I think ciphergoth is right in that argument-by-reference-class should be avoided if possible.
I think that timtyler is onto something with the superstimulus thing—there are mundane, reductionist reasons why I might have ended up with the motivations that I do. I had pictured it more as “the result of a peculiar mix of social conditioning and rationalist memes”. In evolutionary terms it definitely feels like a “mistake”, which is why I wouldn’t expect all that many people to be motivated the same way I am (maybe 0.1% of people, and I’m not even sure what to do with those people if they’re hostile to rationalist ideas).
But even if I knew the exact cause of my motivations, I wouldn’t want to change them.
In evolutionary terms it definitely feels like a “mistake”, which is why I wouldn’t expect all that many people to be motivated the same way I am
In terms of DNA-genes, yes. However, the SAVE THE WORLDmeme gets quite a good deal out of it. Budding world-savers often prosletyse—resulting in more brains hijacked by the meme. It seems to be a case of meme-evoution outstripping the defenses of the natural memetic immune system.
I think religions have by far the most extensive set of prior claims relating to trying to save large numbers of people—or the world. Comparisons seem inevitable.
In the past, most with such beliefs have been delusional—suffering from hubris—and have subsequently been proclaimed false messiahs. This raises the issue of how best to avoid that fate.
Comparing a disliked belief to a religious one has all the universal applicability of repeating what they say in a high—pitched tone of voice.
I think ciphergoth is right in that argument-by-reference-class should be avoided if possible.
I think that timtyler is onto something with the superstimulus thing—there are mundane, reductionist reasons why I might have ended up with the motivations that I do. I had pictured it more as “the result of a peculiar mix of social conditioning and rationalist memes”. In evolutionary terms it definitely feels like a “mistake”, which is why I wouldn’t expect all that many people to be motivated the same way I am (maybe 0.1% of people, and I’m not even sure what to do with those people if they’re hostile to rationalist ideas).
But even if I knew the exact cause of my motivations, I wouldn’t want to change them.
In terms of DNA-genes, yes. However, the SAVE THE WORLD meme gets quite a good deal out of it. Budding world-savers often prosletyse—resulting in more brains hijacked by the meme. It seems to be a case of meme-evoution outstripping the defenses of the natural memetic immune system.
I think religions have by far the most extensive set of prior claims relating to trying to save large numbers of people—or the world. Comparisons seem inevitable.
In the past, most with such beliefs have been delusional—suffering from hubris—and have subsequently been proclaimed false messiahs. This raises the issue of how best to avoid that fate.