Person: *Replies with something interesting*
Me: "Oooh! Whats this?"
Person: *Deletes post*
Me: đ˘
Person: *Replies with something interesting*
Me: "Oooh! Whats this?"
Person: *Deletes post*
Me: đ˘
So, you may have noticed me going on about this piece before, or some other pieces to accompany it:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/book-review-red-plenty/
That's cause it fucking terrifies me. I'm gonna take another stab at explaining why.
To put it simply, it implies that life is about competition. It's natural selection all the way down. Species evolve through natural selection, but so do ideas, corporations, governments - everything is selected to be competitive. Individuals that aren't competitive don't procreate, ideas that aren't competitive don't catch on, corporations that aren't competitive lose market share and go bankrupt, people who aren't competitive don't get elected, etc.
Now, to explain why that's so terrifying, lets take a look at what it means to be competitive. To a limited degree, we've managed to align this with what it means to be good. Our politicians generally try to make promises that align with the wills of at least some of their voters, businesses try and make products that at least some people will want to buy, etc. But, it's important to keep in mind just how limited this alignment is. There are still a million ways in which "competitiveness" can get wildly out of alignment with what's actually good. See global warming, for example, or any of the articles linked earlier.
Furthermore, if it's true, this tendency towards increasing competitiveness means that technology won't save us. It will simply give us new ways to compete and consume, often at each others expense. Most especially, I worry about automation. For the moment, the system needs to take the desires of individual people into account, because they have some power - not a lot, but still a little. But when no more humans are needed to work? When robots capable of anything a human can do are cheaper than said human? What power will the average person have then? Not enough to matter, I worry.
And sure, those who control the machines might choose to pay taxes for an UBI. But keep in mind, /they/ still need to compete. Economically, militarily, who knows - but I don't expect them to escape competition. And who do you think is more competitive - the machine economy that pays taxes to support human beings, or the one that doesn't? Or, beyond that, the one that leaves fertile land alone for human use, or the one that doesn't? The one that carefully manages it's waste products to keep humans safe, or the one that doesn't?
Or, for the example of what something monstrously more competitive than you can do to you, see the comparison between humans and other great apes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae#Conservation
One of the numbers on that chart is not like the others. And we didn't even mean to do that, not really! We were just hungry, and competitive, and trying to get ahead. And they were in the way.
And don't think it's just automation that we have to worry about. Can you compete with Apple? Microsoft? China, Brazil? Of course not. These entities are vastly more powerful than any human being. Now, for the moment they're forced to give at least some care to your life, and not crush you underfoot. But will it stay that way? Or will they tear free of their chains and stumble blindly towards being more competitive, destroying everything we care about underfoot in the process? I don't know. But, unless you're one of those rare people who doesn't want to complain about either corporations or government, you probably already share at least some of my concerns on the power of these entities. Now just imagine those concerns magnified, and the restraints discarded, and I think you'll see what I'm getting at.
Of course, it's not all bleakness. We do restrain competition, all the time. That's basically the entire point of having laws and regulations. The governments entire job, really. A lot of culture, too. And, for the most part, it these things actually do a good job. You can mostly go to sleep without having your neighbor shank you, or your house inundated with toxic sludge, or your possessions seized by the government. Mostly. But I'm concerned this might not last.
Like, on the topic of automation, obviously it's an ongoing process. First you go from picking wheat by hand, to picking it with a sickle, etc, all the way up to a combine harvester. And as this trend continues, there's a trade off between the worker getting all the produce of their labor, but not producing very much, to them getting a smaller portion of their produce, but producing much more. But, this is a curve. Eventually, the decrease in portion outweighs the increased production, and the curve trends down. But you can't just go back - competitiveness is based mostly on production, so it will follow where that increases.
I worry it's going to be the same across our civilization. Trends that once went up will go back down. All these things that we take for granted, despite being so new - civil rights, the rule of law, due process, a decent standard of living - they disappear as shockingly as they appeared. We will return to despotism, and savagery, and eventually extinction. Our machines will march on without us, glorious and impressive and pointless. "Meaningless gleaming techno-progress burning the cosmos." "A Disneyland with no children." You get the idea.
