I mean, do you guys, like, know why Greenpeace is against some of these market solutions? I didn’t know either, but in five minutes of googling I was able to find some arguments. Here’s an example argument: in the world there are poor countries and rich countries. Poor countries are not always ruled in their people’s best interest; and rich countries and corporations don’t always act in poor countries’ best interest, either. So, what would happen if a rich country paid a dictator of a poor country a billion dollars to irrevocably mess up the poor country’s environment? What would happen? Huh?
Maybe in more than five minutes you could find other arguments too. Anyway, fast-tracking your readers straight to “Greenpeace is your enemy” doesn’t feel right.
Yea, having similar feelings about this post. The conclusion is probably still correct, but not sufficiently established. And I think there should be, idk, a norm about being more thorough when talking badly about an org, and violating that doesn’t seem worth the point made here.
I see it as causally connected to why the Lesswrong community has supported three orgs racing to AGI.
Out of the following, which of them would count as “talking badly about an org” and would a norm of being more thorough before?
“Greenpeace has tied its identity to anti-nuke, and if you’re pro-nuke you’ll be fighting them for as long as they exist”
“If you are for nuke and market solutions, you’ll find Greenpeace has taken consistently terrible stances”
“If you are for nuke and market solutions, every dollar Greenpeace gets is a loss for you”
“Greenpeace is an enemy, but specifically not stupid or evil”
“Strong supporters of Greenpeace will purposefully slow down nuclear energy, technological solutions and market mechanisms”
If the above passes your threshold for “need to be more thorough before saying it”, then that informs what a potential follow-up to my article geared toward Lesswrong would have to be about.
Specifically, it should be about Lesswrong having a bad culture. One that favours norms that make punishing enemies harder, up to the point of not being able to straightforwardly say “if you are pro-nuke, an org that has been anti-nuke for decades is your enemy”. Let alone dealing with AI corporations racing to AGI that have friends in the community.
If the above doesn’t pass your threshold and you think it’s fine, then I don’t think it makes sense for me to write a follow-up article to Lesswrong. It was basically as far as my article goes IIRC, and so the problem lies deeper.
So I think the norm is something like “if you write something that will predictably make people feel worse about [real person or org], you should stick to journalistic standards of citing sources and such”. That means all your quotes depend on whether you’ve sufficiently established the substance of the quote.
If we take your post as it is now, well you only have one source, which is the group letter to congress. Imo as you used it this actually does not even establish that they’re anti nuclear power because the letter is primarily about fossil fuels, and the quote about nuclear power is in the context of protecting indigenous rights. Also you said it was signed with 600 other companies, so it might have been a compromise (maybe they oppose some parts of the content but thought the entire thing was still worth signing). An endorsement of a compromise/package is just really not a good way to establish their position. It would be much better to just look at the Wikipedia page and see whether that says they’re anti nuclear. Which in fact it does in the introduction. Some would probably quibble with that but for me that would actually be enough. So if you just did that, then I’d excuse all quotes that only reference them being anti-nuclear power (which I guess is just the first in your list).
Saying that they’re my enemy is a little harder because it would require establishing that they’re a negative for climate protection on net. This is not obvious; you could have an org that’s anti nuclear power and still does more good than harm overall. It probably still wouldn’t be that difficult, but your post as is certainly falls short. (And BTW it’s also not obvious that being anti nuclear power now is as bad as having been anti nuclear power historically. It could be the case that having been anti nuclear power historically was a huge mistake and we should have invested in the technology all this time, but that since we didn’t, at this point it actually no longer makes sense and we should only invest in renewables. I don’t think that’s the case, I think we should probably still build nuclear reactors now, but I’m genuinely not sure. This kind of thing very much matters for the ‘net negative impact’ question.)
Specifically, it should be about Lesswrong having a bad culture. One that favours norms that make punishing enemies harder, up to the point of not being able to straightforwardly say “if you are pro-nuke, an org that has been anti-nuke for decades is your enemy”.
