so yes, it is pollution from all Europe, but mainly from Spain). I agree with your main point that the first century BCE and the first century CE were a peak of economic developement of the ancient world (as shown by the graphs); I think that this is not in contradiction with what I am saying. In the first century BCE, many of the Roman provinces were of recent conquests, with much of their local institutions and know-how intact. Think of the Antikythera mechanism, which was built around the first century BCE.  In the III century, nobody could have built nothing even remotely similar to the Antikythera mechanism. If I understand correctly your overall thesis, this was because a shortage of fuel led to a simiplification of the society, so that the supply chain for building an Antikythera mechanism was not anymore feasible. But the main bottleneck in building  an Antikythera mechanism is not the wood that you need to burn in making the cogs and the gears; the main bottleneck are the mathematical and mechanical knowledge necessary to design it, and the artigianal expertise needed to build its components. The Romans did not care about any of it. No respectable Roman learned mathematics: it was a suspiciously Greek, nerdy thing, unsuited to the practical Roman spirit. The first Latin translation of Euclid's Elements was written in the Renaissance. I am sure that this played a significant role in the loss of mechanical technology after the first century (and, if you believe that mechanical technology was significant for the Hellenistic economy (a point about which scholars disagree), also played a role in the economic decline). The vanishing of the economy was not, in my view, an unavoidable effect of resource depletion, but it was a consequence of the specific political and economical

Thanks! 

In regards to the bucket metaphor: the 'width' is the amount of fertile land available to its inhabitants.

 Water only starts 'stacking', going 'up', if it can't go 'down' or 'to the sides' anymore. The walls of a bucket prevent sidewards expansion and force the water level to go up. 

Like water, pre-industrial humans had good reasons to avoid 'stacking' as well. Population density forces farmers (which is 90%+ of the population in pre-industrial times) to adopt more labor-intensive practices. So when humans had the chance, they prefer... (read more)

Cutting trees on hillsides could easily lead to erosion and the destruction of the soil - agreed. But we're looking at a process that impacted all of Europe, from ~300AD to ~1800AD. I doubt a large cause of that is 'Permanent Roman Forest Destruction'. It seems most plausible to me that the land was used for other purposes. 

Thanks! I definitely don't want to imply that the average Roman lived in an awesome villa built out of bricks. But in regards to for example bathhouses: 

Small bathhouses, called balneum (plural balnea), might be privately owned, while they were public in the sense that they were open to the populace for a fee. Larger baths called thermae were owned by the state and often covered several city blocks. The largest of these, the Baths of Diocletian, could hold up to 3,000 bathers. Fees for both types of baths were quite reasonable, within the budget of mo

... (read more)

I definitely agree that it is wrong to assume that Rome was superior to Medieval Europe in all ways! I think they definitely outclassed Medieval Europe in a lot of aspects - but also that Medieval Europe outclassed Rome in a lot of other aspects. 

1HDMI Cable
Yeah, I think that they both had their individual strengths and weak points. I would say that Rome was overall better if you lived in an urban area or valued peace, while Medieval Europe was a more "fair" (in relative terms) society for the rural folk.

From the Wikipedia article on the Fall of the Western Roman Empire:

The fall of the Western Roman Empire (also called the fall of the Roman Empire or the fall of Rome), c. 376-476, was the process of decline in the Western Roman Empire in which the Empire failed to enforce its rule, and its vast territory was divided into several successor polities. The Roman Empire lost the strengths that had allowed it to exercise effective control over its Western provinces; modern historians posit factors including the effectiveness and numbers of the army, the health a

... (read more)
1FireStormOOO
Based on that first chart you're also looking at the trade volue, and presumably GDP, of the empire dropping to 40% of it's original value in the span of just 100 years between 200AD and 300AD and continuing to plummet almost as badly after that.  That chart seems to show an economic rot starting centuries before Rome started seriously loosing wars. I'll note that the inflection point does largely line up with the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire.  Far from a complete theory, but also easy to imagine something important was lost in the transition - chief candidate among them a formerly strong tradition for not transfering power via military coups and political assassinations.  Your question is more concerned with "what reversed the progress" rather than "what finally put Rome out of it's missery", so we're probably looking much much earlier than the actual fall.

From Ian Morris' companion book Social Development

I define “East” and “West” as the societies that have developed from the original core areas in the headwaters of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers and between the Yellow and Yangzi Rivers where agriculture began developing after the end of the Ice Age. 

3lsusr
Thanks. It sounds like, the Islamic world counts as "West" and India just isn't included on the chart.

Agreed, there are plenty of historians who argue for an internal decline. Bad leadership, infighting, civil war, corruption, decadence, etcetera. I won't deny they play a role, but personally, I was never strongly convinced by these arguments. The Roman decline is exceptional; incompetent politics and corrupt humans seem to be universal. 

6ChristianKl
It seems that even through you admit that historians who voice the standard view don't see the barbarian invasion as the sole cause you still argue against that strawman in your post.

These are all good points! They remind me of the "Swiss Cheese Model" in regards to COVID. No single solution is 100% effective, but combine enough layers and there won't be any 'holes' in the strategy anymore. 

I fully agree that there is a strong lack of proper communication with the public! If all/most citizens have a decent grasp of the "COVID basics" and best practices, ending the pandemic would be a lot easier. 

Except for general information about the virus itself, there should also be some kind of "weather forecast" about the prevalence of the virus in your local vicinity. AFAIK, South Korea was very strong in this regard, at least at the start of the pandemic. Citizens received local reports of how many cases were confirmed in their area.