5 ms·

"Today’s aged hippies no longer understand that there is a difference between the election of a black president and the creation of cheap solar energy; in their

by wam 14y ago

"Today’s aged hippies no longer understand that there is a difference between the election of a black president and the creation of cheap solar energy; in their minds, the movement towards greater civil rights parallels general progress everywhere. Because of these ideological conflations and commitments, the 1960s Progressive Left cannot ask whether things actually might be getting worse. I wonder whether the endless fake cultural wars around identity politics are the main reason we have been able to ignore the tech slowdown for so long." Any sufficiently deluded rhetoric is indistinguishable from trolling. The "progressive left" has no such blinders. Nor does the "right," in my experience, or most other people. But you could easily reverse this and say that to Peter Thiel, technological progress automatically leads to progress in quality of life for everyone. Or, more disturbingly, that social justice is an irrelevant invention of identity politics. No: those are in actual conflict. The trick of identity politics is to subsume and trivialize real social problems, and it's Thiel who has fallen for it. This is essay is just weird. Thiel sees economic growth being appropriated to justify misguided and counterproductive social policies. That's not even wrong, it's just mundane to the point that it's disingenuous to say that anybody doesn't see that. Is this guy going to stockpile real nuclear waste under his house until a better solution is invented? No, he actually wants to build a floating city where he can make his own rules. A ten year old's fantasy, described by a man who can afford to ignore the practical consequences of his ideal future. This is antithetical to the hacker ethic. Good hackers look at big social and technological problems and think "how do we hack that into something better" instead of whining about how nobody else accepts their top-down solution. Real problems to attack: The pitfalls of implementing representative democracy via legislators who develop strong social ties with each other; how to build infrastructure without becoming Robert Moses; techniques for balancing competing basic needs in a large population; p=np; obesity epidemics; vaccination against destructive ideological memes like this one.

ramanujan 14y ago
he actually wants to build a floating city where he can make his own rules Well, suppose just for the sake of argument that seasteading is technologically feasible (you might consider cruise ships a proof of concept). Wouldn't it be good if there was a mechanism for people who strongly and irreconcilably disagree to separate? We have mechanisms for that on an individual level, as people can move from a city or job to a new city or job. We have mechanisms on the level of couples, like divorce. Perhaps most interestingly, we have mechanisms on the level of small to medium size organizations, in that one can start a new company. But right now there is no frontier, no way to peacefully start a new country. If you do believe that there are multiple stable equilibria for societal organization, then it should be a good thing if all the reds and the blues could just separate and self-govern rather than endlessly squabble. Apple is not Google, but both are successful; Singapore is not Sweden, but both are very nice countries. Things that are legal in one jurisdiction are illegal in another (e.g. porn is legal in Sweden but prostitution is not; it's the other way around in Singapore). Similarly, wouldn't it be better if all the fundamentalists could have their own island and teach prayer in their own schools without trying to make my child read the Bible? Or if the blue state residents could actually have a country in which stem cell research was legal without having to do backflips to accomodate religious objections? I ask only that you reconsider the theoretical merits of seasteading as a peaceful means for separation. If nothing else, it'll mean that all these guys go off and drown and stop trying to influence US elections :)
- wam 14y ago
  Hmm, yeah, I take your point. Finding ways to coexist peacefully is a big problem and I think you're absolutely right to point out that existing strategies for that haven't scaled beyond a certain level. I'm a bit skeptical of seasteading both because it has an upper boundary of utility (size of the habitable ocean) and it seems like a really potent market externality generator (the ocean is already overfished and hugely polluted). But my first objection is more theoretical than practical, and the second one is true of the status quo. Perhaps seasteading is a good hack to a planet crowded with irreconcilable ideologies. Increased mobility between states could mitigate some of the harms of moral arbitrage. (There's a great long now foundation talk by Nils Gilman that bears directly on the problems of social differences between existing geographically bounded states.) I can dig that.
- Tichy 14y ago
  Why should living on floating things make it easier to get along with each other, though? I am a bit too pessimistic about the human nature to have high hopes for such a project. Also, I watched "The Beach".
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  Similarly, wouldn't it be better if all the fundamentalists could have their own island and teach prayer in their own schools without trying to make my child read the Bible? No. Marinating people in their own bullshit rarely helps. More often, it makes them get resentful and/or militant.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >Well, suppose just for the sake of argument that seasteading is technologically feasible (you might consider cruise ships a proof of concept). Wouldn't it be good if there was a mechanism for people who strongly and irreconcilably disagree to separate? The trouble is that it isn't even a good mechanism. Let's suppose for sake of argument that major governments are prepared to recognize a new country's sovereignty and let them exist. Putting that country in the middle of the ocean is pointless. There are thousands of square miles of empty land in the American West and other locations all over the world that could be sold to a new country if doing so was actually desirable. Furthermore, even if it was a good mechanism, it isn't desirable for the same reason that secession isn't. Because sure, it would be nice to be able to do stem cell research or educate children about evolution without zealots objecting. But you're assuming that you would end up in the country that Does The Right Thing, and that the other countries will leave you alone. What about the country that decides it has no objections to genetic engineering for the purpose of racial purity? Or that bans educating children about science and promotes militarism, leading to a future in which there are millions of young men with no prospects for gainful employment other than to start a war to try to gain resources through conquest? Or that, like the former Soviet Union, develops nuclear weapons (and other dangerous things) and then falls apart and fails to secure them, leaving the risk they end up in the hands of terrorists or rogue nations? You can't just ignore idiots and insane leaders. You have to fight them and you have to win. This is true even when they aren't part of your own country, but it's especially true when they are. "We'll leave and start our own country" is not a solution, it's just running away and hoping the blast radius on the explosion you leave behind isn't large enough to hit you.
loup-vaillant 14y ago
> Real problems to attack: The pitfalls of implementing representative democracy via legislators who develop strong social ties with each other; […] On that one, we could start by dropping the word "democracy" altogether. "Democracy" used to refer to something like Athenian democracy. The people participated directly to the policy making of the city, or were drawn at random when it wasn't practical. They really have the power to rule themselves. What we have now used to be called "representative government". The people do not have the power to rule themselves, they instead elect an elite that presumably would be better at ruling than the people themselves. This is not much, but the mechanism is very similar to "intellectual property". Technically, the correct term is "monopoly". But it has bad connotation, while "property" has good connotation. "Democracy" has good connotation, "representative government" is neutral at best.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by wam 14y ago