I think it’s very unlikely that having laxer standards for accusing others is a good thing. Broadly speaking it seems to me that ~100% of groups-that-argue-about-political-or-culture-war-topics suffer from having too low standards for criticizing the outgroup, and ~0% suffer from having too high standards. And I don’t think these standards are even that high, like you could write a post that says Greenpeace is my enemy, you’d just have to put in the effort to source your claims a little. Or, more practically, you could have just written the post about a fictional org, then you can make your point about enemies without having to deal with the practical side of attacking a real org.
Not related but
why the Lesswrong community has supported three orgs racing to AGI.
This was not my impression. My impression was that people associated with the community have founded orgs that then did capability research, but that many, probably most, people on LW think that’s a disaster. To varying degrees. People are probably less negative on Anthropic than OpenAI. We’re certainly not enthusiastic about OpenAI.. In any case I don’t think it summarizes to “the Lesswrong community has supported” these orgs.
“if you write something that will predictably make people feel worse about [real person or org], you should stick to journalistic standards of citing sources and such”
This is a selective demand for rigour, which induces an extremely strong positivity bias when discussing other people. I would not willingly introduce such a strong bias.
I think other norms make sense, and do not lead to entire communities distorting their vision of the social world. Cordiality, politeness, courtesy and the like.
I think it’s very unlikely that having laxer standards for accusing others is a good thing.
I know you think so. And I disagree, especially on “~0% suffer from having too high standards” (my immediate reaction is that you are obviously rejecting the relevant evidence when you say this).
This is why I am thinking of having an article specifically about this, specifically tailored to Lesswrong.
To varying degrees. People are probably less negative on Anthropic than OpenAI. We’re certainly not enthusiastic about OpenAI.. In any case I don’t think it summarizes to “the Lesswrong community has supported” these orgs.
Have you read the most upvoted responses to your link?
The conclusion of the second most voted one, from Ben Pace, is “Overall I don’t feel my opinion is very robust, and could easily change.”, and “And of course I’m very happy indeed about a bunch of the safety work they do and support. The org give lots of support and engineers to people like Paul Christiano, Chris Olah, etc”. For reference, Paul Christiano’s “safety work” included RLHF, which was instrumental to ChatGPT.
From my point of view, you are painfully wrong about this, and indeed, Lesswrong should have had much more enmity toward OpenAI, instead of recommending people work there because of safety.
Have you read the most upvoted responses to your link?
yes. I don’t think any of them suggest that LessWrong is supporting or enthusiastic about OpenAI. (In particular, whether you should work there doesn’t have much relation to whether the company as a whole is a net negative.) I would describe the stance of top 2 comments on that post as mixed[1] and of LW’s stance in general as mixed-to-negative.
Lesswrong should have had much more enmity toward OpenAI,
Fwiw this is not a crux, I might agree that we should be more negative toward OpenAI than we are. I don’t think that’s an argument for laxer standards of critcism. Standards for rigor should lead toward higher quality criticism, not less harsh criticism. If you had attacked Greenpeace twice as much but had substantiated all your claims, I wouldn’t have downvoted the post. I’d guess that the net effectiveness of a community’s criticism of a person or org goes up with stricter norms.
e.g., Ben pace also says, “An obvious reason to think OpenAI’s impact will be net negative is that they seem to be trying to reach AGI as fast as possible, and trying a route different from DeepMind and other competitors, so are in some world shortening the timeline until AI. (I’m aware that there are arguments about why a shorter timeline is better, but I’m not sold on them right now.)”
By the way, tone doesn’t come across well in writing. To be fair, even orally, I am often a bit abrasive.
So just to be clear: I’m thankful that you’re engaging with the conversation. Furthermore, I am assuming that you are doing so genuinely, so thanks for that too.
yes. I don’t think any of them suggest that LessWrong is supporting or enthusiastic about OpenAI
I think you may have misread what I wrote.
My statements were that the LessWrong community has supported DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, and that it had friends in all three companies.
I did not state that it was enthusiastic about it, and much less so that it currently is. When I say “has supported”, I literally mean that it has supported them. Eliezer introducing Demis and Thiel, Paul Christiano doing RLHF at OpenAI and helping with ChatGPT, the whole cluster founding Anthropic, all the people safety-washing the companies, etc. I didn’t make a grand statement about its feelings, just a pragmatic one about some of its actions.
