3 ms·

Humans generally don't think hard about big issues (perhaps because) in general they have very little they can do about them anyway. Humans consistently feel ov

by yboris 4y ago

Humans generally don't think hard about big issues (perhaps because) in general they have very little they can do about them anyway. Humans consistently feel overconfident (and are incorrect) about many things. On the topic of ethics, many seem to go with gut feelings (an evolutionary kludge to get small groups of people to cooperate, and to cohere as a tribe). People consistently overestimate (by many orders of magnitude) the amount of their taxes that goes to foreign aid. Many people in the US are reluctant to have open borders because of racism. But most moral frameworks would endorse open borders - and there is tremendous economic benefit to open borders as well. Consider https://openborders.info/ https://openborders.info/

mistermann 4y ago
> Many people in the US are reluctant to have open borders because of racism. And most people tend to speak in forms where their statements can be technically correct yet misinformative, potentially missing out on the opportunity to improve upon the tendencies you point out. For example, if you were to convert "many" to a quantitative term such as "% of people in the US reluctant to have open borders because of racism" or "% of people in the US reluctant to have open borders, by reason (of which one is racism)", it would be much more difficult to be correct. I doubt you speak this way with malicious intent, but the unknown effects remain. And this is just one bug among thousands.
- yboris 4y ago
  I agree with your point about being precise with statements. I tried to be vague with words because I didn't look up any statistics for the statement I was making (especially that "racist" is an attitude that comes in degrees, and depending on definition we would have a different % of racist people in the US). No one doubts that racism in America has been a problem for centuries (look at how immigrants have been treated over the years). I was trying to make the generic point that besides the reasons people give against a policy, the actual reasons may be different than those voiced. I would not be surprised if of those opposing immigration, at least 50% hold different attitudes for non-white immigrants.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    Ah ok, thanks for that. And so as to give some deeper insight into the motivation for my question: I often wonder....might the degree to which agents within a system communicate accurately (both in the sending and the receiving) have any substantial effect upon events and the evolving state within the system over time? Say, if we consider two planets: one whose inhabitants speak "highly" accurately, and one who inhabitants speak.....well, like we do here on planet Earth, circa 2022 (opinions are facts, fantasy is reality, etc - and everyone does it, despite fantasies to the contrary) - all other things being equal, might this cultural norm contribute to some of the issues on this planet that people complain about constantly? To be clear: I am asking in general, not as an attack on your comments here.
anamax 4y ago
> Many people in the US are reluctant to have open borders because of racism. Or, because they understand lifeboats. Or, because they know that open borders screw people on the bottom of the economic ladder. Or, because they ask "why didn't those people fix their country?" or "if the US takes the best people from that country, who's going to fix it for the ones who stay?" That said, it's important in any moral discussion to attribute immorality to someone with whom you disagree.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Or, because they're too stupid to realize it's in their own self-interest because they could end up in the exact same situation at any time. > That said, it's important in any moral discussion to attribute immorality to someone with whom you disagree. This kind of comment does not belong here.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > Or, because they're too stupid to realize it's in their own self-interest because they could end up in the exact same situation at any time. How would open borders in a country be necessarily beneficial to people in the country? Are you presuming that if Country A opens its borders, all other countries will? And, considering first world countries and the countries from which people who would benefit from borders being open, is it likely that conditions in the first world countries will degrade to the point that it would be advantageous for them to immigrate to one of the countries whose citizens would benefit from open borders?
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > How would open borders in a country be necessarily beneficial to people in the country? The benefits of immigration have been addressed many places. It works fine in Europe. The point is not to open only one countries borders though, but all of them, because that's what's really in everyone's interest. > Are you presuming that if Country A opens its borders, all other countries will? No, I'm not presuming, I'm saying that's what is in everyone's interests to advocate for. > And, considering first world countries and the countries from which people who would benefit from borders being open, is it likely that conditions in the first world countries will degrade The point is to help people, which is not free. Anyway, you should think about what makes such degradation possible in the first place. If things would be more equal otherwise, then clearly borders are exploitative in the first place. In any case, everything would reach an equilibrium in the end. It'd be a free market of location.

by yboris 4y ago

mistermann 4y ago

> Many people in the US are reluctant to have open borders because of racism. And most people tend to speak in forms where their statements can be technically correct yet misinformative, potentially missing out on the opportunity to improve upon the tendencies you point out. For example, if you were to convert "many" to a quantitative term such as "% of people in the US reluctant to have open borders because of racism" or "% of people in the US reluctant to have open borders, by reason (of which one is racism)", it would be much more difficult to be correct. I doubt you speak this way with malicious intent, but the unknown effects remain. And this is just one bug among thousands.

yboris 4y ago
I agree with your point about being precise with statements. I tried to be vague with words because I didn't look up any statistics for the statement I was making (especially that "racist" is an attitude that comes in degrees, and depending on definition we would have a different % of racist people in the US). No one doubts that racism in America has been a problem for centuries (look at how immigrants have been treated over the years). I was trying to make the generic point that besides the reasons people give against a policy, the actual reasons may be different than those voiced. I would not be surprised if of those opposing immigration, at least 50% hold different attitudes for non-white immigrants.
- mistermann 4y ago
  Ah ok, thanks for that. And so as to give some deeper insight into the motivation for my question: I often wonder....might the degree to which agents within a system communicate accurately (both in the sending and the receiving) have any substantial effect upon events and the evolving state within the system over time? Say, if we consider two planets: one whose inhabitants speak "highly" accurately, and one who inhabitants speak.....well, like we do here on planet Earth, circa 2022 (opinions are facts, fantasy is reality, etc - and everyone does it, despite fantasies to the contrary) - all other things being equal, might this cultural norm contribute to some of the issues on this planet that people complain about constantly? To be clear: I am asking in general, not as an attack on your comments here.

anamax 4y ago

> Many people in the US are reluctant to have open borders because of racism. Or, because they understand lifeboats. Or, because they know that open borders screw people on the bottom of the economic ladder. Or, because they ask "why didn't those people fix their country?" or "if the US takes the best people from that country, who's going to fix it for the ones who stay?" That said, it's important in any moral discussion to attribute immorality to someone with whom you disagree.

guerrilla 4y ago
Or, because they're too stupid to realize it's in their own self-interest because they could end up in the exact same situation at any time. > That said, it's important in any moral discussion to attribute immorality to someone with whom you disagree. This kind of comment does not belong here.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Or, because they're too stupid to realize it's in their own self-interest because they could end up in the exact same situation at any time. How would open borders in a country be necessarily beneficial to people in the country? Are you presuming that if Country A opens its borders, all other countries will? And, considering first world countries and the countries from which people who would benefit from borders being open, is it likely that conditions in the first world countries will degrade to the point that it would be advantageous for them to immigrate to one of the countries whose citizens would benefit from open borders?
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > How would open borders in a country be necessarily beneficial to people in the country? The benefits of immigration have been addressed many places. It works fine in Europe. The point is not to open only one countries borders though, but all of them, because that's what's really in everyone's interest. > Are you presuming that if Country A opens its borders, all other countries will? No, I'm not presuming, I'm saying that's what is in everyone's interests to advocate for. > And, considering first world countries and the countries from which people who would benefit from borders being open, is it likely that conditions in the first world countries will degrade The point is to help people, which is not free. Anyway, you should think about what makes such degradation possible in the first place. If things would be more equal otherwise, then clearly borders are exploitative in the first place. In any case, everything would reach an equilibrium in the end. It'd be a free market of location.