4 ms·

why are we speaking about happiness and not about the colonisation of the solar system or about finding out what truly lies behind our existence? simulation, mu

why are we speaking about happiness and not about the colonisation of the solar system or about finding out what truly lies behind our existence? simulation, multiverse or what and if so, why? That said, a good metric obviously mesures power on this planet so it must be something like how fast an economy can build a space station or advanced military equipment.

wahnfrieden 4y ago
- drdeca 4y ago
  That’s not really what I associate with EA? With Nick Land, maybe, yeah, I guess. Honestly it reminds me most of how some people try to spin Bitcoin’s power use as a good thing. The comment does have some similarity to a point which I think reasonable, but doesn’t quite capture the thing. Specifically, it questions happiness as a goal. This, I think, has something to it, but not quite in the way they said. For an individual who is neither unhappy nor “feeling nothing”, “being happy” is, I think, a questionable goal, as I think it puts things backwards. But, valuing others being happy, is, I think, very often a rather good heuristic, as “things that make someone happy” are often “things that benefit them” (though not always. Non-voluntarily chemically inducing a euphoria in someone, doesn’t benefit them. ) . Looking at “how happy and satisfied are people generally” is a pretty decent heuristic for estimating how well things are going for people overall, though this heuristic can be goodharted. Perhaps somewhat better than “how happy are you” would be “how well are things going for you? How much do the general states of affairs align with your preferences, and how is the rate of change of the degree to which the general state of affairs aligns with your preferences? How’s it going?”. This combination of things is, I think, closer to what we should ideally want for each-other than “happiness”, but, “happiness” is still a pretty good approximation in most reasonable circumstances. (It is best to avoid the unreasonable circumstances where it ceases to be a good approximation)
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    Ok
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Fair point. Or alternatively, why not honor, virtue, or beauty as a primary metric?

wahnfrieden 4y ago

drdeca 4y ago
That’s not really what I associate with EA? With Nick Land, maybe, yeah, I guess. Honestly it reminds me most of how some people try to spin Bitcoin’s power use as a good thing. The comment does have some similarity to a point which I think reasonable, but doesn’t quite capture the thing. Specifically, it questions happiness as a goal. This, I think, has something to it, but not quite in the way they said. For an individual who is neither unhappy nor “feeling nothing”, “being happy” is, I think, a questionable goal, as I think it puts things backwards. But, valuing others being happy, is, I think, very often a rather good heuristic, as “things that make someone happy” are often “things that benefit them” (though not always. Non-voluntarily chemically inducing a euphoria in someone, doesn’t benefit them. ) . Looking at “how happy and satisfied are people generally” is a pretty decent heuristic for estimating how well things are going for people overall, though this heuristic can be goodharted. Perhaps somewhat better than “how happy are you” would be “how well are things going for you? How much do the general states of affairs align with your preferences, and how is the rate of change of the degree to which the general state of affairs aligns with your preferences? How’s it going?”. This combination of things is, I think, closer to what we should ideally want for each-other than “happiness”, but, “happiness” is still a pretty good approximation in most reasonable circumstances. (It is best to avoid the unreasonable circumstances where it ceases to be a good approximation)
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  Ok

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Fair point. Or alternatively, why not honor, virtue, or beauty as a primary metric?