Nevertheless a reaction to my statements, you picked up a thread the top answer recommends people work at OpenAI, and where the second topmost answer expresses happiness at capabilities (Paul’s RLHF) work.
How could he have known that Paul’s work would lead to capabilities 2 years before ChatGPT? By using enmity and keeping in mind that an organisation that races to AGI will leverage all of its internal research (including the one labelled “safety”) for capabilities.
I don’t know how you did footnotes in comments, but...
For instance, the context of Ben Pace’s response was one when many people in the community at the time (plausibly himself too!) recommended people work at OpenAI’s safety teams.
From my point of view, this is pretty damning. You picked one post, and the topmost answers featured two examples of support. The type that you would naturally and should clearly avoid with enemies.
To be clear, the LessWrong community has supported many times DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, and at the same time, felt bad feelings about them too. This is quite a normal awkward situation in the absence of clear enmity.
This is not surprising. Enmity would have helped with clarifying this relationship and not committing this mistake.
Also, remember that I do not view enmity as a single-dimensional axis, and this is a major point of my thesis! My recommendation sums to: be more proactive in deeming others enemies, and at the same time, remain cordial, polite and professional with them.
Having spoken with you in the past, I literally do not know if you are making a joke or not.
--
Assuming you are making a joke...
It is a beautiful one!
It completely encapsulates how many in my target audience truly struggle with the enmity, and would immediately react to “Greenpeace” and “enemy” before reading the essay. “Oh, I could find one argument on Google! Ergo, it is all mistake theory!”
I especially like the “do you guys, like” and the “What would happen? Huh?” parts, that make it feel very Reddit.
--
Assuming you are not… (or for the people who missed the joke)
You have missed the point of the essay. I recommend reading it again. Of course Greenpeace has arguments, and I have read quite a few of them.
Enemy does not mean “evil, stupid, and has no arguments that can be found on Google”.
Quite early in the essay, it is written:
This may come as strong language, but bear with me. When I say “Greenpeace is your enemy”, I do not mean “Greenpeace is evil.”
(I, for one, do not think of myself as the highest paragon of virtue, rationality and justice. Certainly not so high that anyone opposing me is automatically stupid or evil.)
What I mean by enmity is more prosaic.
“We and Greenpeace have lasting contradictory interests. Neither side expects reconciliation or a lasting compromise in the short-term. In the meantime, both sides are players of The Game. Thus, they should predictably work explicitly against each other.”
If you take “an organisation has arguments on Google” as strong evidence that they can’t be your enemy, your model of the world is broken, in a way that hope internalising the essay would mend.
I agree with the point about acknowledging enmity in general; I’m not shy to do so myself. But the post didn’t convince me that Greenpeace in particular is my enemy. For that I’d need more detailed arguments.
This is unreasonably wrong and virulent. It reads as not having read the full article.
Of course I know that Greenpeace has arguments for its stances, and I am familiar with them. I mention a public letter it campaigned for, its budget, and its historical policy positions!
Like, when I was asked by PranavG whether he could link-post, I expected that the LessWrong Community would not like this article. Of course, “how nice nerds often botch enmity” will not fare well in a community that managed to support three companies racing to AGI (DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic) while it was worried about the risks of extinction from it.
But… “I mean, do you guys, like, know why Greenpeace is against some of these market solutions?”, “Maybe in more than five minutes you could find other arguments too.”, and “What would happen? Huh?”
Having read the full article, I had basically the same objection and think your response is more or less nonsense. The point is that choosing enemies without understanding them as actors is bound to fail. A new political movement needs both friends and enemies if it is to succeed. It will need to offer its friends a new perspective in accordance with their values in order to endear itself to them. It will need to offer its enemies a coherent response to their disagreements to avoid being consumed by them. Identifying enemies based on policies and actions but not arguments is the canonical losing move in politics.
