I don’t think there’s any practical way to relocate a cultural hub on purpose. It might move on its own, over time, but that will be an incremental process. So, to some degree, I think this discussion is moot. Even if a few huge players announced an agreed upon “Second Hub” I don’t think many people would/could just pick up and go there.
An incremental process may still benefit from coordination. If once in a while somebody decides to move to “a place with many rationalists that is not Bay Area”, it may help if it is common knowledge that X is the place. So instead of three people moving to Boston, three people moving to Toronto, and three people moving to New Hampshire, we might get nine people moving to e.g. Boston.
putting all the rationality actors in one place is not an obviously-effective strategy to spreading and evolving rational thought. If all the Catholics lived in Rome, I don’t think most of the world would care about Catholicism very much.
But also, if each Catholic lived in a different town, Catholicism would disappear in one generation.
I wonder how much “spreading rationality” actually happens offline. At least I think I haven’t converted a single person, regardless of how many local meetups I organized. The local rationalists I know are those who came to the first meetups already being rationalists. It is great to meet each other sometimes, but it is unrelated to spreading rational thought.
Seems to me that as long as the internet debates remain, the recruitment channels will remain untouched, even if we all moved to the same place (which is unlikely to happen). Unless we all lived so close to each other that we would no longer feel a need to go debate online. But I assume there will always be more than one hub; and then there will at least be an online communication between them.
if all the Democrats clustered into two coastal states, they would win a lot of popular votes but lose the Senate over and over
Given our numbers, our situation is more similar to Libertarians than to Democrats, which kinda makes this an argument in favor of New Hampshire. :)
The marginal value of one person applying science and reason-based approaches to local problems is likely to be higher in a community where such approaches are rare, compared to huge rationality hubs, where they’re pretty common. [...] Having even one person is much, much better than having zero.
This assumes that people listen to the lonely rational person.
But my actual objection is more like “put your oxygen mask on first”. If rationalists are rare, it is important to protect them against burning out, which can be achieved by a supporting environment. And if a rationalist wants to address a local problem, it seems useful to have other rationalists familiar with the same problem, so they can share knowledge, discuss strategies, cooperate. (Which approach is better, probably depends on the specific problem.)
If it sometimes seems like Rationalists only seem interested in the problems, perspectives, and solutions relevant to 20-40 year-old upper middle class technologists living in central California, well, there are reasons that might have happened. I certainly get a parochial, elitist, Bay-centric vibe from this community. I once wrote something critical of the Bay Area in response to a post by Rob Wiblin, who responded, in effect “I don’t know why we would cater to people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere.”
I think here we agree a lot. You don’t have to put a sign saying “if you are not a young technologist, you are not welcome among us” in front of your door—moving to a place where hardly anyone else can afford the rent achieves exactly the same outcome. Which is why I am in favor of coordinating on another, less insane place.
This said, it seems to me that the Bay-centrism is gradually getting weaker than it used to be. (Not sure why; I suspect the influence of people who moved to Bay Area after participating in a local rationalist community elsewhere.) A few years ago, having a serious debate about moving away from Bay Area would be unthinkable.
I suspect that low preference for having kids may be, in some community members, an EFFECT of living in expensive, ultra-competitive, or difficult city, and not a cause.
Yep. I guess for some it is a genuine preference; for some it is rationalization of not being able to afford it; and for some it is a peer pressure from the previous two groups. (And a few can afford it, and go ahead.) I predict that if the main cultural hub moves to a cheaper and family-friendlier place, we will see a “rationalist baby boom” within five years.
Thanks for the chance to offer my opinion.
You probably just won the prize for the highest upvoted first comment. Congratulations!
To say the obvious, don’t let my disagreement discourage you. (Also, we probably agree more than disagree, because I was more likely to react to those points where I had an opposite opinion.)
An incremental process may still benefit from coordination. If once in a while somebody decides to move to “a place with many rationalists that is not Bay Area”, it may help if it is common knowledge that X is the place. So instead of three people moving to Boston, three people moving to Toronto, and three people moving to New Hampshire, we might get nine people moving to e.g. Boston.
But also, if each Catholic lived in a different town, Catholicism would disappear in one generation.
I wonder how much “spreading rationality” actually happens offline. At least I think I haven’t converted a single person, regardless of how many local meetups I organized. The local rationalists I know are those who came to the first meetups already being rationalists. It is great to meet each other sometimes, but it is unrelated to spreading rational thought.
Seems to me that as long as the internet debates remain, the recruitment channels will remain untouched, even if we all moved to the same place (which is unlikely to happen). Unless we all lived so close to each other that we would no longer feel a need to go debate online. But I assume there will always be more than one hub; and then there will at least be an online communication between them.
Given our numbers, our situation is more similar to Libertarians than to Democrats, which kinda makes this an argument in favor of New Hampshire. :)
This assumes that people listen to the lonely rational person.
But my actual objection is more like “put your oxygen mask on first”. If rationalists are rare, it is important to protect them against burning out, which can be achieved by a supporting environment. And if a rationalist wants to address a local problem, it seems useful to have other rationalists familiar with the same problem, so they can share knowledge, discuss strategies, cooperate. (Which approach is better, probably depends on the specific problem.)
I think here we agree a lot. You don’t have to put a sign saying “if you are not a young technologist, you are not welcome among us” in front of your door—moving to a place where hardly anyone else can afford the rent achieves exactly the same outcome. Which is why I am in favor of coordinating on another, less insane place.
This said, it seems to me that the Bay-centrism is gradually getting weaker than it used to be. (Not sure why; I suspect the influence of people who moved to Bay Area after participating in a local rationalist community elsewhere.) A few years ago, having a serious debate about moving away from Bay Area would be unthinkable.
Yep. I guess for some it is a genuine preference; for some it is rationalization of not being able to afford it; and for some it is a peer pressure from the previous two groups. (And a few can afford it, and go ahead.) I predict that if the main cultural hub moves to a cheaper and family-friendlier place, we will see a “rationalist baby boom” within five years.
You probably just won the prize for the highest upvoted first comment. Congratulations!
To say the obvious, don’t let my disagreement discourage you. (Also, we probably agree more than disagree, because I was more likely to react to those points where I had an opposite opinion.)