To put it simply, I'm not just worried that we're on the wrong path. I'm worried that no other path is possible. That, like water running downhill, we will be drawn inevitably towards causing our own extinction, or at least towards a mass die off, civilization wide collapse, and much less friendlier world. This happens to other species all the time. Ever heard of the Oxygen Catastrophe? Some of the first microbes to perform photosynthesis and release oxygen found it very competitive to do so. So competitive, they released enough of it into the atmosphere to poison themselves, and make the planet forever less hospitable to their kind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
Are we smart enough to avoid doing the same? To curb our competitive tendencies? Maybe. We've tried to do that with government and culture. But of course, each of those is another arena in which to compete. It's still been a step forward, so far. But can we keep it up forever? We're already failing with global warming, which should be easy. We had warning all the way back in 1896, more than a hundred years ago, and we still haven't managed to figure out how to deal with it.
https://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm
What are we gonna do if we're faced with an even more difficult problem, where we only have a few years to figure out a solution? I dunno. I'm not sure there's anything we will be able to do. I guess we'll see.
Now, I'm not a normal communist. I've barely read most communist literature, even the manifesto. Indeed, most of my philosophical underpinnings stem from one of Scott Alexander's works, Meditations on Moloch (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/). To put it simply, my concern is that the nature of life is hunger and violence. Every living things must optimize for evolutionary fitness, or be discarded and forgotten. And in the process of this optimization, they must take any opportunity to further their competitiveness within the available constraints, regardless of the cost. Thus, most living things gain the resources they need to survive by taking them from other living things. Even plants compete for sunlight, water, and other resources. Predation is near ubiquitous.
Now, in the human context, we've defrayed some of this because of our ability to trade. But even so, much of the process still remains. We still compete with each other in a variety of ways, and find many more opportunities to engage in conflict. As Scott notes in Meditations, "The reasons Nature is red and tooth and claw are the same reasons the market is ruthless and exploitative." And of course, the principle of accumulative advantage (http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/CumulativeAdvantagePrinciple.htm - Not actually super familiar with this website, I just found it, but their overview looks decent and it should be a good jumping off point) applies- due to positive feedback loops, the more you have, the more you can get. Now, this effect is counteracted by negative feedback loops eventually, which is why you see growth in most areas fall off eventually. But this still permits billionaires and megacorps. Some of these might be very nice people, and perhaps even very nice megacorps! But it doesn't matter. The system selects for competitiveness, and if there is a competitive advantage to be had at your expense, well... Sucks to be you.
Now, there are several things that constrain these systems. In the case of evolution, there's no intelligence to guide it, which means that if an optimization can't happen randomly or by gradual evolutionary change, it can't happen. There might be lots of competitive advantage to be had from engineering our eyes to no longer have the neural wiring and blood vessels in front of the rods and cones, but if it takes lots and lots of changes to do that, and those changes would mean moving through a period of decreased competitive advantage, it's unlikely to happen naturally. Furthermore, the system is constrained by physics and all of it's consequences, sometimes even so that it will optimize for our values! We care about our children because it's a competitive advantage to do so, for example. Or, in the case of capitalism, we have a surprising variety of different methods to keep the markets in check - sufficiently bad PR, for example, can kill even the mightiest of corporations if they're too careless. So, in practice, they need to constrain their behavior to not cause too much negative PR, which rules out a lot of bad behavior. We also have various laws and our government to constrain them, and of course some positive behavior is a competitive advantage, like paying employees enough that they keep working for them.
But, as Scott talks about in Meditations, new advancements bring new opportunities for competitive advantage, and there's no guarantee that those advancements will be good for the rest of us. Automation is a good example. Or advertising, or lobbying, or union-busting, or trickle-down economics, or any of a host of other innovations.
Now, here we get to my problems with other communists, and it's historical problems. See, all that stuff I talked about above, it doesn't stop with Capitalism, or Evolution. It applies to anything where you can compete, and optimize for competitiveness. Which includes Politics, including the internal politics of communist political organizations. There's an excellent video on this, The Rules for Rulers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs), and a book, The Dictators Handbook (http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs13/The_Dictators_Handbook.pdf). Scott even wrote an article himself (https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/book-review-red-plenty/) about how this applies to communist politics. To give you the short version, communists have regularly made the mistake of allowing themselves to be made to compete for power, and be forced to discard all values in the pursuit, including communism. Moloch is a cruel and malevolent god, and worse, he thinks he's funny. To try and escape the system is to allow it to entangle you in new and interesting ways. -_-
So, here we get to me, and my view of a way forward. To put it simply, I think that this is an engineering problem. We must figure out how to engineer, or grow, or somehow make a society capable of truly chaining Moloch to human values. And we must do so within a world that he rules. Where every step we make, he's trying to twist our steps back the way we came. In my view, the best way to do this is with a free and equal society, and the way to have that is an equitable distribution of power. Most communists focus on revolution, and I don't believe that's an actionable way forward, because it tends to only serve to concentrate power, and it removes many of the constraints that would otherwise prevent the system from optimizing it's way into anything too horrible. So, then you end up with Gulags.