More directly: it is useful for political movements to have convenient enemies, but you should always wonder whether you or your enemy is the convenient one. A bunch of wealthy libertarian-leaning Silicon Valley nerds who routinely dismiss the concern that wealthy countries could exploit poor countries, to the point that they’re offended when they’re asked to even address that concern in their manifestos against Greenpeace, are more or less Greenpeace’s ideal enemy. Maybe you aren’t such an enemy! But you sure are doing an excellent job blending in with them.
I think I was pretty clear in saying that this characterization may be invalid, was I not? You read the characterization as an accusation, for which I apologize, but I worry that this might speak to your state of mind in this discussion, which makes me worry that further discussion may be unproductive.
I notice that when you’re concerned about your views being characterized correctly, you address arguments and not just positions. Perhaps when you’re writing about the importance of choosing one’s enemies in politics, in the part where you explicitly choose an enemy and explain how your views differ from theirs, you could do that without needing to be provoked.
To be clear, I suspect we agree about enough issues of policy that in a reasonable political landscape, we should be allies. I’m certainly not a libertarian, I’m not projecting here, I’m trying to explain how I expect your political project to be categorized and defeated if you continue to approach politics the way you do in this essay. I’m frustrated with you because I would like my potential political allies to not make easily-avoidable mistakes and you are making one. Greenpeace is a bloated, inefficient, anti-progress organization, and yet it persists and amasses power because its political situation is convenient. Greenpeace has picked the right enemies, has (often correctly) accused them of acting in myopic and self-serving ways, and so has endured. If you make Greenpeace your enemy, you should try to understand what their favored enemy looks like and try to be visibly something other than that, not just in the abstract across your body of work, but specifically when you talk about Greenpeace. As I said earlier, and as I’m willing to explain if needed, this is the canonical losing move in politics.
As I said earlier, and as I’m willing to explain if needed, this is the canonical losing move in politics.
This seems very fake, idiosyncratic, a much smaller problem (if any) than failing to organise against one’s enemies.
Nevertheless, if you have a write-up about it of −10 pages, I’m interested in checking it out (I often routinely get proven wrong, and I have found it good to extend this amount of interest to ~anyone who engages with me on a topic that I started).
I don’t currently have a write-up of that length or with the right lens, I have a draft that I’ve been working on for a while. Next time I’m working on it, I’ll see if I can consolidate this claim from it and ping you? Incidentally, I appreciate your willingness to engage and retract my previous worries about this conversation being too charged to be productive.
It has in fact been a while since the last time I have had written conversations with strangers, I’m sorry that my tone came up as too abrasive for productive conversation.
> Next time I’m working on it, I’ll see if I can consolidate this claim from it and ping you?
I mean, do you guys, like, know why Greenpeace is against some of these market solutions? I didn’t know either, but in five minutes of googling I was able to find some arguments. Here’s an example argument: in the world there are poor countries and rich countries. Poor countries are not always ruled in their people’s best interest; and rich countries and corporations don’t always act in poor countries’ best interest, either. So, what would happen if a rich country paid a dictator of a poor country a billion dollars to irrevocably mess up the poor country’s environment? What would happen? Huh?
Maybe in more than five minutes you could find other arguments too. Anyway, fast-tracking your readers straight to “Greenpeace is your enemy” doesn’t feel right.
Yea, having similar feelings about this post. The conclusion is probably still correct, but not sufficiently established. And I think there should be, idk, a norm about being more thorough when talking badly about an org, and violating that doesn’t seem worth the point made here.
I am genuinely interested in your point of view.
I see it as causally connected to why the Lesswrong community has supported three orgs racing to AGI.
Out of the following, which of them would count as “talking badly about an org” and would a norm of being more thorough before?
“Greenpeace has tied its identity to anti-nuke, and if you’re pro-nuke you’ll be fighting them for as long as they exist”
“If you are for nuke and market solutions, you’ll find Greenpeace has taken consistently terrible stances”
“If you are for nuke and market solutions, every dollar Greenpeace gets is a loss for you”
“Greenpeace is an enemy, but specifically not stupid or evil”
“Strong supporters of Greenpeace will purposefully slow down nuclear energy, technological solutions and market mechanisms”
If the above passes your threshold for “need to be more thorough before saying it”, then that informs what a potential follow-up to my article geared toward Lesswrong would have to be about.
