4 ms·
You're right. Making arguments like this are a way to shortcut a complex system of possible actions. It's like the old story about a computer's long boot time c
by johngalt 15y ago
You're right. Making arguments like this are a way to shortcut a complex system of possible actions. It's like the old story about a computer's long boot time costing lives.
If only there were some mechanism we could use to assign value to all possible actions, content, and products. Some way of determining how much life/value each action would create and then pursuing the actions that provide the most efficient value. Seems too complex of a search space for a single authority though, and people would disagree on how many lives are saved/value.
Perhaps a crowd sourced method where everyone individually voted what was most important to them, and those votes assigned value. To avoid spam we could make people provide things of value themselves in order to benefit from the value created by others. So the higher the assigned value, the more people are trying to provide it.
(TL;DR)free market.
- mindslight 15y agoCongratulations - you've created a reduction from a somewhat-tractable problem to a much harder one.
- johngalt 15y agoThe point was that we already have solved the problem of "where do we spend our time given that all options have costs"
- mindslight 15y agoIf this were true ("solved"), it would be the prime argument for a centrally planned economy. 'Free market' isn't a solution, but a heuristic that produces a non-horrible moral outcome. One of the reasons we discuss things symbolically is to hopefully take advantage of the structure of the problem to generate a better outcome. Your reduction of journal-access to free-market is about as useful as a reduction from addition to 3SAT.