This is a good point, but there’s something a little contradictory about this. One of the methods of safeguarding human welfare during the takeoff is strong property rights but arcologies would be designed preferentially to escape planning law. Planning law is designed in principle to protect public goods[1] so this strikes me as a dangerous precedent.
Why are people moving to arcologies? Is it the power of the market, the power of preference, or what? If preserves still have significant economic activity (by being consumers), then the use of the word “preserve” is unusual. Taking the example in the story, if these preserves have a lot more tourism, that requires new infrastructure which inevitably change the character of the landscape.
So in sum (1) Incentivising avoiding the law probably bad on average and (2) does not explain the decisions of people or how these preserves can actually work
You’re more than welcome to disagree with the premise (“Planning law is not designed in principle to protect public goods”). I wanted to avoid opening a dispute about whether planning law is good at doing this or even can achieve it in practice—essentially the arguments from the Abundance movement—because I don’t think it’s an effective path (surfaces cruxes?) in the conversation.
It would be very easy to get in long drawn-out discussion about the ideas from Abundance movement which takes the focus away from AI 2040 and towards modern politics which there’s a bit of a taboo on LW anyway.
I spoke imprecisely, if one wishes to point out that actual bad effects of planning law are more important for assessing its removal than good intent, that is not technically disagreeing with the premise, merely its relevance to the conclusion.
More precisely, you have significantly restricted dissenters’ ability to discuss relevant cruxes. If you feel that political discussion on that level is or should be taboo on LW then it is poor form to raise political arguments while forbidding political replies.
Based on what you’re saying, I think you’d like to argue “Planning law leads to bad outcomes on average, therefore arcologies avoiding planning law is good”. I think this is a good argument.
This is a good point, but there’s something a little contradictory about this. One of the methods of safeguarding human welfare during the takeoff is strong property rights but arcologies would be designed preferentially to escape planning law. Planning law is designed in principle to protect public goods[1] so this strikes me as a dangerous precedent.
Why are people moving to arcologies? Is it the power of the market, the power of preference, or what? If preserves still have significant economic activity (by being consumers), then the use of the word “preserve” is unusual. Taking the example in the story, if these preserves have a lot more tourism, that requires new infrastructure which inevitably change the character of the landscape.
So in sum (1) Incentivising avoiding the law probably bad on average and (2) does not explain the decisions of people or how these preserves can actually work
Not an invitation to argue about whether it actually does this or not
If someone disagrees with the premise, you’ve made it impossible for them to dispute your conclusion. Neat trick!
You’re more than welcome to disagree with the premise (“Planning law is not designed in principle to protect public goods”). I wanted to avoid opening a dispute about whether planning law is good at doing this or even can achieve it in practice—essentially the arguments from the Abundance movement—because I don’t think it’s an effective path (surfaces cruxes?) in the conversation.
It would be very easy to get in long drawn-out discussion about the ideas from Abundance movement which takes the focus away from AI 2040 and towards modern politics which there’s a bit of a taboo on LW anyway.
I spoke imprecisely, if one wishes to point out that actual bad effects of planning law are more important for assessing its removal than good intent, that is not technically disagreeing with the premise, merely its relevance to the conclusion.
More precisely, you have significantly restricted dissenters’ ability to discuss relevant cruxes. If you feel that political discussion on that level is or should be taboo on LW then it is poor form to raise political arguments while forbidding political replies.
Based on what you’re saying, I think you’d like to argue “Planning law leads to bad outcomes on average, therefore arcologies avoiding planning law is good”. I think this is a good argument.