Specifically, it should be about Lesswrong having a bad culture. One that favours norms that make punishing enemies harder, up to the point of not being able to straightforwardly say “if you are pro-nuke, an org that has been anti-nuke for decades is your enemy”. Let alone dealing with AI corporations racing to AGI that have friends in the community.
If the above doesn’t pass your threshold and you think it’s fine, then I don’t think it makes sense for me to write a follow-up article to Lesswrong. It was basically as far as my article goes IIRC, and so the problem lies deeper.
So I think the norm is something like “if you write something that will predictably make people feel worse about [real person or org], you should stick to journalistic standards of citing sources and such”. That means all your quotes depend on whether you’ve sufficiently established the substance of the quote.
If we take your post as it is now, well you only have one source, which is the group letter to congress. Imo as you used it this actually does not even establish that they’re anti nuclear power because the letter is primarily about fossil fuels, and the quote about nuclear power is in the context of protecting indigenous rights. Also you said it was signed with 600 other companies, so it might have been a compromise (maybe they oppose some parts of the content but thought the entire thing was still worth signing). An endorsement of a compromise/package is just really not a good way to establish their position. It would be much better to just look at the Wikipedia page and see whether that says they’re anti nuclear. Which in fact it does in the introduction. Some would probably quibble with that but for me that would actually be enough. So if you just did that, then I’d excuse all quotes that only reference them being anti-nuclear power (which I guess is just the first in your list).
Saying that they’re my enemy is a little harder because it would require establishing that they’re a negative for climate protection on net. This is not obvious; you could have an org that’s anti nuclear power and still does more good than harm overall. It probably still wouldn’t be that difficult, but your post as is certainly falls short. (And BTW it’s also not obvious that being anti nuclear power now is as bad as having been anti nuclear power historically. It could be the case that having been anti nuclear power historically was a huge mistake and we should have invested in the technology all this time, but that since we didn’t, at this point it actually no longer makes sense and we should only invest in renewables. I don’t think that’s the case, I think we should probably still build nuclear reactors now, but I’m genuinely not sure. This kind of thing very much matters for the ‘net negative impact’ question.)
I think it’s very unlikely that having laxer standards for accusing others is a good thing. Broadly speaking it seems to me that ~100% of groups-that-argue-about-political-or-culture-war-topics suffer from having too low standards for criticizing the outgroup, and ~0% suffer from having too high standards. And I don’t think these standards are even that high, like you could write a post that says Greenpeace is my enemy, you’d just have to put in the effort to source your claims a little. Or, more practically, you could have just written the post about a fictional org, then you can make your point about enemies without having to deal with the practical side of attacking a real org.
Not related but
This was not my impression. My impression was that people associated with the community have founded orgs that then did capability research, but that many, probably most, people on LW think that’s a disaster. To varying degrees. People are probably less negative on Anthropic than OpenAI. We’re certainly not enthusiastic about OpenAI.. In any case I don’t think it summarizes to “the Lesswrong community has supported” these orgs.
This is a selective demand for rigour, which induces an extremely strong positivity bias when discussing other people. I would not willingly introduce such a strong bias.
I think other norms make sense, and do not lead to entire communities distorting their vision of the social world. Cordiality, politeness, courtesy and the like.
I know you think so. And I disagree, especially on “~0% suffer from having too high standards” (my immediate reaction is that you are obviously rejecting the relevant evidence when you say this).
This is why I am thinking of having an article specifically about this, specifically tailored to Lesswrong.
Have you read the most upvoted responses to your link?
Its conclusion is “I think people who take safety seriously should consider working at OpenAI” (with the link to its job page!)
The conclusion of the second most voted one, from Ben Pace, is “Overall I don’t feel my opinion is very robust, and could easily change.”, and “And of course I’m very happy indeed about a bunch of the safety work they do and support. The org give lots of support and engineers to people like Paul Christiano, Chris Olah, etc”. For reference, Paul Christiano’s “safety work” included RLHF, which was instrumental to ChatGPT.
