A lot of things on the list of risks are “Things I’ve read about in science fiction.” That’s no reason to dismiss them, of course, but it does make it easy to put them in the same mental category as other events in science fiction—“interesting but fanciful.”
Also beware that reversed stupidity is not intelligence. The existence of the Flynn effect does not imply that “dysgenic” or “eugenic” (scare quotes because there’s no value-neutral way to say what counts as an improvement) trends aren’t worth thinking about. Suppose hypothetically that genetic trends were leading to lowered average potential intelligence, but that this effect was exactly cancelled by an environmental Flynn effect. This is only a win if you think the status quo is optimal; if you think that more intelligence is better within the range we can apprehend, then IQ not rising fast enough is sad for the same reason that falling IQ would be sad. Cf. the reversal test.
I actually find the inclusion of this as a “most likely” scenario mildly offensive, since Bostrom explicitly says he finds it seriously improbable:
“In any case, the time-scale for human natural genetic evolution seems much too grand for such developments to have any significant effect before other developments will have made the issue moot.”
There’s something… unpalatable about intellectuals bemoaning the “lesser folk” from breeding the species into oblivion, particularly when it seems to contradict both evidence and theory.
The fact that reproducation in our society is now only caused by wanting to reproduce is disturbing and is derivable without ever looking in a sci-fi book
The fact that reproducation in our society is now only caused by wanting to reproduce is disturbing
It’s disturbing that people have more control over their lives? Why? Because it will result in slightly lower average IQ in the medium term? Because it means our descendants will be monomaniacal fitness-maximizers rather than eudamonic agents in the long-long term?
There are many reasons. For starters, it is going to cause religions such as Roman Catholicism to take over because they have lots of kiddies, which is a meme/gene combo.
Essentially, giving people “freedom” without oversight creates a fertile environment for aggressive gene/meme combinations to take over.
With better oversight, each individual could probably have almost the same average amount of freedom but society avoids the long-term pitfalls.
This thread is making me want to have 10 rational children just to counteract the effect…
This fact you speak of is false, unless by “wanting to reproduce” you actually mean “sexually active, either voluntarily or not, and either inclined to reproduce or poorly informed about or unable to access birth control or unlucky and not so unwilling to reproduce that one will get around any and every obstacle to abortion including psychological attacks, physical prevention, massive social stigma, expense, and physical and emotional pain”. Or for the male version, “careless” would do.
...I’m saying that people can and do reproduce without wanting to, even in our society. It is simply not the case that reproduction is caused only by wanting to reproduce.
It seems to me that not wanting to get an abortion is covered under “wanting to reproduce”, at least for the evolutionary considerations I am interested in. From an individual rights perspective, I would retract my statement, but in the context of worrying about dysgenic selection pressures, I think my statement stands.
I think that’s a completely inappropriate classification of the catchall “not wanting to get an abortion”. It’s rarely medically necessary, and it’s painful and expensive, even pro-choicers have qualms about it sometimes, it carries enough of a stigma that it can be dangerous for reasons beyond medical complication—there are so many reasons not to have an abortion that it’s not at all difficult to imagine a woman whose desire not to reproduce is thereby outweighed, even if you’re dismissing as stupid all of the possible religious objections.
Well for the argument I am making this isn’t relevant. I can see that sometimes the problems and difficulties of some groups—e.g. women seeking abortions or couples unable to conceive are neglected or trivialized, and I am not trying to do that, so I could replace “wanting to reproduce” with “being able to either reproduce or not, and deciding to reproduce”. The argument I am making is about the evolutionary forces shaping society on average, for example by Catholics having more children and a gene for religious belief therefore taking over. I am not trying to argue that every single woman who has a child does so wholeheartedly.
