Longtermism should be used to make policy decisions

Author: WyIted
penis length
dick length
cock length
serious policy discussion

Posts

Total: 82
Topic's author
#61
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Is there an example of a different proscriptive position that can be drawn from longtermism you could point to? One that maybe has a little more of a real world application?
Most of it is going to be avoiding existential threats to society. the theory is that future people are 10^45, which has a lot more zeros than the 7 billion current humans, so almost all policy should be about avoiding existential threats to mankind's continued existence. Like I argue in the debate and show the EV calculation. This ideology would make it acceptable to kill 80 million Germans if there was a mere 1 in a million chance, somebody in the country could succesfully create a doomsday device.

The existential threats longterminists are most concerned about is runaway super intelligent AI, and things that explain the Fermi paradox. SO no if one took control of the country they would not have policy positions on things like gay rights, economic policy etc. If they did it would come after herculean efforts to stop unlikely existential threats to mankind, particularly ones given as an answer for the Fermi paradox.

Maybe, sound like a bunch of unfuckable tech bros to me but I admit I am going off of limited information.
This is accurate other then the part where you claim tech bros are unfuckable.
#62
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@WyIted
Perhaps you are the same guy. How good is your pool game?
I grew up with a table in my parent’s finished basement. But I wouldn’t hang out with anyone who uses the N word as an adult. That’s just one of the many ways you and I have different values.

Topic's author
#63
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I grew up with a table in my parent’s finished basement. But I wouldn’t hang out with anyone who uses the N word as an adult. That’s just one of the many ways you and I have different values.
You made it abundently clear that pedigree matters more than merit in your opinion, so this is untrue. I guess you could be a racist who doesn't use the word nigger, but it is very unlikely.
#64
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
You made it abundently clear that pedigree matters more than merit in your opinion, so this is untrue. I guess you could be a racist who doesn't use the word nigger, but it is very unlikely.

Most racists don't say "nigger" nowadays. They use proper terms like "disadvantaged"

Someone with black skin is not inherently "disadvantaged" or "less able" in any way due to their skin color. The idea that skin color correlates with ability or worth is a racist misconception that has been historically used to justify discrimination and oppression.
Topic's author
#65
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Most racists don't say "nigger" nowadays. They use proper terms like "disadvantaged"
That sounds very posh and just for my own benefit. I disavow that liberal who used that word instead of the word disadvantaged to promote anti black policies
#66
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
Yeah, I reject the posh racist pool game.
Topic's author
#67
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
So you don't disavow. I disavow. It's way better and the media will say you do not disavow if you do not say disavow
#68
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
The existential threats longterminists are most concerned about is runaway super intelligent AI, and things that explain the Fermi paradox.

Could you be more specific on what you advocate doing about these? Seems like if you aren't actually proposing something it's just mental masturbation.
#69
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
Correct. Trump never used that magic word, and look what they did to him.

Or maybe he did?

Donald Trump has used the word "disavow" on several occasions, particularly in response to calls for him to reject support from controversial figures or groups. One notable instance was during the 2016 presidential campaign when Trump was asked to disavow the support of David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and other white supremacist groups. Trump did eventually use the word "disavow" in public statements to distance himself from these groups and individuals, although the timing and clarity of his disavowals were subjects of controversy.
Topic's author
#70
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Could you be more specific on what you advocate doing about these? Seems like if you aren't actually proposing something it's just mental masturbation.
Yes so this is mostly mental masturbation, but one policy would be putting a camera or requiring a camera in everyone's house for constant government monitoring for any progress towards a doomsday device or chemical weapons that could destroy the earth being created. Yes this is a real policy position promoted by longtermists
Topic's author
#71
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Policy is unimportant anyway. The more important question is whether we should value future lives equally to current lives and if so how should we serve the hundreds of trillions of future people, even if it means sacrificing ourselves or genociding millions?
#72
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
Wait, was that one guy on DDO like 7 years ago just your alt?
#73
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
Also, isn't this pretty much a truism? Who would positively assert that long term thinking is bad? Doesn't everyone pay lip service to this ideal?

If your point is that you've abandoned partisan politics in favor of making "longtermism" the core criterion you use to directly make political decisions, then what does this look like exactly?
Topic's author
#74
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Swagnarok
Wait, was that one guy on DDO like 7 years ago just your alt?
unlikely. I never got banned on DDO and kept the same name the entire time I was there

Also, isn't this pretty much a truism? Who would positively assert that long term thinking is bad? Doesn't everyone pay lip service to this ideal?
everyone pays lip service but many would say after more careful thought that the long off future is unknowable so it is better to focus on things we can more clearly see. Keynes often criticized economists who prioritized theories of long term events over actions that can be taken now to alleviate knowable current suffering.