From my point of view, you are painfully wrong about this, and indeed, Lesswrong should have had much more enmity toward OpenAI, instead of recommending people work there because of safety.
yes. I don’t think any of them suggest that LessWrong is supporting or enthusiastic about OpenAI. (In particular, whether you should work there doesn’t have much relation to whether the company as a whole is a net negative.) I would describe the stance of top 2 comments on that post as mixed [1] and of LW’s stance in general as mixed-to-negative.
Fwiw this is not a crux, I might agree that we should be more negative toward OpenAI than we are. I don’t think that’s an argument for laxer standards of critcism. Standards for rigor should lead toward higher quality criticism, not less harsh criticism. If you had attacked Greenpeace twice as much but had substantiated all your claims, I wouldn’t have downvoted the post. I’d guess that the net effectiveness of a community’s criticism of a person or org goes up with stricter norms.
e.g., Ben pace also says, “An obvious reason to think OpenAI’s impact will be net negative is that they seem to be trying to reach AGI as fast as possible, and trying a route different from DeepMind and other competitors, so are in some world shortening the timeline until AI. (I’m aware that there are arguments about why a shorter timeline is better, but I’m not sold on them right now.)”
By the way, tone doesn’t come across well in writing. To be fair, even orally, I am often a bit abrasive.
So just to be clear: I’m thankful that you’re engaging with the conversation. Furthermore, I am assuming that you are doing so genuinely, so thanks for that too.
I think you may have misread what I wrote.
My statements were that the LessWrong community has supported DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, and that it had friends in all three companies.
I did not state that it was enthusiastic about it, and much less so that it currently is. When I say “has supported”, I literally mean that it has supported them. Eliezer introducing Demis and Thiel, Paul Christiano doing RLHF at OpenAI and helping with ChatGPT, the whole cluster founding Anthropic, all the people safety-washing the companies, etc. I didn’t make a grand statement about its feelings, just a pragmatic one about some of its actions.
Nevertheless a reaction to my statements, you picked up a thread the top answer recommends people work at OpenAI, and where the second topmost answer expresses happiness at capabilities (Paul’s RLHF) work.
How could he have known that Paul’s work would lead to capabilities 2 years before ChatGPT? By using enmity and keeping in mind that an organisation that races to AGI will leverage all of its internal research (including the one labelled “safety”) for capabilities.
I don’t know how you did footnotes in comments, but...
For instance, the context of Ben Pace’s response was one when many people in the community at the time (plausibly himself too!) recommended people work at OpenAI’s safety teams.
He mentions in his comment that he is happy that Paul and Chris get more money at OpenAI than they would have had otherwise, the same reasoning would have applied to other researchers working with them.
From my point of view, this is pretty damning. You picked one post, and the topmost answers featured two examples of support. The type that you would naturally and should clearly avoid with enemies.
To be clear, the LessWrong community has supported many times DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, and at the same time, felt bad feelings about them too. This is quite a normal awkward situation in the absence of clear enmity.
This is not surprising. Enmity would have helped with clarifying this relationship and not committing this mistake.
Also, remember that I do not view enmity as a single-dimensional axis, and this is a major point of my thesis! My recommendation sums to: be more proactive in deeming others enemies, and at the same time, remain cordial, polite and professional with them.
Having spoken with you in the past, I literally do not know if you are making a joke or not.
--
Assuming you are making a joke...
It is a beautiful one!
It completely encapsulates how many in my target audience truly struggle with the enmity, and would immediately react to “Greenpeace” and “enemy” before reading the essay. “Oh, I could find one argument on Google! Ergo, it is all mistake theory!”
I especially like the “do you guys, like” and the “What would happen? Huh?” parts, that make it feel very Reddit.
--
Assuming you are not… (or for the people who missed the joke)
You have missed the point of the essay. I recommend reading it again. Of course Greenpeace has arguments, and I have read quite a few of them.
Enemy does not mean “evil, stupid, and has no arguments that can be found on Google”.
Quite early in the essay, it is written:
If you take “an organisation has arguments on Google” as strong evidence that they can’t be your enemy, your model of the world is broken, in a way that hope internalising the essay would mend.
I agree with the point about acknowledging enmity in general; I’m not shy to do so myself. But the post didn’t convince me that Greenpeace in particular is my enemy. For that I’d need more detailed arguments.
