I know this is a bit old, but I think about this a lot and thought I'd leave some of my ideas.
Here goes. Attention warning: 600+ words. I have cut it down quite a bit but have the edits saved if you are interested.
(1) It is important to remember EBNA-style thinking has its own intellectual history.[1] An "emotionally sensitive person" from the 17th century would be totally different (in actions, skills, self-perception, and social perception) from one today. To the extent modern EBNA people think of their intuitions as having unique epistemic and intellectual utility, they are probably following the "romantic" movement. Call them "Humanities-EBNA types"
Romanticism is explicitly committed to irrationality, a... (read 459 more words →)
Right now, we are stuck.
We have lost the belief in Progress. That each year will be better than the previous one, for humanity.
We have lost the belief in Agency. That we can do something about it.
Who is this "we"? This general framing presents the problem as a universal problem of modernity but a lot of the material feeding your 'vibes' are quite specific results of policy failures (e.g., in the UK, US) measured against your own preferences.
There are many people in Iceland, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore &c, who do not feel this oppressive ennui. Instead, things work quite well, the government is sane and in control, and public discourse is by-and-large rational.
It is tempting to see an eldritch horror as the problem, one which can be killed with arcane magic, because it avoids the difficult truth that the problem is a suite of local political obstacles which need to be successively overcome.
Intruiging question - this reminds me of the very thought-provoking essay by Sarah Constanin defending individualism. I am not entirely sure what you mean by 'steelman consumerism' as it could refer to defending the concept's usefulness or defending a more object-level claim about the harmfulness of over-consumption or certain types of consumption (or it could mean something I have not thought of)? I'll try to address the first two briefly to the best of my ability.
As a descriptive concept, 'consumerism' serves a useful historical function in describing a change in the way people engaged in their consumptive habits around the 18th century. I think the core essence of this change is in... (read 1016 more words →)
Ideally, an open public debate on (A) the extent to which we allow money to determine the strength of voices in a community, and that advertising is one of these voices with as much cultural and political baggage as, say, a local political party; (B) adverts are becoming increasingly effective using micro-targeting, and will only become more so; and thus (C) we need to consider more limits on where and when adverts can be shown.
Pragmatically, more restrictions on online adverts and adverts in public spaces would be a start, in terms of size, spending, and possibly developing categories of adverts depending on their source (multinational versus local business). Perhaps certain areas could... (read more)
Interesting point. One counterpoint is that most criticisms of 'beauty standards being enforced' reference beauty products or other products sold with the implicit promise they will make you beautiful. Eg, leeching off our shared notion of beauty by linking it with a dieting product.
But something more complicated definitely seems to be going on here. We have a constructed notion of beauty ('model-thinness') being used to sell random products, such as Ibuprofen. It is almost as if one advertiser is leeching off the other's constructed notion of beauty (Hyperreality?)
The criticism of 'enforcing beauty standards' in an ibuprofun case may flow from this double falsehood: the advertising target might see thin models in a... (read more)
Thanks for the comments - you're right on the first point, I didn't want to go into too much detail on the regulation of adverts because it raises many political and philosophical issues.
The freedom of advertising is almost certainly a facet of the liberal state. Certain counter-examples stick out, such as limits on tobacco advertising, fast food advertising, and advertising aimed at children. The former two seem premised, at least in the UK, on a notion the wider public is burdened by the consumption of these products, and possibly on the basis we can all agree on health as an unqualified good. The latter is an instance of the advert target being... (read more)
‘Tis the season to be bombarded with adverts for useless crap you don’t need or want. But it's not Christmas you say? Correct: it is always the season to be inundated with adverts. Continuing the tradition of ad-bashing on LessWrong, I want to pick up on a particular 'bad of ad': cultural poisoning.
I find ads infuriating and depressing. But not just any ads, the worst offenders are those which start off with some wholesome scene, tugging at the heartstrings, only to transition to selling shoes or a car. Why? I think it’s because they poison our cultural environment. The notion of ‘cultural poisoning’ is, however, a little unclear, and I want to... (read 811 more words →)
Great post, thanks! Widespread value pluralism a la 'well that's just, like, your opinion man' is now a feature of modern life. Here are a pair of responses from political philosophy which may be of some interest
(1) Rawls/Thin Liberal Approach. Whilst we may not be able to agree on what 'the good life' is, we can at least agree on a basic system which ensures all participants can pursue their own idea of the good life. So,(1) Protect a list of political liberties and freedoms and (2) degree of economic levelling. Beyond that, it is up to the individual what concept of the good they pursue. Scott Alexander's Archipelago is arguably a... (read more)
If I understand right, your first point is that it makes sense for officials to follow the law because parliament and the courts are better placed to alter it. Another point is then that it makes sense to limit your activity for the benefit of the group ('individual placing themselves above the group')
These are fairly sensible reasons to obey the law. Does that mean law loses its force when parliament and courts are sufficiently incompetent or crooked? Likewise when acting for a small minority rather than the group?
Not sure officials think of law this way. Further, an open question whether a system could function with this kind of clause being widely accepted by lawyers and legal officials.
Great post! I wonder if the 'weirdness' be partially due to intuitions about human freedom of choice. For instance, it seems nonsensical to ask whether unicellular organisms could alter their behaviour to modify models predicting said behaviour, and thus 'control' their fate. Are humans in the same boat?
Relevant quote from C.P. Snow's lecture The Two Cultures: fn 25
Published 1959. Find here for the ur-text on the humanities/sciences split.
And some personal anecdota:
1. The man... (read more)