Of course, gradual change is no picnic either, but I think it's a lot more possible. My current work is on a new means of mass communication, because I think that in order to solve a problem of this complexity, no individual human is smart enough. You can see my project here (https://agoraforum.website/), if you're interested. -_-
So, I was thinking. Lets suppose we find a way to generate free energy, right? As much as we want. And we find a way to turn this energy into matter any way we want. And we find a way to dispose of the waste heat thus generated, and also invent anti-gravity to prevent us being crushed under the weight of our own accumulated stuff. Then, the only limiting resource left to us is space, which assuming no FTL, we can capture at a rate of 2C^3. Which is still not enough of a growth rate to keep up with our current exponential growth in resource usage... :/
Is it right to share a new mathematical idea with theoretically extensive but unknown practical applucations? Like, if you have an idea for some but of math that could be used for everything from chemistry to social engineering to A.I. weaponry, is it right to share it? I mean, it could potentially be used to make things much worse, but it could also be used to make things much better. And of course, you might be inflating the whole thing - maybe the idea won't lead anywhere anyway.
I guess you pretty much just have to estimate the results, right? Chance of good times magnitude of good, versus chance of bad times magnitude of bad? :/
Yes, you. I've been meditating based on instructions from Culadasa's The Mind Illuminated, and I'm super impressed. Highly recommended, you should try it.
I will note, though, you should probably get the book and read it first. There are a lot of very important details - I never knew meditating could be so complicated. For example, he recommends that the core exercise should be to focus attention on the meditation object (usually the breath) while simultaneously trying to expand your peripheral awareness - trying to stretch the mind in two didections, basically. He also has a lot of insights to share into how the mind works. (Like the fact that attention and awareness are separate things and that you can have both at once and use them differently, for example.)
G. K. Chesterton was an interesting character. He was a conservative, even a regressive, and yet he gives us passages like this:
"Now the whole parable and purpose of these last pages, and indeed of all these pages, is this: to assert that we must instantly begin all over again, and begin at the other end. I begin with a little girlâs hair. That I know is a good thing at any rate. Whatever else is evil, the pride of a good mother in the beauty of her daughter is good. It is one of those adamantine tendernesses which are the touchstones of every age and race. If other things are against it, other things must go down. If landlords and laws and sciences are against it, landlords and laws and sciences must go down. With the red hair of one she-urchin in the gutter I will set fire to all modern civilization. Because a girl should have long hair, she should have clean hair; because she should have clean hair, she should not have an unclean home: because she should not have an unclean home, she should have a free and leisured mother; because she should have a free mother, she should not have an usurious landlord; because there should not be an usurious landlord, there should be a redistribution of property; because there should be a redistribution of property, there shall be a revolution. That little urchin with the gold-red hair, whom I have just watched toddling past my house, she shall not be lopped and lamed and altered; her hair shall not be cut short like a convictâs; no, all the kingdoms of the earth shall be hacked about and mutilated to suit her. She is the human and sacred image; all around her the social fabric shall sway and split and fall; the pillars of society shall be shaken, and the roofs of ages come rushing down, and not one hair of her head shall be harmed."
:/
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/25/book-review-whats-wrong-with-the-world/
"I know that âcapitalists sometimes do bad thingsâ isnât exactly an original talking point. But I do want to stress how itâs not equivalent to âcapitalists are greedyâ. I mean, sometimes they are greedy. But other times theyâre just in a sufficiently intense competition where anyone who doesnât do it will be outcompeted and replaced by people who do. Business practices are set by Moloch, no one else has any choice in the matter."
