6 ms·

I expected this to be crap given the title, but ended up being quite entertaining. The only annoyance in the style was that it started with the "everyone can b

by wheels 17y ago

I expected this to be crap given the title, but ended up being quite entertaining. The only annoyance in the style was that it started with the "everyone can be rich" and then followed with a bunch of stuff that very few people have the constitution to in fact do.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago
I felt the same. Also, there are some statistical issues with everyone being rich, unless being rich is about absolute numbers, in which case Zimbabweans are all super rich ;-) It boils down to the difference between "everyone" and "anyone" I guess.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  There's also absolute wealth: the sense in which virtually all Americans today are rich compared to virtually all Americans in 1900.
  - fauigerzigerk 17y ago
    Ah, in that case I wasted my time reading about how to get rich. I am already rich! :) But if you include all people living in past times wouldn't it be consistent to include all people who will live in the future? Compared to them we might all be very poor and there is no way for anyone to become rich.
    - randallsquared 17y ago
      "Compared to them we might all be very poor" Seriously, I think that's likely. "and there is no way for anyone to become rich." Well, living longer. Also, you may improve your chances a bit with cryonics. :)
      - dennisgorelik 17y ago
        Sorry, but cryonics is a scam. The chances of extending life using cryonics are so low, that any investment into cryonics would decrease you current quality of life, not improve it [by extending your life into future]. http://aidevelopment.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryonics.html http://aidevelopment.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryonics.html
        Eliezer 17y ago
        Answered in standard FAQs: http://www.alcor.org/FAQs/index.html http://www.alcor.org/FAQs/index.html http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics
        arakyd 17y ago
        Actually those FAQs do not challenge the central point of that blog post, which is that reasonable people can have wildly different estimates of the likelihood of successful preservation and reconstruction, and that most people judge it too much of a long shot to be worth the money. Cryonics advocates are by and large not very interested in trying to justify estimates that give a reasonable chance of success (I'll make an exception for Robin Hansen), and would rather talk about the importance of participation and securing more funding based on the fact that the probability of success is non-zero, and pro-life-esque ethical arguments about the value of human life.
        Eliezer 17y ago
        Cryonics advocates are by and large not very interested in trying to justify estimates that give a reasonable chance of success Sounds simply wrong to me, and I know a lot of cryonics advocates. The ones I know try to explain why current vitrification technology ought to preserve neural microstructure. Others work on better vitrification technology. I really don't know where you're getting this from.
    - revorad 17y ago
      Compared to them we might all be very poor and there is no way for anyone to become rich. Not sure about that. See this paper by Robin Hanson: http://hanson.gmu.edu/IEEESpectrum-6-08.pdf http://hanson.gmu.edu/IEEESpectrum-6-08.pdf
      - pfedor 17y ago
        Haven't read the full paper, but this caught my eye: The world economy, which now doubles in 15 years, would soon double in a week to a month According to the book "The Birth of Plenty" by William J. Bernstein, the world's wealth has been growing at a steady rate of 2% since 1820. Not sure where the disagreement comes from. Maybe the author of the article doesn't make a correction for inflation?
        revorad 17y ago
        This talk may shed some light (see from the 34min mark). http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7034028366249083385&ei=Dz1KSpOtGMed-Aa_t4DNAQ&q=robin+hanson+tomorrow+people&hl=en http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-70340283662490833...
- marvin 17y ago
  Being rich is half about having more money and power than others and half about having freedom to do pretty much whatever you want. The latter is absolute. So possibly a richer society in the future will have a higher standard of living, better health and lifespan and greater possibilities for how an average person can live his/her life. Not being obliged to work is probably the greatest improvement that can conceivably be available to most people. But the relative "richer than"/"more powerful than" thing will never disappear - it has been here through all of human history and has to be there pretty much by definition.
  - Periodic 17y ago
    There definitely does seem to be two types of "rich". There is (and my terminology here has nothing to do with his) the comfortably rich and the sociably rich. The comfortably rich seek to make more money in order to live more comfortably. I see a lot of geeks like this. They like to work their investments more for fun and to build up a nicer retirement fund than to buy a nice car. The sociably rich seek to gather wealth to change their social status and thereby both attract a different set of peers/partners and increase the number of people below them on the social ladder. In terms of the former the US is definitely very rich now. The ability of so many people to go to college and enter various job markets or make a living in a small business is amazing. In terms of the latter only a few can win, because it is a zero-sum game.
  - fauigerzigerk 17y ago
    I agree with most of what you say. But I don't think that being able to do "pretty much whatever you want" is absolute. Much of what we want depends on other people working for us. I don't think that's going to go away, quite the contrary. Services are an increasingly bigger share of what we want than ever before. So you're right that relative wealth/poverty will not disappear and that it's here by definition is what I meant by "statistical issue". But that also means that some of us will not be able to do pretty much whatever they want.
billswift 17y ago
To an extent. But if you assume that "constitution" or its parts is heritable to the degree that most IQ and personality traits are (roughly 60%) there is still a lot most people can do to improve their situation and abilities.
- wheels 17y ago
  I assume that most of the properties that would determine one's constitution as relative to the requirements he lists are largely fixed by the point in life that someone is reading stuff about becoming rich.
  - billswift 17y ago
    Not necessarily. I was 42 before I found out I was a high-functioning autistic or Aspie. The last 6 years I have been able to make substantial changes in my life using that knowledge. I suspect most people, especially those with fewer deficits, could relatively easily adjust their life styles/"constitutions".