Note that optional reproduction doesn’t have to be 100% true for Roko’s premise to hold. Even if 75% of children are ‘oops babies’ that other 25% will have significant effects on the gene distribution (or rather, the vast multitude that weren’t born because of people exercising choice will have an effect)
To whoever voted this comment down: did your brain provide a particular reason that it was unnecessary to worry about catholics taking over the world by having babies, or did it just output a feeling that it was somehow wrong—maybe even racist—to worry about such things?
Some minds tend to jump to the “Racist!” accusation every time they hear a disparaging comment about a group of people, regardless of what those people have in common.
I wasn’t implying that it was a sensible feeling—I was just describing a sort of internal flinch.
ETA: Here in California, it is to some extent a race issue. We have a large and growing Hispanic population, who are very strongly catholic. If that population continues to grow, without moderation of their religious leanings, it could significantly impact the politics of the state.
Catholics have a religion that help them reproduce in the modern world. They may well be more valuable in nature’s eyes than the screw-ups who allow their reproductive potential to be sabotaged by their unfamiliar environment. However, Catholicism is not the only system of thought that promotes family values in modern times. See the Amish.
Well, they support the pope, who causes millions of deaths in Africa by promoting the irrational belief that you shouldn’t use condoms, for example, which is caused by the same thing that causes Catholics to have lots of kids.
According to this Wikipedia page, there were maybe 2.4 million deaths due to AIDS in the whole world in 2007. I doubt the Pope was responsible for most of them.
How many deaths, directly or indirectly derived from the pope’s prohibition, would be enough for his influence to be considered negative in this case ?
That’s more than balanced by extra births—if the example of Catholics taking over the world by having more children on average has anything to it. The Pope’s strategey encourages risk—but the overall effect is positive in terms of helping Catholocism spread. With 1 billion members it must be doing something right.
It hardly seems like the Pope can be blamed for AIDS-related deaths based on people not using condoms. Given that he advocates “Use abstinence and don’t use condoms”, and the effectiveness of abstinence is not increased by using condoms, following his advice will not lead to more AIDS. If people follow the advice “Don’t use abstinence and don’t use condoms” then they’re not following his advice and I don’t see why he should be blamed for it.
If not being abstinent was a live option for Catholics, then I’m sure condoms would be reconsidered. However, if people are already going to disregard his advice regarding abstinence, I don’t see why he should have to give them more advice about what to do in that case.
Indeed I would. I would in that case make fun of Catholics for following such a silly religion, and happily tell people who didn’t follow one or both of those that they’re being bad Catholics. But for anyone who follows the walk-on-your-hands-all-the-time religion, it’s certainly their own fault if they’re not up to the task.
People who follow, or try to follow, the whole of the Pope’s advice can work to reduce the availability and social acceptability of condoms, which will reduce condom use among people who may or may not care what the Pope has to say. Additionally, since abstinence is apparently very difficult for a lot of people, trying to be abstinent will not reliably result in abstinence; I suspect the number of people who go “well, I can’t seem to manage abstinence, but at least I’m not using condoms! That part’s easy!” is depressingly high.
“well, I can’t seem to manage abstinence, but at least I’m not using condoms! That part’s easy!”
I don’t see why any such person would continue calling himself a Catholic in that situation. Clearly the options there are ‘not a Catholic’ or ‘Catholic who believes he’s going to Hell’. And non-Catholics shouldn’t listen to the Pope at all.
It might be worth saying that Catholicism is somehow harmful to society, but it’s hardly a fault of the Pope that he informs people about Catholic doctrine.
I don’t see why any such person wold continue calling himself a Catholic in that situation.
This… is religion we are talking about.
I am pretty sure that you can confess to a priest that you have been un-abstinent and be forgiven for it and not be destined for hell, although I am not an expert on Catholic doctrine. Adding condom use on top of lack of abstinence would have the consequence of having to do more penance, most likely.
I don’t expect the Pope to do anything other than advise people according to Catholic doctrine. That’s the job description. That doesn’t make it a harmless activity. I wouldn’t expect someone whose job title was “assassin” to not kill public figures for money, because that is the task of assassins. That doesn’t make it a harmless activity.