ramanujan 14y ago

he actually wants to build a floating city where he can make his own rules Well, suppose just for the sake of argument that seasteading is technologically feasible (you might consider cruise ships a proof of concept). Wouldn't it be good if there was a mechanism for people who strongly and irreconcilably disagree to separate? We have mechanisms for that on an individual level, as people can move from a city or job to a new city or job. We have mechanisms on the level of couples, like divorce. Perhaps most interestingly, we have mechanisms on the level of small to medium size organizations, in that one can start a new company. But right now there is no frontier, no way to peacefully start a new country. If you do believe that there are multiple stable equilibria for societal organization, then it should be a good thing if all the reds and the blues could just separate and self-govern rather than endlessly squabble. Apple is not Google, but both are successful; Singapore is not Sweden, but both are very nice countries. Things that are legal in one jurisdiction are illegal in another (e.g. porn is legal in Sweden but prostitution is not; it's the other way around in Singapore). Similarly, wouldn't it be better if all the fundamentalists could have their own island and teach prayer in their own schools without trying to make my child read the Bible? Or if the blue state residents could actually have a country in which stem cell research was legal without having to do backflips to accomodate religious objections? I ask only that you reconsider the theoretical merits of seasteading as a peaceful means for separation. If nothing else, it'll mean that all these guys go off and drown and stop trying to influence US elections :)

wam 14y ago
Hmm, yeah, I take your point. Finding ways to coexist peacefully is a big problem and I think you're absolutely right to point out that existing strategies for that haven't scaled beyond a certain level. I'm a bit skeptical of seasteading both because it has an upper boundary of utility (size of the habitable ocean) and it seems like a really potent market externality generator (the ocean is already overfished and hugely polluted). But my first objection is more theoretical than practical, and the second one is true of the status quo. Perhaps seasteading is a good hack to a planet crowded with irreconcilable ideologies. Increased mobility between states could mitigate some of the harms of moral arbitrage. (There's a great long now foundation talk by Nils Gilman that bears directly on the problems of social differences between existing geographically bounded states.) I can dig that.
Tichy 14y ago
Why should living on floating things make it easier to get along with each other, though? I am a bit too pessimistic about the human nature to have high hopes for such a project. Also, I watched "The Beach".
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
Similarly, wouldn't it be better if all the fundamentalists could have their own island and teach prayer in their own schools without trying to make my child read the Bible? No. Marinating people in their own bullshit rarely helps. More often, it makes them get resentful and/or militant.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>Well, suppose just for the sake of argument that seasteading is technologically feasible (you might consider cruise ships a proof of concept). Wouldn't it be good if there was a mechanism for people who strongly and irreconcilably disagree to separate? The trouble is that it isn't even a good mechanism. Let's suppose for sake of argument that major governments are prepared to recognize a new country's sovereignty and let them exist. Putting that country in the middle of the ocean is pointless. There are thousands of square miles of empty land in the American West and other locations all over the world that could be sold to a new country if doing so was actually desirable. Furthermore, even if it was a good mechanism, it isn't desirable for the same reason that secession isn't. Because sure, it would be nice to be able to do stem cell research or educate children about evolution without zealots objecting. But you're assuming that you would end up in the country that Does The Right Thing, and that the other countries will leave you alone. What about the country that decides it has no objections to genetic engineering for the purpose of racial purity? Or that bans educating children about science and promotes militarism, leading to a future in which there are millions of young men with no prospects for gainful employment other than to start a war to try to gain resources through conquest? Or that, like the former Soviet Union, develops nuclear weapons (and other dangerous things) and then falls apart and fails to secure them, leaving the risk they end up in the hands of terrorists or rogue nations? You can't just ignore idiots and insane leaders. You have to fight them and you have to win. This is true even when they aren't part of your own country, but it's especially true when they are. "We'll leave and start our own country" is not a solution, it's just running away and hoping the blast radius on the explosion you leave behind isn't large enough to hit you.

loup-vaillant 14y ago

> Real problems to attack: The pitfalls of implementing representative democracy via legislators who develop strong social ties with each other; […] On that one, we could start by dropping the word "democracy" altogether. "Democracy" used to refer to something like Athenian democracy. The people participated directly to the policy making of the city, or were drawn at random when it wasn't practical. They really have the power to rule themselves. What we have now used to be called "representative government". The people do not have the power to rule themselves, they instead elect an elite that presumably would be better at ruling than the people themselves. This is not much, but the mechanism is very similar to "intellectual property". Technically, the correct term is "monopoly". But it has bad connotation, while "property" has good connotation. "Democracy" has good connotation, "representative government" is neutral at best.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]