Others would argue that it is better to make sure our institutions are capable of dealing with a wider variety of potentialities than focusing on some potentiality a million years in the future.

longtermism is essentially utilitarianism taken to it's logical conclusion and focused on saving hundreds of trillions of future people at the expense of current people.

  If your point is that you've abandoned partisan politics in favor of making "longtermism" the core criterion you use to directly make political decisions, then what does this look like exactly?
I have my opinions about partisan politics but my life purpose is to advance the human race towards the ability to achieve an indefinite lifespan, which is why I am shortly to leave the site
#75
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
Alright, I've got my own political decision-making heuristic I've been giving some thought to as well. At first I came up with it on my own, but then I came across a Wikipedia article and apparently it had already been articulated by someone (re: Agonistic Pluralism). So here goes.

In Medieval thought there was the idea of the wheel of fortune (rota fortuna). A man, such as a king or politician, has a time when he's upwardly mobile and gaining in power and influence. But one day he loses that. One day the wheel spins down on him instead of up. Metaphorically speaking, the shape of a wheel makes this inevitable, just as everything has its time in the sun before change inevitably happens and something else takes its place.

This idea was popularized by a 6th century book written by a Roman Senator in prison on phony charges awaiting his execution. But it has broader applications than individual careers. One could say the wheel spins up and down on countries. It spins up and down on ideologies, religions, cultures, political parties, corporations, business practices, technologies, etc. Change is inevitable, so a thing is destroyed because it refuses to change, which might have prolonged its lifespan.

But this process cannot be centrally controlled. Only a competitive environment will bring the ideal changes to the forefront and relegate the less ideal ones. Thus, a system must not be insulated from said competition even though it's painful. Competition with the outside world should happen at the earliest possible stage. But better yet is that a system is competing with itself before that stage is ever reached. Within a country, regions should be allowed to compete with each other, and even with the central government, to achieve the best local outcomes. Each local government should have different approaches to tackling different problems. In the US there should be 51 different "laboratories" of government, and they should learn from each other to find out what does and doesn't work.

Key to said competition is that: (1). Outcompeting everyone else should be tangibly rewarded; but (2). It should not result in the competition being wiped out, because then it's extremely hard to reestablish a rival contender. At that point whoever's in first place will inevitably stagnate and get by on the sheer mass it accrued back when it was managed competently. Hence, the rules should be written with this balancing act in mind.
Topic's author
#76
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Swagnarok
I didn't have a word for it before but have seen this essentially said by a bunch of antifederalists. It's correct in my opinion
#77
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Someone with black skin is not inherently "disadvantaged"
They are if they are denied a mortgage because of their black skin.

Topic's author
#78
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
yeah because mortgage brokers give a shit about skin color and not their commission check. You guys are retarded
#79
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Donald Trump has used the word "disavow" on several occasions, particularly in response to calls for him to reject support from controversial figures or groups. One notable instance was during the 2016 presidential campaign when Trump was asked to disavow the support of David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and other white supremacist groups. Trump did eventually use the word "disavow" in public statements to distance himself from these groups and individuals, although the timing and clarity of his disavowals were subjects of controversy.
lol, its chatGP 

#80
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
Policy is unimportant anyway. The more important question is whether we should value future lives equally to current lives and if so how should we serve the hundreds of trillions of future people, even if it means sacrificing ourselves or genociding millions?
Okay, sure. Let's do that.

Now what?
Topic's author
#81
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Okay, sure. Let's do that.

Now what?
every utopian vision begins with genocide. One generation of sacrifice. So maybe start with eliminating those with an IQ of less than 100, then you increease reproduction rates of those with an IQ above 140. This will create what is known as an "intelligence explosion" or some would call it the technological singularity. The other option is waiting for the AI explosion to happen naturally and to bring in the utopian future seen in Wally, except we will have drugs to keep us thin
#82
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@WyIted
HaHa.

Someone put long and term together, stuck an ism on the end, and came up with longtermism.

That's a becauseyoucanism.


But for sure, with thebenefitofhindsightism, longtermism would be a sensiblestrategyism.