I wouldn’t expect someone whose job title was “assassin” to not kill public figures for money, because that is the task of assassins. That doesn’t make it a harmless activity.
Of course, if assassins were a socially acceptable profession and a high-profile assassin killed someone, it would not be appropriate to call the assassin out for doing his job; rather, one should question the wisdom of allowing assassins in the first place. If you’ve got a problem with the Church, then “The Pope should not have done his job” is an inappropriate way to make that complaint.
It wouldn’t be beyond the scope of the job of the Pope to choose less harmful doctrines to concentrate on. For instance, instead of concentrating on the evils of condom use, he could encourage charitable giving, which (while less uniquely Catholic) is something that the church approves of.
It wouldn’t be beyond the scope of the job of the Pope to choose less harmful doctrines to concentrate on.
It really isn’t something that he’s concentrated on, just something the press went on about a lot. On the Africa trip, he was answering written questions from reporters, so it’s not like he brought it up out of nowhere. Also, it’s something the Church gets criticized for, so it was appropriate for the Church to recently re-evaluate their position on it.
The Pope has certainly come out and encouraged charitable giving, without any reporters pestering him about it.
I am pretty sure that you can confess to a priest that you have been un-abstinent and be forgiven for it and not be destined for hell… Adding condom use on top of lack of abstinence would have the consequence of having to do more penance, most likely.
You do have to be repentant, which kindof implies that you’ve changed your ways and are not going to do that sort of thing again. The ways of penance are a bit mysterious, but it couldn’t possibly be a concern since it would probably involve 5 prayers instead of 4 or something like that.
A better response though, is that the person who has condoms and then is unexpectedly not abstinent will likely use them, and someone who is against condom use will probably not find himself in that position, which seems to be harmful. But I still don’t think it’s the Pope’s problem to be giving advice to people for what to do if they’re going to go around breaking the rules; why then follow his advice at all?
It’s hardly without precedent to give people backup plans for what to do if they break rules:
“Don’t you dare go to a party where there is any alcohol, young lady! But if you do, and you get drunk, for the love of God call me and I’ll pick you up, don’t drive!”
“Do not do anything that would cause you to get set on fire. If you do, stop, drop, and roll.”
“Don’t wear socks with sandals. But if you must, at least have them be short socks, not knee-length jobs in a heavy fabric.”
“Don’t drink the water there—if you do, boil it first.”
But the Church expects people to be perfect, and isn’t particularly concerned about minimizing harm in the case that you break the rules. Picture this conversation:
“Don’t have sex before marriage, and don’t use condoms”
“Okay, no sex before marriage. But what if I do, then should I use a condom?”
“What do you mean, what if I do? Don’t do it at all. Have zero sex before marriage. Also, don’t use condoms. It’s simple.”
“Oh, okay. So avoid having sex before marriage, and if I do have sex before marriage, then I shouldn’t use a condom.”
...
The sorts of rules you cite make sense when you’re trying to minimize physical harms. When your job is protecting the immortal souls of people, that’s a secondary concern at best.
“Don’t do something that damns your immortal soul to an eternity of torment. But if you do, make sure you wear a sweater” makes about as much sense in this context.
Though that doesn’t immediately make it non fictional evidence, dysgenic pressure (as well as the flynn effect and the possibility of genetic engineering as possible counters) is also being briefly mentioned in Nick Bostrom’s fundamental paper Existential Risks − 5.3.
A lot of things on the list of risks are “Things I’ve read about in science fiction.” That’s no reason to dismiss them, of course, but it does make it easy to put them in the same mental category as other events in science fiction—“interesting but fanciful.”
Beware generalizing from fictional evidence. “Dysgenic pressures” in particular don’t seem like they’re actually worth fearing in reality, given the Flynn effect, no matter how many times you’ve seen Idiocracy.
