See Episode 5.
Me too! I never read anything specifically about “eating dirt”, and when I started reading this post I assumed it meant “playing in the dirt”. Now I’m confused. Is it really that common to hear someone recomending kids actually should eat dirt?
Edit: Nevermind, OP clarified in a comment.
I didn’t first, but then I just found the cause of the problem. Silly me. The window was zoomed in too much.
I’m trying to get a post reviewed for feedback, however the feature does not seem to be working on my Firefox. When I click the “Get feedback” button, it acts as if I had clicked the “Save as draft” button.
I agree with Taran’s comment as well. I possibly underestimated how likely to fail an attempt at replacing the current system is. I just think the danger of letting the situation rot is underestimated too. The world is moving on, fast. To keep the software analogy, we’re keeping the same legacy software, but demanding it be used on new use cases every year. That’s not sustainable. I’m open to third options.
It seems like you’re explaining the actions of kings with the preferences of peasants (and I am very unconvinced that a victorious war was better for the average peasant than peace), and I don’t see that as particularly persuasive.
Starving peasants revolt. Kings don’t like revolts. Using starving peasants as soldiers to conquer new land is a way to divert peasant revolt by promising them the new land. And the king kills 2 birds with 1 stone, since starving peasants die killing neighbouring rivals. I’m not certain that’s how it happens, but it’s plausible and it solves all your qualms.
Variation in parenting (within reason) has no significant long-term effects.
This runs contrary to everything I’ve read about attachment theory and also the main reasons given to oppose corporal punishment of children. Attachment theory states that the first years are essential where the child learns an attachment style based on the way they interact with their caregivers, that will largely influence the way they bond when they are adults. Alice Miller, for example, has been one to oppose child abuse (defined very broadly) partly on the grounds that it causes long-lasting psychological damage to the future adult.
This reminds me, one thing that’s clearly proven is that young children have especially good abilities to learn new languages. As they grow older, their hearing tunes to the languages they hear, so that they become less and less able to distinguish subtle sounds in other languages.
What’s the alternative anyway? If the winners of an election can’t govern, then the election is a sham. It’s not only a waste of time, it’s a deliberate misdirection meant to fraudulently legitimate the actual power.
I think we don’t have the same way of imagining what a “random alternative” would be like. For example, I don’t imagine that a random alternative would be the kind generated by a monkey randomly typing on a keyboard in a reasonable amount of time. Or even the kind generated by an unexperienced child or teenager. I imagine whoever would have the chance to enact an alternative would be more likely to understand how not to “break society by mistake” than a randomly chosen person in the population.
I might be totally off making that analogy, but you seem to me like my aunt who’s afraid her computer is broken every time an unexpected window pops up in her browser. She sees her computer as something beyond comprehension, where changing even the tiniest thing could cause iredeemable damage. In reality, an experience computer user makes plenty of changes that would frighten her, but are safe. And her computer is full of useless stuff that were auto-installed by/with other stuff and slow it down.
Again, that seems like a general argument to do nothing. Like, you could have justified not rebelling against slavery when slavery was a thing in the US.
War happens when there’s not enough food to feed the people in a nation. Another way of saying it would be that war happens where there’s too many people in a nation to feed. Most individuals value breeding as a noble goal, and that’s respectable. But nations encourage breeding because of competitive reasons: to have expandable soldiers for war (military compatition), to increase production of goods (trade/cultural competition), to support modernization (technological competition). New humans are like missiles. I predict human population will not stabilize by themselves. 1 of 3 things will happen:
human population will grow over 10 billions
there will be human non-proliferation treaties the like of nuclear weapon non-proliferation treaties (prefered but unlikely)
large, bad losses of already existing life (war, crime, famine, disease)
You could use that as a general argument against about any change. Funny to find that on a transhumanist forum.
True. I just want to point out the irony on hoping for a providential all-powerful machine in order to avoid relying on a providential all-powerful human. What makes you think the AI saviour will be in more virtuous hands?
have you waited 10 years?
too specific. Of course, the establishment won’t self-destroy. But it might use the pattern of “abolish an institution that’s in their way under the pretense of the need for radical change and the unreformability of the target”. It might be, I don’t know, the Constitution, or something else.
Then you face having to make the same choice in 10 years but with worse options.
If a strong leader is a prerequisite for any improvement, what choice do we have? I think that’s his point of view, and it makes sense (as in, it’s consistent). The way to counter it would be to show a path to lasting improvement that does not require a strong leader.
I don’t disagree. But also, I’m old enough that I have seen many alternative governments proposed. Each time society lets go of a deal that could unblock it, the next deal is worse. And the status-quo is also getting worse. It’s not rare to find a refused deal emerge in the status quo ten years later, without the potential good sides.
Your point: if Cummings thinks elected leaders are incompetent, isn’t it a problem that his solution is giving them more power?
The way I read it: Cummings says elected leaders are incompetent exactly (or at least firstly) because they fail to exert power. Ergo, if they did have more power, de facto they’d be less incompetent.
If the hidden trait theory is correct, shouldn’t mutations that are only useful in a particular context be disproportionately recessive? That seems like a hypothesis that could be tested.
Why always 2 sexes (outside of weird fungi)
In Biology classes, I was taught that it’s because the more “different” the sexes were, the more viable their offspring, so if a species started with 10 sexes, the 2 extreme ones outcompeted the others. I don’t remember the reason given for the value of “difference”, maybe some chemical reactions going faster. I don’t know if it’s still the consensus (or ever was).