“Here are 5 bad interactions with this person” can be interpreted as “we don’t get along well”. “Here are 5 different people who had bad interactions with this person” is “that person doesn’t get along well with others”. This post is showing that certain people have patterns of harming others, as opposed to just having harmed the author.
mruwnik
Karma: 730
where almost everyone seemed like a sexual abuser
There is something to the whole “my boyfriend will punch you in the face if you try anything funny” threat. I’m glad I don’t have to worry about violence nowadays, but it’s much harder to introduce credible deterrence mechanisms which aren’t backed by imminent physical pain.
I would like the world to be saved and think being good and not being evil
There’s also the whole thing about having something worthwhile saving. Winning all battles but losing the war is a very sad way to end.
Which is simply not true, according to my experience. You can. And even do it immediately
This is quite dependent on the person. I know people who can do so easily, and I know people who can’t at all. It might be something you can learn with practice, but until you can do it, you can’t.
Beware the typical mind fallacy.
I guess it’s mainly too long, and therefore unclear? There are at least 4 main points that you are addressing in one large comment, along with a bunch of smaller issues. Splitting it into multiple, targeted ones would make it easier to react to them—it would also make it easier for you to work out what people don’t like about it.
I think you’re making a good point, but it could be boiled down to 2-3 sentences
I’m not sure that modeling people as rational agents in this kind of situation is correct. I’d assume that for every 5 people who know, there are 5 who are certain they know but are incorrect, 5 who have no idea but sound authoritative and another 20 who heard something from someone and are pretty sure it was over there, maybe? It should sort itself out after a while, but depending on the circumstances the sooner you have accurate information, the better.
The ideal approach, of course, is to just ask Claude to come up with some example situations and then research where to go (with backups) - spend 10min on it once every now and then, to make sure you’re up to date, and just have the places marked somewhere.
I notice I’m confused now. Manifest Destiny makes sense in the context of this post—there’s something of value to be achieved, and there will be costs. I’m not sure if I agree with this, but it’s coherent. What I don’t understand is how egregores using people via their personal incentives (for lack of a better description) fits in? It would seem that people just being people and things happening is sort of the opposite (or at least orthogonal) to actively trying to make things better? Do you mean something about shaping incentives being the method of conquest? This seems obviously true (capitalism vs communism being an good example), but if so, then using colonialism as an example might be a bad choice, or at least would need more inference steps explained.
This seems unfair or at least simplified? The Mongols didn’t come close to clearing three continents, but that was a skill issue. In absolute numbers or geographical extent you can make the argument that Europe was very successful at expansion, but this isn’t a specifically European hobby—this is what humanity has been doing as far back as can be seen. Europe was very good at it because they had a decisive edge (guns and disease, mainly). Previous attempts stopped earlier for technological reasons (hard to hold an empire if it takes months to communicate with the provinces). Most of history is different cultures trying to do the same thing, with varying levels of success and brutality. The Yamnaya expansion had similar results, but without the smallpox, which suggests that if anything it was worse, because intentional.
To be clear, I’m not saying that colonialism was good. More something like “European colonialism was the largest in absolute numbers instance of a recurring human pattern” or something? That most high culture is based on enormous suffering and exploitation? British colonialism at least pretended at trying to help the natives. They also stopped the slave trade at large cost—this doesn’t absolve them of anything, of course, but I can’t imagine e.g. the Aztecs of even dreaming of such absurdities.
Worst recent, maybe. You can make a more generic statement about “wars of conquest and empire building” being the worst atrocity in human history, which would sort of include colonialism, but e.g. I’m pretty sure the Assyrians were a lot more atrocious than the United States. Or the Mongols for a more recent such group.
That being said, “nobody should defend it” is very harsh. Why shouldn’t they? You can show that colonialism was (is) bad, but not let people try to vouch for it seems unfair? I’m pretty sure you have views which many people think noone should defend (pretty much everyone does, somewhere) - does that mean you should abandon them?
Seems bad to focus on optics rather than truth
Not really. You have to also take into account the goodness being fought for. Evolution doesn’t care either way. Might makes right and all that. From what I understand the OP is pointing more in the direction of an argument from consequences, where the outcome was good, and so the price was worth paying (not that the cost was good! That’s a different matter!). The colonizers had a vision (this part seems very shaky, as the “vision” was very different at different point in time), that vision was good, they fought to achieve it, the price was very high, but the results justify the cost.
