Human population growth , being able successfully support 15⁄20 billions humans on our planet , while making sure that each and everyone of them receives the daily dose of calories and proteins necessary to fully develop mentally and physically , get connected to infrastructure and cyberinfrastructure so that we would have more brainpower to solve our problems .
I am unclear on why this is one of your goals. Is a large population:
A terminal goal?
An instrumental goal, because the more people that are working on life extension, FAI, or whatever, the sooner we will achieve it?
Not a goal at all, but you feel that human population is headed towards 15⁄20 billion, and you wish for all of those people to have their basic needs met?
If #1, it is unclear to me why you would think that a large population is so desirable that you are willing to give up biodiversity, meat, pandas, Netflix, etc., to achieve it.
If #2, I am not confident that a huge population is really the best/fastest way to achieve those things. A large population can create problems of its own (overcrowding, competition for resources, etc.), and solving those problems could divert attention from whatever it is that you want society to achieve.
Also CEOs are more often than not irrational people , 90% of the times their goal is to forcefully push down people’s throats a service or a product they don’t need
IMO you are overstating the ability of a CEO to push products down anyone’s throat (as I am sure anyone who has ever tried to market an unpopular product could attest). Yes, corporations do engage in marketing, promotion, advertising, etc., but ultimately it is the consumer that makes the choice as to what products to buy. A company that is successful in selling a lot of products is, more often than not, a company that is successful in understanding what products consumers want and is successful in producing those products. By and large, people buy meat, luxury products, professionally produced entertainment, etc., because they really want those things rather than because a corporation forced those products upon them.
Also, I don’t know that I would call most CEOs irrational; perhaps they are acting rationally given their goals (which may differ from yours).
2 An instrumental goal, because the more people that are working on life extension, FAI, or whatever, the sooner we will achieve it
Exactly
If #1, it is unclear to me why you would think that a large population is so desirable that you are willing to give up biodiversity, meat, pandas, Netflix, etc., to achieve it.
To get there (WBE , life extension , the maintenance approach by Audrey de Grey , understanding of consciousness , AGI that would preserve our consciousness) faster than we would otherwise
If #2, I am not confident that a huge population is really the best/fastest way to achieve those things. A large population can create problems of its own (overcrowding, competition for resources, etc.), and solving those problems could divert attention from whatever it is that you want society to achieve.
That’s the reason why we must optimize resources allocation in every possible way , cutting all the unnecessary (entertainment , jewelry , yacht , meat , sports , fashion) and redirect our effort toward the important stuff
By and large, people buy meat, luxury products, professionally produced entertainment, etc.
Because they don’t know what kind of society they are giving up by pursuing those things and not optimizing resources instead , but CEOs are supposed to be smart people , they should know better , instead of enlightening people they sell them the crap they want in order to elevate themselves and be in a position which would enable them to buy all the crap they want . Few of them want to convert money earned by selling crap into progress towards that kind of society , but money are only useful when somebody on the other side accepts it to buy food and other stuff , too bad they are too busy buying crap to care about WBE
Also, I don’t know that I would call most CEOs irrational; perhaps they are acting rationally given their goals (which may differ from yours).
If their goal is becoming the 0,000001% in a suboptimal society instead of being an average citizen in a optimized society , then yes , they are irrational , statistics proved this time and time again , what kills the billionaire is the exact same pathology that kills the plumber....the billionaire might have a 28-32 months advantage in accessing a new experimental treatment , but that doesn’t cost billions of dollars , 5-10 millions will suffice
If their goal is becoming the 0,000001% in a suboptimal society instead of being an average citizen in a optimized society , then yes , they are irrational , statistics proved this time and time again , what kills the billionaire is the exact same pathology that kills the plumber
I don’t think that you can use statistics to prove that a goal is irrational in this way. You appear to be working from an unstated assumption that everyone’s terminal goals are identical to yours—a high weighting on long lifespan and a negligible weighting on everything else. In fact, this is not the case; people’s terminal goals vary.
The thing is, no one needs to align his/her goals to those of the majority. As long as he/she does not intrude upon the rights of others, each person can pursue his/her own goals. The great thing about “voting with your wallet” (as you put it), is that it is not a winner-take-all vote. You can use your resources towards your vision of maximal life expectancy, someone who values biodiversity, panda habitats, etc., can work on or contribute towards conservation efforts, and the live-for-the-moment hedonist can spend his/her money on luxury goods, etc. In fact, most people are not exclusively in any one of those camps but rather have a complex mix of goals; that is why a one-size-fits-all set of spending and career priorities is unreasonable.
What about the right not to be killed? I’d live up to 5-10 years more if society valued longevity as much as I do...society would be defacto responsible for my premature death
Your right to pursue your goal of maximal life expectancy does not imply that anyone else has an obligation to dedicate his/her career or assets towards your goal. However, the arrangement is reciprocal; no one can compel you to abandon your goals and dedicate your career and assets towards his/her goals either.