This is unreasonably wrong and virulent. It reads as not having read the full article.
Of course I know that Greenpeace has arguments for its stances, and I am familiar with them. I mention a public letter it campaigned for, its budget, and its historical policy positions!
Like, when I was asked by PranavG whether he could link-post, I expected that the LessWrong Community would not like this article. Of course, “how nice nerds often botch enmity” will not fare well in a community that managed to support three companies racing to AGI (DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic) while it was worried about the risks of extinction from it.
But… “I mean, do you guys, like, know why Greenpeace is against some of these market solutions?”, “Maybe in more than five minutes you could find other arguments too.”, and “What would happen? Huh?”
Disappointing.
Having read the full article, I had basically the same objection and think your response is more or less nonsense. The point is that choosing enemies without understanding them as actors is bound to fail. A new political movement needs both friends and enemies if it is to succeed. It will need to offer its friends a new perspective in accordance with their values in order to endear itself to them. It will need to offer its enemies a coherent response to their disagreements to avoid being consumed by them. Identifying enemies based on policies and actions but not arguments is the canonical losing move in politics.
More directly: it is useful for political movements to have convenient enemies, but you should always wonder whether you or your enemy is the convenient one. A bunch of wealthy libertarian-leaning Silicon Valley nerds who routinely dismiss the concern that wealthy countries could exploit poor countries, to the point that they’re offended when they’re asked to even address that concern in their manifestos against Greenpeace, are more or less Greenpeace’s ideal enemy. Maybe you aren’t such an enemy! But you sure are doing an excellent job blending in with them.
You are projecting.
I have written in the past specifically against tech-libertarianism, in the context of wealth concentration leading to abuses of power.
I’m not offended that I’m asked to address a concern. I merely find it irrelevant.
What offends me is the lack of thought behind assuming that I didn’t know that Greenpeace had arguments. I have seen better on Lesswrong.
I think I was pretty clear in saying that this characterization may be invalid, was I not? You read the characterization as an accusation, for which I apologize, but I worry that this might speak to your state of mind in this discussion, which makes me worry that further discussion may be unproductive.
I notice that when you’re concerned about your views being characterized correctly, you address arguments and not just positions. Perhaps when you’re writing about the importance of choosing one’s enemies in politics, in the part where you explicitly choose an enemy and explain how your views differ from theirs, you could do that without needing to be provoked.
To be clear, I suspect we agree about enough issues of policy that in a reasonable political landscape, we should be allies. I’m certainly not a libertarian, I’m not projecting here, I’m trying to explain how I expect your political project to be categorized and defeated if you continue to approach politics the way you do in this essay. I’m frustrated with you because I would like my potential political allies to not make easily-avoidable mistakes and you are making one. Greenpeace is a bloated, inefficient, anti-progress organization, and yet it persists and amasses power because its political situation is convenient. Greenpeace has picked the right enemies, has (often correctly) accused them of acting in myopic and self-serving ways, and so has endured. If you make Greenpeace your enemy, you should try to understand what their favored enemy looks like and try to be visibly something other than that, not just in the abstract across your body of work, but specifically when you talk about Greenpeace. As I said earlier, and as I’m willing to explain if needed, this is the canonical losing move in politics.
This seems very fake, idiosyncratic, a much smaller problem (if any) than failing to organise against one’s enemies.
Nevertheless, if you have a write-up about it of −10 pages, I’m interested in checking it out (I often routinely get proven wrong, and I have found it good to extend this amount of interest to ~anyone who engages with me on a topic that I started).
I don’t currently have a write-up of that length or with the right lens, I have a draft that I’ve been working on for a while. Next time I’m working on it, I’ll see if I can consolidate this claim from it and ping you? Incidentally, I appreciate your willingness to engage and retract my previous worries about this conversation being too charged to be productive.
It has in fact been a while since the last time I have had written conversations with strangers, I’m sorry that my tone came up as too abrasive for productive conversation.
> Next time I’m working on it, I’ll see if I can consolidate this claim from it and ping you?
I have shared my email in DM.