4 ms·

I'd argue framing these things as technologies removes some of the mental blocks we have in them. Capitalism and socialism as ideologies can endlessly be argued

I'd argue framing these things as technologies removes some of the mental blocks we have in them. Capitalism and socialism as ideologies can endlessly be argued about, but as technological solutions to the problem of control of the means of production that are stable and efficient you can evaluate their performance calmly. Moralistic thinking of how "people deserve their own world reward/a fair share" has it's place, but it's not a very tolerant one. A moral code that has some "higher" purpose is not something you can evaluate and discuss. A tool is evaluated only in the context it's in. This is a more flexible and pragmatic framing

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Your "calm" performance metrics will be chosen subjectively, almost certainly on the basis of a moral code which guides your decisions but which you're not objectively aware of - because you consider it so correct it would never occur to you to question it. In fact we already do this with finance and economics. Neither are even remotely calm, unbiased, or objective. And if someone says that in fact you can evaluate moral codes on objective criteria - not least long-term species survivability and the dimensions of the collective predictive horizon and strategic IQ - how can you be sure that alternative criteria you might prefer are any better?
- philwelch 6y ago
  > Your "calm" performance metrics will be chosen subjectively, almost certainly on the basis of a moral code which guides your decisions but which you're not objectively aware of - because you consider it so correct it would never occur to you to question it. This is exactly what makes social and political systems a technology. People choose between different technologies based upon their personal judgments and preferences about acceptable trade-offs. Different people, and even different groups of people, will make different decisions because they have different preferences.
- igorkraw 6y ago
  Yeah, but you will have to state them at least. You need to state your goal. "Capitalism/socialism is immoral" is fuzzy and works for both. "Capitalism/socialism ensures maximum efficiency of exploitation of resources" can be checked and doesn't work for both. "But why do we want to maximally exploit resources" is then a question we need to answer separately, and here your subjective things come into it.
- smaudet 6y ago
  As others have stated you're not really tearing down metrics. Pick any you like, metrics are just tools we use to evaluate tools. You can pick some ones which do get results or ones which don't. I think this is where the concept of the selfish gene comes to the rescued - metrics, traits, tools, which work best tend to re-inforce each other and 'win'. Say what you will about 'morals', I doubt I will find you making a moral argument for the rights of phages over your own happiness. So it doesn't really matter which criteria you pick - long-term species suitability might be good, if there are better they will arise.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

Your "calm" performance metrics will be chosen subjectively, almost certainly on the basis of a moral code which guides your decisions but which you're not objectively aware of - because you consider it so correct it would never occur to you to question it. In fact we already do this with finance and economics. Neither are even remotely calm, unbiased, or objective. And if someone says that in fact you can evaluate moral codes on objective criteria - not least long-term species survivability and the dimensions of the collective predictive horizon and strategic IQ - how can you be sure that alternative criteria you might prefer are any better?

philwelch 6y ago
> Your "calm" performance metrics will be chosen subjectively, almost certainly on the basis of a moral code which guides your decisions but which you're not objectively aware of - because you consider it so correct it would never occur to you to question it. This is exactly what makes social and political systems a technology. People choose between different technologies based upon their personal judgments and preferences about acceptable trade-offs. Different people, and even different groups of people, will make different decisions because they have different preferences.
igorkraw 6y ago
Yeah, but you will have to state them at least. You need to state your goal. "Capitalism/socialism is immoral" is fuzzy and works for both. "Capitalism/socialism ensures maximum efficiency of exploitation of resources" can be checked and doesn't work for both. "But why do we want to maximally exploit resources" is then a question we need to answer separately, and here your subjective things come into it.
smaudet 6y ago
As others have stated you're not really tearing down metrics. Pick any you like, metrics are just tools we use to evaluate tools. You can pick some ones which do get results or ones which don't. I think this is where the concept of the selfish gene comes to the rescued - metrics, traits, tools, which work best tend to re-inforce each other and 'win'. Say what you will about 'morals', I doubt I will find you making a moral argument for the rights of phages over your own happiness. So it doesn't really matter which criteria you pick - long-term species suitability might be good, if there are better they will arise.