Also beware that reversed stupidity is not intelligence. The existence of the Flynn effect does not imply that “dysgenic” or “eugenic” (scare quotes because there’s no value-neutral way to say what counts as an improvement) trends aren’t worth thinking about. Suppose hypothetically that genetic trends were leading to lowered average potential intelligence, but that this effect was exactly cancelled by an environmental Flynn effect. This is only a win if you think the status quo is optimal; if you think that more intelligence is better within the range we can apprehend, then IQ not rising fast enough is sad for the same reason that falling IQ would be sad. Cf. the reversal test.
I actually find the inclusion of this as a “most likely” scenario mildly offensive, since Bostrom explicitly says he finds it seriously improbable:
“In any case, the time-scale for human natural genetic evolution seems much too grand for such developments to have any significant effect before other developments will have made the issue moot.”
There’s something… unpalatable about intellectuals bemoaning the “lesser folk” from breeding the species into oblivion, particularly when it seems to contradict both evidence and theory.
The fact that reproducation in our society is now only caused by wanting to reproduce is disturbing and is derivable without ever looking in a sci-fi book
It’s disturbing that people have more control over their lives? Why? Because it will result in slightly lower average IQ in the medium term? Because it means our descendants will be monomaniacal fitness-maximizers rather than eudamonic agents in the long-long term?
Parents don’t just pass their genes on to their children, they pass on some of their ideas. “Dysmemics” seems a bigger problem than “dysgenics”.
There are many reasons. For starters, it is going to cause religions such as Roman Catholicism to take over because they have lots of kiddies, which is a meme/gene combo.
Essentially, giving people “freedom” without oversight creates a fertile environment for aggressive gene/meme combinations to take over.
With better oversight, each individual could probably have almost the same average amount of freedom but society avoids the long-term pitfalls.
This thread is making me want to have 10 rational children just to counteract the effect…
This fact you speak of is false, unless by “wanting to reproduce” you actually mean “sexually active, either voluntarily or not, and either inclined to reproduce or poorly informed about or unable to access birth control or unlucky and not so unwilling to reproduce that one will get around any and every obstacle to abortion including psychological attacks, physical prevention, massive social stigma, expense, and physical and emotional pain”. Or for the male version, “careless” would do.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to make the point that women post menopause may want to reproduce but not be able to?
...I’m saying that people can and do reproduce without wanting to, even in our society. It is simply not the case that reproduction is caused only by wanting to reproduce.
It seems to me that not wanting to get an abortion is covered under “wanting to reproduce”, at least for the evolutionary considerations I am interested in. From an individual rights perspective, I would retract my statement, but in the context of worrying about dysgenic selection pressures, I think my statement stands.
I think that’s a completely inappropriate classification of the catchall “not wanting to get an abortion”. It’s rarely medically necessary, and it’s painful and expensive, even pro-choicers have qualms about it sometimes, it carries enough of a stigma that it can be dangerous for reasons beyond medical complication—there are so many reasons not to have an abortion that it’s not at all difficult to imagine a woman whose desire not to reproduce is thereby outweighed, even if you’re dismissing as stupid all of the possible religious objections.
Well for the argument I am making this isn’t relevant. I can see that sometimes the problems and difficulties of some groups—e.g. women seeking abortions or couples unable to conceive are neglected or trivialized, and I am not trying to do that, so I could replace “wanting to reproduce” with “being able to either reproduce or not, and deciding to reproduce”. The argument I am making is about the evolutionary forces shaping society on average, for example by Catholics having more children and a gene for religious belief therefore taking over. I am not trying to argue that every single woman who has a child does so wholeheartedly.
Note that optional reproduction doesn’t have to be 100% true for Roko’s premise to hold. Even if 75% of children are ‘oops babies’ that other 25% will have significant effects on the gene distribution (or rather, the vast multitude that weren’t born because of people exercising choice will have an effect)
I’m not sure what you mean here. How is it different now from any other period in history, and what effect do you think that’ll have?