I think the last bit is a bit of an overstatement, but I do think it makes an important point. Morality is only so useful without the coordination to make it matter. :/
[X] Forest
You are surrounded by a verdant woodland. Ancient trees arch over head, while a thinner underbrush reaches for every stray scrap of light underneath. Birdsong echoes about, quite undisturbed by your presence, aching and blood-soaked as it may be. Speaking of which, you suddenly realize that you have no idea who you are. You pat yourself down and determine that most of the blood isn't your's at least, and the few wounds you have are all shallow cuts, hopefully minor. You also determine your race and gender:
Race:
[] Human
[] Elf
[] Goblin
[] Dwarf
[] Leonin
[] Vedalken
[] Naga
[] Angel
[] Ratfolk
[] Merfolk (With legs)
[] Write-in
Gender:
[] Male
[] Female
[] Write-in:
Wow, none of y'all agree on anything. I have one vote each for forest, mountain, swamp, and island. :/
You come to your senses with a sudden gasp, body twitching and jerking from a rush of adrenaline. You stagger to your feet, searching your surroundings for the source of the danger, but nothing presents itself. Looking around, all you see is a peaceful
[] Plains
[] Island
[] Swamp
[] Mountain
[] Forest
[] Write-in:
(Reply to this post with one of the options, marked with an X, like this: [X]. You can insert basically anything you want for the write-in, though I reserve the right to ignore an option if I find it too crazy. XD)
Eh, fuck it. Let's see where this goes. XD
Not sure how I'd make it work though. :/
Hmm. All of a sudden I'm super tempted to try and put together some kind of spontaneous mtg quest on Mastodon. Just to see where it goes. :/
Some examples:
Theft
This is also an example of an externality. I spend some time stealing to take something and give nothing in return. This costs me my time and effort and you the thing stolen, and gains me the thing stolen. Overall, this transaction has negative utility from the time spent that created nothing, while the transfer of ownership balances out. Thus, it's overall a waste, but because *I* make a profit, I'll continue doing it. (Again, something we have government to balance out by hitting me with a stick until I stop stealing things.)
Employment
If I employ 100 people, then each person represents 1% of my employees - but I represent a hundred percent of their employer. Thus, I have a massive advantage over them in negotiations. Whether I hire any given one of those people is only a small factor in business, but it's a huge factor in their "Do I get to keep eating". This is the reason why we have minimum wages and unions, is to try and correct this power imbalance - either by short-circuiting the negotiation entirely with a minimum wage, or by allowing all of my employees to negotiate as a group and thereby equal my power. These have their own problems, of course, but again - nother thread. XD
Monopoly and Monopsony
If I'm the only seller or buyer for a good, I can use this position to extract excess value from those who purchase or sell it. I can also use this position for more strategic objectives, like driving my competition out of business or manipulating other markets.
Anbother problem, not exactly one with markets but a problem with everything that markets do little to nothing to address and occasionally exacerbate, is power asymmetry. Anytime the people engage in a transaction are of unequal power, there is the possibility of the more powerful person extracting more value than they should otherwise be able to. The most obvious case of this is violence and the threat of violence, but it manifests in much more subtle ways too.
Another problem of markets is the limits on information. I cannot possibly know all the details of the local market, nor can everyone else. When distributed evenly, this lack of information decreases the efficiency of the market and causes resources to be expended on less than optimally efficient activities. When distributed unevenly, this lack of information creates power asymmetry, and allows those with more of it to drain resources from the market - say, by buying a commodity high and selling it low. Now, this can be a useful correction mechanism, and isn't wholly without benefits, but it can be a problem too under the right circumstances. :/
This is the classic case for regulation - the government comes in and whacks me with a -$600+ fine per activity and uses that to pay for cancer treatment, and I'm forced to find a better way of doing things or go out of business. Of course, this runs into all the problems of government and regulation, but thats a whole nother thread. :/
First and foremost, the problem of externalities. Externalities are costs or benefits that are not subject to the people involved. The best example would be pollution. I do <x>, I get a positive value of $500 from it - but I create a negative externality in the form of pollution and thereby cause -$600 in cancer in other people. The activity as a whole is of negative utility, but that negative utility is an externality, and thus the activity receives a reward of $500 instead of a penalty of -$100 as it should. Thus, the market rewards me with more resources. I scale up my activity, my business booms, and a whole lot of people get cancer and suffer for it.
The problems of markets is an area where I'm much more confident in my knowledge. I'm going to divide this into a series of posts, each of them detailing one problem and each of them in response to this post.
Jonkman Microblog is a social network, courtesy of SOBAC Microcomputer Services. It runs on GNU social, version 1.2.0-beta5, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.