What about laws in place to punish those who run over people and kill them because their goal is to get wherever they need to go as fast as possible ? We punish these people..also we punish those who drive recklessly because they harm society as a whole by pursuing their goal
Fortunately we have laws to mediate conflicts in individuals’ goals and desires. The law in most jurisdictions sees a difference between causing the death of another person by driving in an unsafe and illegal manner, and failing to dedicate one’s career and assets towards the goal of maximal life expectancy. IMO, the law gets this distinction right.
I am unclear on why this is one of your goals. Is a large population:
A terminal goal?
An instrumental goal, because the more people that are working on life extension, FAI, or whatever, the sooner we will achieve it?
Not a goal at all, but you feel that human population is headed towards 15⁄20 billion, and you wish for all of those people to have their basic needs met?
If #1, it is unclear to me why you would think that a large population is so desirable that you are willing to give up biodiversity, meat, pandas, Netflix, etc., to achieve it.
If #2, I am not confident that a huge population is really the best/fastest way to achieve those things. A large population can create problems of its own (overcrowding, competition for resources, etc.), and solving those problems could divert attention from whatever it is that you want society to achieve.
IMO you are overstating the ability of a CEO to push products down anyone’s throat (as I am sure anyone who has ever tried to market an unpopular product could attest). Yes, corporations do engage in marketing, promotion, advertising, etc., but ultimately it is the consumer that makes the choice as to what products to buy. A company that is successful in selling a lot of products is, more often than not, a company that is successful in understanding what products consumers want and is successful in producing those products. By and large, people buy meat, luxury products, professionally produced entertainment, etc., because they really want those things rather than because a corporation forced those products upon them.
Also, I don’t know that I would call most CEOs irrational; perhaps they are acting rationally given their goals (which may differ from yours).
Exactly
To get there (WBE , life extension , the maintenance approach by Audrey de Grey , understanding of consciousness , AGI that would preserve our consciousness) faster than we would otherwise
That’s the reason why we must optimize resources allocation in every possible way , cutting all the unnecessary (entertainment , jewelry , yacht , meat , sports , fashion) and redirect our effort toward the important stuff
Because they don’t know what kind of society they are giving up by pursuing those things and not optimizing resources instead , but CEOs are supposed to be smart people , they should know better , instead of enlightening people they sell them the crap they want in order to elevate themselves and be in a position which would enable them to buy all the crap they want . Few of them want to convert money earned by selling crap into progress towards that kind of society , but money are only useful when somebody on the other side accepts it to buy food and other stuff , too bad they are too busy buying crap to care about WBE
If their goal is becoming the 0,000001% in a suboptimal society instead of being an average citizen in a optimized society , then yes , they are irrational , statistics proved this time and time again , what kills the billionaire is the exact same pathology that kills the plumber....the billionaire might have a 28-32 months advantage in accessing a new experimental treatment , but that doesn’t cost billions of dollars , 5-10 millions will suffice
I don’t think that you can use statistics to prove that a goal is irrational in this way. You appear to be working from an unstated assumption that everyone’s terminal goals are identical to yours—a high weighting on long lifespan and a negligible weighting on everything else. In fact, this is not the case; people’s terminal goals vary.
Well , in that case the interests of the majority would prevail
The thing is, no one needs to align his/her goals to those of the majority. As long as he/she does not intrude upon the rights of others, each person can pursue his/her own goals. The great thing about “voting with your wallet” (as you put it), is that it is not a winner-take-all vote. You can use your resources towards your vision of maximal life expectancy, someone who values biodiversity, panda habitats, etc., can work on or contribute towards conservation efforts, and the live-for-the-moment hedonist can spend his/her money on luxury goods, etc. In fact, most people are not exclusively in any one of those camps but rather have a complex mix of goals; that is why a one-size-fits-all set of spending and career priorities is unreasonable.
What about the right not to be killed? I’d live up to 5-10 years more if society valued longevity as much as I do...society would be defacto responsible for my premature death
Your right to pursue your goal of maximal life expectancy does not imply that anyone else has an obligation to dedicate his/her career or assets towards your goal. However, the arrangement is reciprocal; no one can compel you to abandon your goals and dedicate your career and assets towards his/her goals either.
What about laws in place to punish those who run over people and kill them because their goal is to get wherever they need to go as fast as possible ? We punish these people..also we punish those who drive recklessly because they harm society as a whole by pursuing their goal
Fortunately we have laws to mediate conflicts in individuals’ goals and desires. The law in most jurisdictions sees a difference between causing the death of another person by driving in an unsafe and illegal manner, and failing to dedicate one’s career and assets towards the goal of maximal life expectancy. IMO, the law gets this distinction right.
If this is what you meant by “Well , in that case the interests of the majority would prevail”, then yes, I agree with that.