It’s possible that the future AI that takes over will result in a better state than the current one (the whole glorious trans-humanist future and everything). In which case I can totally understand someone wanting to fight for that to occur. I can also totally understand the natives fighting to keep their current way of life, which while not perfect is not bad. I’d even go so far as to say that the OP might even support this. They’d be fighting for their vision of goodness.
Either way, the point is to work out what “goodness” is and fight for it, knowing full well that there will be bad/ugly/maybe evil things happening along the way. The ends do not justify the means. Allies should be held accountable. There will be bad apples. This doesn’t mean you stop fighting. You try to limit the damage. But there will be damages.
Light from your windows depends on time of day/year etc. It also assumes you’ll be looking at/for things in places where that light reaches. I doubt this would be likely, and if so you’d have bigger problems, but I’m guessing a cloud of volcanic ash would massively limit the available light?
A little headband type light can last for weeks if you’re careful. A phone will probably die after a day or two. Probably fine, but it limits your options. I don’t really use my phone for anything, so I’m biased.
Growing up we used to often get power cuts (e.g. the neighbors would steal the power lines for copper...). So we’d always have candles and matches in an easily accessible place. In summer this was mainly used for going to the toilet (often can have small or no windows) or into cellars/pantries. In winter this meant that you could still do things after 3pm.
A portable light is very useful if you have to fix things (like sinks, cupboards etc.), as those places tend to not have good lighting.
A knife can be used to cut things, which is the obvious usage, but also can be used as a screwdriver, a level, to open cans, open bottles, pry things out, etc. If I had to choose one thing to have with me in an unspecified emergency, I’d want a sharp knife, as you can use it to bootstrap basic versions of most of the other tools
A local map is even more useful then, as it opens up paths that aren’t available to people with cars. Though mainly you’d want to use it to get away from your current place to one that is safer. That usually is higher ground, though in the case of earthquakes maybe it’s open spaces? Earthquakes aren’t really a thing here, so I haven’t checked them
Following the roads and winging it is probably what most people would do. If you have a map, you can take non intuitive paths which lead to better places. I’m guessing if you’re trying to escape, you care more about “a safe place”, “a place with water/food”, “a friendly place” as opposed to a specific address. A map lets you locate multiple such locations, which otherwise you would have no idea exist.
That assumes they know where to go. I’d expect most people to be in the same boat
Earthquakes could disrupt water pipes, but at that point you’d probably have bigger problems… Those filters in theory should protect you from a biological attack, but not necessarily chemical/nuclear. They’re designed so you can drink from puddles without getting infected with who knows what.
I just got a filter that people who go hiking for days use. That should handle most cases where you don’t have access to trusted clean water
seems handy
these are really handy. A knife is one of the most versatile tools there are, and light sources are indispensable when there’s no power. A headlamp is maybe the way to go, as it frees up your hands
natural disasters that make it hard to access water
it sounds funny, but floods often cause this. You have access to water, but it’s contaminated. A water filter is nice to have for these situations, and also useful in general—I don’t bother taking a bottle of water with me when going on hikes, as a mini sawyer + bag hardly weighs anything
it’s hard to really paint a picture where these maps would be useful
Do you have a GPS device? Or offline downloaded maps? If not, then any situation where there’s a lack of network/internet and you want to get away. If the situation is so bad that there’s no communication, then I’d assume that most people will want to escape, which means massive traffic jams. In the case of a kinetic attack, bridges are very nice targets, so you’d want to be able to find alternative routes. Ditto for bad floods—it’s good to see where higher ground is. I appreciate that in low lying areas of Tokyo, there are signs telling you how high above sea level a given place is
Biological attack? Volcano?
Fire, strictly speaking smoke, is a lot more likely. Depends where you live etc.
Stavros wrote up a good version of this a couple of years ago. I made 2 versions of this back then (one for each person), with one in the apartment, the other in the car. The car one turns out to be in general useful. The only bit I haven’t used over that time period are the spare clothes.
The most useful thing are first aid kits. It’s worth having a little one with you wherever you go. I ordered like 10-15 of these bags (I searched “mini portable first aid kit” on aliexpress), got some basic first aid stuff (bandages, plasters, painkillers) and gave them out to family and friends. Most people assume they won’t need anything like that, so it often comes in handy to help others.
You might need to add sources for this. I roll to disbelieve, and Claude seems to also think that while you can construct a narrative that might be technically true, it would be at best misleading.