It is different from what happened in our EEA, for starters.
The canonical example of dysgenics is Catholics taking over the world by having more children on average.
To whoever voted this comment down: did your brain provide a particular reason that it was unnecessary to worry about catholics taking over the world by having babies, or did it just output a feeling that it was somehow wrong—maybe even racist—to worry about such things?
(Not the downvoter.) Racist? Catholics are not a race.
Some minds tend to jump to the “Racist!” accusation every time they hear a disparaging comment about a group of people, regardless of what those people have in common.
I wasn’t implying that it was a sensible feeling—I was just describing a sort of internal flinch.
ETA: Here in California, it is to some extent a race issue. We have a large and growing Hispanic population, who are very strongly catholic. If that population continues to grow, without moderation of their religious leanings, it could significantly impact the politics of the state.
The very fact that you’re denying that it’s racist is EVEN MORE RACIST!
P.S. I make no apologies for my recent trend in comment quality...
Catholics have a religion that help them reproduce in the modern world. They may well be more valuable in nature’s eyes than the screw-ups who allow their reproductive potential to be sabotaged by their unfamiliar environment. However, Catholicism is not the only system of thought that promotes family values in modern times. See the Amish.
Catholics really aren’t that bad.
Well, they support the pope, who causes millions of deaths in Africa by promoting the irrational belief that you shouldn’t use condoms, for example, which is caused by the same thing that causes Catholics to have lots of kids.
According to this Wikipedia page, there were maybe 2.4 million deaths due to AIDS in the whole world in 2007. I doubt the Pope was responsible for most of them.
How many deaths, directly or indirectly derived from the pope’s prohibition, would be enough for his influence to be considered negative in this case ?
That’s more than balanced by extra births—if the example of Catholics taking over the world by having more children on average has anything to it. The Pope’s strategey encourages risk—but the overall effect is positive in terms of helping Catholocism spread. With 1 billion members it must be doing something right.
This is an interesting and thought provoking claim in terms of winning. Perhaps singularitarians should start a religion.
Well, there’s the cryonics death cult. Those guys think that, if you perform expensive rituals over your dead body, it might live forever in paradise.
It’s like the Egyptian pharoes have been reincarnated ;-)
Cryonics is cheap, not expensive. We are those guys think that, if you perform cheap rituals over your dead body, you might live forever in paradise.
It hardly seems like the Pope can be blamed for AIDS-related deaths based on people not using condoms. Given that he advocates “Use abstinence and don’t use condoms”, and the effectiveness of abstinence is not increased by using condoms, following his advice will not lead to more AIDS. If people follow the advice “Don’t use abstinence and don’t use condoms” then they’re not following his advice and I don’t see why he should be blamed for it.
If not being abstinent was a live option for Catholics, then I’m sure condoms would be reconsidered. However, if people are already going to disregard his advice regarding abstinence, I don’t see why he should have to give them more advice about what to do in that case.
Imagine that the Pope claims that God has issued two new commandments:
Walk on your hands at all times.
Never wear shoes.
Would you then argue that it’s not his fault that most Catholics have dirty feet?
Indeed I would. I would in that case make fun of Catholics for following such a silly religion, and happily tell people who didn’t follow one or both of those that they’re being bad Catholics. But for anyone who follows the walk-on-your-hands-all-the-time religion, it’s certainly their own fault if they’re not up to the task.
People who follow, or try to follow, the whole of the Pope’s advice can work to reduce the availability and social acceptability of condoms, which will reduce condom use among people who may or may not care what the Pope has to say. Additionally, since abstinence is apparently very difficult for a lot of people, trying to be abstinent will not reliably result in abstinence; I suspect the number of people who go “well, I can’t seem to manage abstinence, but at least I’m not using condoms! That part’s easy!” is depressingly high.
