This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
These are stakes in different futures for different people. Elon Musk has a perspective about human longevity that I am sympathetic to. When multiple groups of people have different future visions, each person is going to align to the leaders who most share their own.
Suppose three tech-billionaires all find a genie (it can be an AI genie if you want) who will grant them one only vision of the future of AI and humanity.
The first wants the fruits of humanity to reach the stars and survive trillions of years. The genie says the way for this to happen is for AI to succeed humanity, which may be destroyed in this process. The first finds this acceptable, echoing "I believe it should be regarded as a privilege to be a stepping stone to higher things". He believes these AI beings are our descendants and the future belongs to them.
The second wants a transhumanist future of long-lividness and maybe techno-immortality. The genie says that for this to happen, human reproduction will have to be bottlenecked to prevent Malthusian destruction. Un-exalted humanity will be culled and may die out as they will be of little use to the exalted, and represent a threat to their resources. The second finds this acceptable since has no need for descendants, as he will occupy their place.
The third isn't opposed to AI space explorers or transhumanist improvements but mostly wants his children and their children and theirs after to have the option to live their life in traditionally biological ways in peace and prosperity. He wants them to be able to form human families and create new generations. The genie says that this is doable but may altogether prevent or delay the opportunity for AI and transhumanists.
So all three futures are not necessarily incompatible, but only one gets to be prioritized. You can call all three of theirs "stake" in the future (though the first much less so), but you can see that each primary purpose comes at the expense of certainty of the other two.
DaeschIndustries and Chrispratt, seem stupified and angry at the idea that I might endorse the third guy, at the expense of the other two because this isn't dEmOcRaTic. I have my values and want to see them survive. Democracy is not a terminal value. Usually democracy is a great compromise, but on an existential scale, it can break down if your real values have an existential bottleneck.
More options
Context Copy link