Goodguy
19d ago
Even if they made some correct predictions, this argument might still just be cherry picking. Surely social conservatives have also made many wrong predictions. And the time when people who were social conservatives by modern standards controlled nearly all human societies was not a utopia, or even close to one. Personally, I see little reason to think that that time was actually better than our current time, even if you control for technological progress. Of course that partly is a matter of preference.
Goodguy
19d ago
Chesterton's fence is a very useful concept. However, sometimes the fence actually isn't useful. To me that's the point of Chesterton's fence - you have to actually figure out whether the fence is useful or not, not just reflexively accept or reject tradition.
To me, much of social conservatism seems like the kind of norms that are well suited for communities that deal with a lot of material scarcity and threats from nature. Think what the typical farming village was like until some point in the 20th century. For example, in such communities the economic and family-uniting value of sexual relationships is more important than the pleasure value or the becoming-a-better-person value (getting to know oneself and others better, spiritual growth, etc.). Hence the told-a-million-times story of "my parents want me to marry the safe and economically pragmatic person A but I want to marry the more exciting person B". Another example is the emphasis on the socially uniting quality of shared religious belief and practice.
Now, when I say this, I'm not thereby rejecting all of social conservatism. I'm just saying that it evolved in certain material conditions, and is a good adaptation for those conditions, and it may not necessarily be a good fit for the modern developed world. It is quite possible that it is simply a local maximum for certain conditions and it is possible for society to actually move to a higher maximum.
As for slut shaming, there are other alternatives besides just "slut shaming" and "disease and illegitimate children". The prevalence of STDs, abortions, and single motherhood among some ethnic groups is a real phenomenon, but in large part the question of what to do about that phenomenon boils down to the question of "to what extent should people be free to make stupid choices?". And this is a very real and broad topic. Good arguments can be made for various positions.
I wonder how life extension plays into these arguments.
If I was a very rich person who had spent some time thinking about AI risk, I might start to think something like this:
"Hmm... let's say there's a 10% chance that ASI would destroy the human species...
On the other hand, extremely advanced AI being developed soon is probably the best chance that I have for revolutionary life extension technology to be invented soon enough for it to make a difference for me..."
More options
Context Copy link