I don’t see why any such person would continue calling himself a Catholic in that situation. Clearly the options there are ‘not a Catholic’ or ‘Catholic who believes he’s going to Hell’. And non-Catholics shouldn’t listen to the Pope at all.
It might be worth saying that Catholicism is somehow harmful to society, but it’s hardly a fault of the Pope that he informs people about Catholic doctrine.
This… is religion we are talking about.
I am pretty sure that you can confess to a priest that you have been un-abstinent and be forgiven for it and not be destined for hell, although I am not an expert on Catholic doctrine. Adding condom use on top of lack of abstinence would have the consequence of having to do more penance, most likely.
I don’t expect the Pope to do anything other than advise people according to Catholic doctrine. That’s the job description. That doesn’t make it a harmless activity. I wouldn’t expect someone whose job title was “assassin” to not kill public figures for money, because that is the task of assassins. That doesn’t make it a harmless activity.
Of course, if assassins were a socially acceptable profession and a high-profile assassin killed someone, it would not be appropriate to call the assassin out for doing his job; rather, one should question the wisdom of allowing assassins in the first place. If you’ve got a problem with the Church, then “The Pope should not have done his job” is an inappropriate way to make that complaint.
It wouldn’t be beyond the scope of the job of the Pope to choose less harmful doctrines to concentrate on. For instance, instead of concentrating on the evils of condom use, he could encourage charitable giving, which (while less uniquely Catholic) is something that the church approves of.
It really isn’t something that he’s concentrated on, just something the press went on about a lot. On the Africa trip, he was answering written questions from reporters, so it’s not like he brought it up out of nowhere. Also, it’s something the Church gets criticized for, so it was appropriate for the Church to recently re-evaluate their position on it.
The Pope has certainly come out and encouraged charitable giving, without any reporters pestering him about it.
You do have to be repentant, which kindof implies that you’ve changed your ways and are not going to do that sort of thing again. The ways of penance are a bit mysterious, but it couldn’t possibly be a concern since it would probably involve 5 prayers instead of 4 or something like that.
A better response though, is that the person who has condoms and then is unexpectedly not abstinent will likely use them, and someone who is against condom use will probably not find himself in that position, which seems to be harmful. But I still don’t think it’s the Pope’s problem to be giving advice to people for what to do if they’re going to go around breaking the rules; why then follow his advice at all?
It’s hardly without precedent to give people backup plans for what to do if they break rules:
“Don’t you dare go to a party where there is any alcohol, young lady! But if you do, and you get drunk, for the love of God call me and I’ll pick you up, don’t drive!”
“Do not do anything that would cause you to get set on fire. If you do, stop, drop, and roll.”
“Don’t wear socks with sandals. But if you must, at least have them be short socks, not knee-length jobs in a heavy fabric.”
“Don’t drink the water there—if you do, boil it first.”
But the Church expects people to be perfect, and isn’t particularly concerned about minimizing harm in the case that you break the rules. Picture this conversation:
“Don’t have sex before marriage, and don’t use condoms”
“Okay, no sex before marriage. But what if I do, then should I use a condom?”
“What do you mean, what if I do? Don’t do it at all. Have zero sex before marriage. Also, don’t use condoms. It’s simple.”
“Oh, okay. So avoid having sex before marriage, and if I do have sex before marriage, then I shouldn’t use a condom.”
...
The sorts of rules you cite make sense when you’re trying to minimize physical harms. When your job is protecting the immortal souls of people, that’s a secondary concern at best.
“Don’t do something that damns your immortal soul to an eternity of torment. But if you do, make sure you wear a sweater” makes about as much sense in this context.
Though that doesn’t immediately make it non fictional evidence, dysgenic pressure (as well as the flynn effect and the possibility of genetic engineering as possible counters) is also being briefly mentioned in Nick Bostrom’s fundamental paper Existential Risks − 5.3.