by wheels 17y ago

fauigerzigerk 17y ago

I felt the same. Also, there are some statistical issues with everyone being rich, unless being rich is about absolute numbers, in which case Zimbabweans are all super rich ;-) It boils down to the difference between "everyone" and "anyone" I guess.

randallsquared 17y ago
There's also absolute wealth: the sense in which virtually all Americans today are rich compared to virtually all Americans in 1900.
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  Ah, in that case I wasted my time reading about how to get rich. I am already rich! :) But if you include all people living in past times wouldn't it be consistent to include all people who will live in the future? Compared to them we might all be very poor and there is no way for anyone to become rich.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    "Compared to them we might all be very poor" Seriously, I think that's likely. "and there is no way for anyone to become rich." Well, living longer. Also, you may improve your chances a bit with cryonics. :)
    - dennisgorelik 17y ago
      Sorry, but cryonics is a scam. The chances of extending life using cryonics are so low, that any investment into cryonics would decrease you current quality of life, not improve it [by extending your life into future]. http://aidevelopment.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryonics.html http://aidevelopment.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryonics.html
      - Eliezer 17y ago
        Answered in standard FAQs: http://www.alcor.org/FAQs/index.html http://www.alcor.org/FAQs/index.html http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics
        arakyd 17y ago
        Actually those FAQs do not challenge the central point of that blog post, which is that reasonable people can have wildly different estimates of the likelihood of successful preservation and reconstruction, and that most people judge it too much of a long shot to be worth the money. Cryonics advocates are by and large not very interested in trying to justify estimates that give a reasonable chance of success (I'll make an exception for Robin Hansen), and would rather talk about the importance of participation and securing more funding based on the fact that the probability of success is non-zero, and pro-life-esque ethical arguments about the value of human life.
        Eliezer 17y ago
        Cryonics advocates are by and large not very interested in trying to justify estimates that give a reasonable chance of success Sounds simply wrong to me, and I know a lot of cryonics advocates. The ones I know try to explain why current vitrification technology ought to preserve neural microstructure. Others work on better vitrification technology. I really don't know where you're getting this from.
  - revorad 17y ago
    Compared to them we might all be very poor and there is no way for anyone to become rich. Not sure about that. See this paper by Robin Hanson: http://hanson.gmu.edu/IEEESpectrum-6-08.pdf http://hanson.gmu.edu/IEEESpectrum-6-08.pdf
    - pfedor 17y ago
      Haven't read the full paper, but this caught my eye: The world economy, which now doubles in 15 years, would soon double in a week to a month According to the book "The Birth of Plenty" by William J. Bernstein, the world's wealth has been growing at a steady rate of 2% since 1820. Not sure where the disagreement comes from. Maybe the author of the article doesn't make a correction for inflation?
      - revorad 17y ago
        This talk may shed some light (see from the 34min mark). http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7034028366249083385&ei=Dz1KSpOtGMed-Aa_t4DNAQ&q=robin+hanson+tomorrow+people&hl=en http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-70340283662490833...
marvin 17y ago
Being rich is half about having more money and power than others and half about having freedom to do pretty much whatever you want. The latter is absolute. So possibly a richer society in the future will have a higher standard of living, better health and lifespan and greater possibilities for how an average person can live his/her life. Not being obliged to work is probably the greatest improvement that can conceivably be available to most people. But the relative "richer than"/"more powerful than" thing will never disappear - it has been here through all of human history and has to be there pretty much by definition.
- Periodic 17y ago
  There definitely does seem to be two types of "rich". There is (and my terminology here has nothing to do with his) the comfortably rich and the sociably rich. The comfortably rich seek to make more money in order to live more comfortably. I see a lot of geeks like this. They like to work their investments more for fun and to build up a nicer retirement fund than to buy a nice car. The sociably rich seek to gather wealth to change their social status and thereby both attract a different set of peers/partners and increase the number of people below them on the social ladder. In terms of the former the US is definitely very rich now. The ability of so many people to go to college and enter various job markets or make a living in a small business is amazing. In terms of the latter only a few can win, because it is a zero-sum game.
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  I agree with most of what you say. But I don't think that being able to do "pretty much whatever you want" is absolute. Much of what we want depends on other people working for us. I don't think that's going to go away, quite the contrary. Services are an increasingly bigger share of what we want than ever before. So you're right that relative wealth/poverty will not disappear and that it's here by definition is what I meant by "statistical issue". But that also means that some of us will not be able to do pretty much whatever they want.

billswift 17y ago

To an extent. But if you assume that "constitution" or its parts is heritable to the degree that most IQ and personality traits are (roughly 60%) there is still a lot most people can do to improve their situation and abilities.

wheels 17y ago
I assume that most of the properties that would determine one's constitution as relative to the requirements he lists are largely fixed by the point in life that someone is reading stuff about becoming rich.
- billswift 17y ago
  Not necessarily. I was 42 before I found out I was a high-functioning autistic or Aspie. The last 6 years I have been able to make substantial changes in my life using that knowledge. I suspect most people, especially those with fewer deficits, could relatively easily adjust their life styles/"constitutions".