I do think this comes back to the messages in On Green and also why the post went down like a cup of cold sick—rationality is about winning. Obviously nobody on LW wants to “win” in the sense you describe, but more winning over more harmony on the margin, I think.
The future will probably contain less of the way of life I value (or something entirely orthogonal), but then that’s the nature of things.
I do think this comes back to the messages in On Green and also why the post went down like a cup of cold sick—rationality is about winning. Obviously nobody on LW wants to “win” in the sense you describe, but more winning over more harmony on the margin, I think.
The future will probably contain less of the way of life I value (or something entirely orthogonal), but then that’s the nature of things.
I think 2 cruxes IMO dominate the discussion a lot that are relevant here:
Will a value lock-in event happen, especially soon in a way such that once the values are locked in, it’s basically impossible to change values?
Is something like the vulnerable world hypothesis correct about technological development?
If you believed 1 or 2, I could see why people disagreed with Sarah Constantin’s statement on here.