83,538
edits
What We Owe The Future: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{Author|William MacAskill}} is, as best as I can make out, barely out of undergraduate [[philosophy]] class himself and hasn’t yet left the university. A thirty-something ethics lecturer would strike most people (other than himself) as an unlikely source of cosmic advice for the planet’s distant future. So it proves. | {{Author|William MacAskill}} is, as best as I can make out, barely out of undergraduate [[philosophy]] class himself and hasn’t yet left the university. A thirty-something ethics lecturer would strike most people (other than himself) as an unlikely source of cosmic advice for the planet’s distant future. So it proves. | ||
But ultimately it is MacAskill’s sub-Harari wiser-than-thou top-down moral counselling that grates: humanity needs to solve the problems of the future centrally | But ultimately it is MacAskill’s sub-[[Yuval Noah Harari|Harari}}, wiser-than-thou, top-down moral counselling that grates: humanity needs to solve the problems of the future centrally; this requires brainy people from the academy, like MacAskill, to do it. And though the solution might be at the great expense of all you mouth-breathing oxygen wasters out there, it is for the future’s good. | ||
We should sacrifice you lot — birds in the hand — for your far-distant descendants — birds in a bush that may or may not be there in 500m years. | We should sacrifice you lot — birds in the hand — for your far-distant descendants — birds in a bush that may or may not be there in 500m years. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Thanks — but no thanks. | Thanks — but no thanks. | ||
It is not at all clear what anyone can do to influence the | It is not at all clear what anyone can do to influence the unknowably distant future — a meteor could wipe us out any time — but in any case expected value probability calculations sure aren’t going to help. Nor does MacAskill ever say ''why'' organisms who are around ''now'' should give the merest flying hoot for a species which, if it survives at all, will have doubtlessly evolved beyond all recognition in 500 million years. | ||
How, or why, donating a tithe of your income now is supposed to | How, or why, donating a tithe of your income now is supposed to benefit the race of pan-dimensional hyperbeings we will have evolved into by then, he does not say. Is he unaware, or just uncomprehending, of the basic principles of [[chaos theory]]? Causality may or may not be true, but forward progress in an open ecosystem of independent agents is [[non-linear]]. There is no “if-this-then-that” over five years, let alone fifty, let alone ''five million''. We are in the lap of the gods. | ||
{{Quote|Quick side bar: [[Probabilities]] are suitable for closed, bounded systems with a ''complete'' set of ''known'' outcomes. The probability of rolling a six is ⅙ because a die has six equal sides, is equally likely to land on any side, and must land on one, and no other outcome is possible. ''This is not how most things in life work''. Probabilities work for [[finite game]]s. ''The future is in no sense a finite game''. It is unbounded, ambiguous, incomplete, the range of possible outcomes are not known and may as well be infinite. ''You can't calculate probabilities about it''. {{Author|Gerd Gigerenzer}} would say it is a situation of ''uncertainty'', not ''risk''. ''Expectation theory is worthless.''}} | {{Quote|Quick side bar: [[Probabilities]] are suitable for closed, bounded systems with a ''complete'' set of ''known'' outcomes. The probability of rolling a six is ⅙ because a die has six equal sides, is equally likely to land on any side, and must land on one, and no other outcome is possible. ''This is not how most things in life work''. Probabilities work for [[finite game]]s. ''The future is in no sense a finite game''. It is unbounded, ambiguous, incomplete, the range of possible outcomes are not known and may as well be infinite. ''You can't calculate probabilities about it''. {{Author|Gerd Gigerenzer}} would say it is a situation of ''uncertainty'', not ''risk''. ''Expectation theory is worthless.''}} | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
{{Sa}} | {{Sa}} | ||
*[[Simulation hypothesis]] | *[[Simulation hypothesis]] | ||
*[[Gerd Gigerenzer]] | |||