3 ms·

Of course, also, can't fight "Moloch". To best help the future, we should change ourselves in the present to not fall into the traps, local minima, "Moloch" has

Of course, also, can't fight "Moloch". To best help the future, we should change ourselves in the present to not fall into the traps, local minima, "Moloch" has set out. This isn't going to happen through any philosophy or social program, we need to change ourselves as humans into something else. Some genetic change to change our brain to not 'keep up with the neighbors', and all of the other drives that make us form hierarchies and consume. But then, we wouldn't be human anymore, so does this violate longtermism? In order to save humanity, we would need to stop being human. OR the opposite, humans are not going to make it.

FormerBandmate 4y ago
Why? Humanity has had a pretty good run so far with all of its flaws, Dr. Frankensteining the entire species out of some general dislike of competition has barely any upside and a ton of downside
- FrustratedMonky 4y ago
  Guess responding more directly to the 'longtermism' argument. If we , humans today, are so awful at making decisions (with our drive towards consuming, hierarchies, war), that we need to stop doing what we are doing, and focus on the future or we will die out. Then, what I am saying is, there is no way to do that, other than to change ourselves to not be human. There is no way to form an organization, or re-work capitalism, or form a new government, to change the future, because all of the human based drives will remain and inevitably devolve to the current situation again. Over millions of years, we'll get what we have now, unless we change what we are. And the longtermism people are saying what we have now is no good, will lead to us dyeing out. Because as the longtermist state, if we are heading towards dying out because of our current human decisions, then how can we do otherwise except to change our human reasoning.

FormerBandmate 4y ago

Why? Humanity has had a pretty good run so far with all of its flaws, Dr. Frankensteining the entire species out of some general dislike of competition has barely any upside and a ton of downside

FrustratedMonky 4y ago
Guess responding more directly to the 'longtermism' argument. If we , humans today, are so awful at making decisions (with our drive towards consuming, hierarchies, war), that we need to stop doing what we are doing, and focus on the future or we will die out. Then, what I am saying is, there is no way to do that, other than to change ourselves to not be human. There is no way to form an organization, or re-work capitalism, or form a new government, to change the future, because all of the human based drives will remain and inevitably devolve to the current situation again. Over millions of years, we'll get what we have now, unless we change what we are. And the longtermism people are saying what we have now is no good, will lead to us dyeing out. Because as the longtermist state, if we are heading towards dying out because of our current human decisions, then how can we do otherwise except to change our human reasoning.