2 ms·
> I lived through the Cold War. I don't need this exercise because, the bottom line is, no one knows what existential risk - if any - will happen. The worst of
by xpe 3y ago
> I lived through the Cold War. I don't need this exercise because, the bottom line is, no one knows what existential risk - if any - will happen. The worst of the Cold War never happened, yet many of us thought it would. Likewise, you might choose to focus on AI as your existential risk, go through all the sacrifices and immoral behaviors that longtermism leads you to do in order to mitigate AI, and then a giant meteor collides with Earth. Oops! You chose the wrong existential risk. And meanwhile, you compromised your morals and right behavior in order to mitigate the wrong existential risk. No thanks, not for me.
Your claim seems to boil down to two things: First, people sometimes make very incorrect predictions, so you've stopped worrying about them. Second, instead, you focus on "doing the right thing" based on your ethical criteria (which, as I say in sibling comment, seems to be aligned with deontological ethics -- i.e. the ends don't justify the means.)
I'm not going to argue with the second (your choice of ethics) here. But your first point is terribly flawed; it ignores probability and decision-making under uncertainty.
Sure, you have to make assessments about what to believe. Strictly speaking, as a society, it is irrational to stop paying attention and responding to the most important things, even if any one of them might be unlikely.
Personally, you might find it necessary or useful to tune out this stuff. I get that. I'd guess this happened: you have stopped _caring_ for various reasons (perhaps information overload, sensationalization of the news, more pressing matters right in front of you) and your brain has constructed a worldview that _rationalizes_ not caring. Totally human, I get it. But this isn't reasoning nor logic.
I may not have your years of experience, but I'm no spring chicken either. Age doesn't always bring wisdom, unfortunately. People learn the wrong lessons. We've learned many. I have a keen interest in the Cold War. If you study the history, you'll recognize that our path 'through' it was no means assured. We are still living with the downstream effects of it, including huge nuclear arsenals and proxy wars.
Your comment above is naive with regards to history. It paints a simplistic and convenient narrative with the benefit of hindsight. You've ignored one key aspect of history, which is to understand it _in context_. Using hindsight exclusively isn't the only nor best way to learn from history.
Even in deontological ethics, not _everything_ is intrinsically good of bad. There is still a responsibility to act rationally in order to achieve moral ends in a moral way. To completely ignore probability is immoral.
Please, remember this: using poor logic and FUD to sully a serious book (based on some vague implied connection to a crook) is not ok.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago> Your claim seems to boil down to two things: First, people sometimes make very incorrect predictions, so you've stopped worrying about them. Didn't say I stopped worrying about them: global warming worries me. Ubiquitous microplastics worry me. Heavy metals in our food supply & PFAS in our water worries me. > Second, instead, you focus on "doing the right thing" based on your ethical criteria (which, as I say in sibling comment, seems to be aligned with deontological ethics -- i.e. the ends don't justify the means.) To me, the means almost never justify the end. And I understand you see it differently. > using poor logic I'm not sure what you deem poor logic, but I would point out that most of human life is based on emotion, not logic. In any case, I enjoy our debate and would be glad to continue in email if you like. See my profile for my email - I did not find yours.
- xpe 3y agoI'd appreciate if you could be mindful about the context around a quotation. > Please, remember this: using poor logic and FUD to sully a serious book (based on some vague implied connection to a crook) is not ok. I wrote this because of your original comment about [William MacAskill]: "Creator of "Centre for Effective Altruism"? Longtermism? No thanks. I thought that philosophy has been debunked as a scam after the likes of Sam Bankman and others. I mean, living unethically today in order to affect future lives positively is not for me." I'm not going to elaborate in detail about what I've already written, but your comment suggests that Sam Bankman's reputation "debunks" a book (which happens to consist of some moral philosophy, some history, and some application of the ideas to future scenarios). This is poor logic. I hope you would recognize and own this mistake. Also, yes, I have enjoyed discussing. I have strived to not make any personal attacks, and I apologize if I'm come across as rude.
- xpe 3y ago>> Your claim seems to boil down to two things: First, people sometimes make very incorrect predictions, so you've stopped worrying about them. > Didn't say I stopped worrying about them: global warming worries me. Ubiquitous microplastics worry me. Heavy metals in our food supply & PFAS in our water worries me. On what basis do you worry about them? Why worry about some more than others? (I know my answers, but I'm interested in how you do it.) Do you factor in the probability of their occurrence? I'd expect you do, this is sort of inevitable for people, though people aren't typically very well calibrated in probabilities, especially on the upper (near 100%) and lower ends (near 0%). I'm trying to understand what I perceive as your pushback against moral reasoning that involves probabilities over future scenarios. Here is my rough overall take at this point: given your ethical foundations (DE or close to it) and life experience (hard to know, often not driven by logic and reason -- such is the human condition) you bristle against consequentialism and longtermism in particular. I get it, but I don't think this is a good place to end up, even when I factor in your core beliefs. I 'chalk it up' to the high cost of mental reorgnization. My hypothesis is this: the 'wedge' examples that people use against consequentialism have had an outsized effect on how you view it. I don't detect any antipathy towards logic or probabilistic reasoning in general, but I also don't perceive a relentless drive towards it.