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 -
A minority of the people who comment here have HBD as a hobby-horse. Quite a few of the rest of us have settled on generally ignoring the conversations they generate, since the resulting conversations have a long history of being unproductive. This results in most of the conversations involving the HBD enthusiasts and those most offended by them. You don't see people pointing out that IQ does not equate to moral worth because, for most of us, it is too obvious to require further repetition.
...How? This doesn't seem remotely accurate. Not for Stalin or Ghengis Khan either or any other tyrant.
Maybe. How do you find people trustworthy enough to be granted adjudication of which information the rest of us may be permitted to know?
You can see people in this very thread arguing against it. I'm not sure it is as universally held a belief as you claim here.
You don't think Nazi/Stalinist labor camps represent a meaningful curtailing of our potential for a flourishing future as a species? I really don't know what to say. If you have no strong preference between being in a labor camp, and being in a flourishing posthuman society where everyone lives way better than a present-day billlionaire, your preferences are... highly unusual.
This is a problem for infohazards in general. I'm not proposing any such trustworthy group. But spreading infohazards is antisocial behavior. It's like deliberately posting a meme online that triggers people prone to seizures -- kind of a dick move.
He's complaining that he isn't seeing more of it. I'm pointing out that he isn't seeing more of it, because a number of us aren't touching the bait. The belief that moral value is determined by IQ is held by a handful of people here. The opposite belief is held by significantly more. I don't claim either belief is universal, but while we are not supposed to build consensus here, I'm pretty confident that those making such claims are a small minority.
No, I don't, because they don't last. They aren't sustainable. In the absolute worst-case, the people running them grow old and die or are killed, and the next generation doesn't generally have the stomach for it. Alternatively, they actually kill everyone they were trying to kill, and then have to get on with an existence made no easier by the slaughter. Either way, no permanent deflection in the course of humanity results. We go on.
Fair enough, and I agree that it's generally dickish behavior. Unfortunately, it's dickish behavior that's protected by the precommitments this place is built on.
We can't count on things working out that way. If we're talking posthumanity, the old generation might not die out, due to immortality tech. Laborers could be kept alive using the same tech. Furthermore in this very thread you can see someone making the claim "those of the least moral worth are people we want to suffer". Social science just isn't advanced enough for us to rule out the possibility of permanent dystopia, unfortunately.
I think we more or less can, actually. Every previous social and political structure has collapsed, usually in surprisingly short order. Those that have lasted have also tended to be fairly livable for those within them. Then too, some of the absolute worst societies have been those explicitly designed to maximize welfare and stability. Human frailty can be a blessing: those who attempt to build monuments to their own reason often live to see their structures, mercifully, collapse.
Maybe the Singularity will change that, and maybe it won't. Maybe the Singularity happens, and maybe it doesn't. It is not clear to me that, presuming that it does happen and can build long-term stable structures, doubling down on the necessity of imposing some sort of superior structure actually moves the probabilities in the desired direction.
If such people begin gaining significant control, we fight them.
Social Science is pretty clearly the prerequisite for imposing a permanent dystopia. I certainly agree that it's not terribly advanced, but it seems to me that's an argument for my position, not yours.
Future technology puts us outside the distribution of past societies, we can't count on anything.
The Soviet Union lasted for quiet a while.
Cool, glad we're on the same page then.
North Korea has lasted for decades without advanced social science.
Future tech might put us outside the distribution of past societies. It hasn't actually done that in the last two thousand years of future, though. There's some reasons to think it might not be able to, starting with the observation that tech places additional power in the individual's hands, and it's possible that once individuals have access to a sufficient level of power, further scaling of our social structures is precluded by the realities of stochastic dissent.
In any case, the original claim was about WWII, not the future.
It did. And most of that time, it was dreary rather than actively mass-murderous. Most of the killing happened in the first twenty to thirty years. Then the killers died or were themselves killed off, and the people who replaced them distanced themselves from the whole miserable business. I don't think it significantly altered the trajectory of humanity; us periodically killing each other in large numbers is the trajectory of humanity.
And social science is how they did it. "Advanced" social science will make the dystopias more pernicious, not prevent them, but I am highly skeptical that it will ever make them permanent or anything approaching it. If such an outcome began to look plausible, I would expect an uptick in general violence sufficient to remove the degree of social structure that would serve as its prerequisite.
Uh, have you been paying attention? In the past 20 years there have been massive social changes due to technology. As Noah Smith puts it: "Online was once a way to escape from offline; now offline is a way to escape from online." Social changes due to technology go way back -- writing enabled bureaucracy enabled monarchy, the printing press enabled the Reformation, iron working enabled cheaper and more widespread weapons enabled more egalitarian governance, cheap airfare enabled widespread tourism, etc. Human society is vastly different now than it was in the Paleolithic. Pretty much all of the social changes which have occurred since that time have been due to technology.
Do I really have to argue that if Hitler had won WWII, the planet would be significantly more likely to be dominated by anti-human values? This is getting kind of tiresome tbh. Please use your common sense.
The US was a winner of WW2. The US won the cold war. And the planet is dominated by US values. Am I supposed to believe this is a coincidence?
Even if you believe that social change is random instead of self-reinforcing, the initial conditions matter a great deal. For your argument to hold, you'd have to show that benevolent societies are such a strong attractor in the space of societies that regardless of initial conditions, you always end up at a benevolent society. You haven't remotely shown that, and in fact you yourself have argued the opposite: "us periodically killing each other in large numbers is the trajectory of humanity". The current benevolent society is rare, valuable, and needs to be preserved.
Not historically inevitable. Things could've been different if the dice came up differently and Khrushchev was a Stalin devotee instead of a Stalin denouncer. Recall that Stalin was focused on creating a cult of personality, so this counterfactual isn't at all implausible.
Not so much recently. We are increasingly achieving victory over violence (cc Steven Pinker). This wasn't inevitable. It's a result of brave and noble sacrifices made by e.g. the soldiers who defeated the Confederacy and the soldiers who defeated Hitler. (The US Civil War is especially instructive -- if you read the history of the time, it's clear that the North only went to war once the historical determinism view, "slavery will inevitably fade", was refuted decisively and repeatedly by how things were developing. The book Team of Rivals has details on this.)
You claimed that to create a stable dystopia, we'd need social science advanced enough to make accurate predictions about how future technology might radically transform societies. It's clear to me that North Korea doesn't have such advanced social science. Yet it has managed to be a stable dystopia over multiple generations, despite your claim that tyranny is inherently unstable.
I'm not going to reply to you further because it's increasingly clear to me that you are not arguing in good faith.
I have, actually. Have you?
We still covet, steal, hate, murder, love, couple, build, form hierarchies, have children and raise them, form communities, societies, governments, trade, and so on and on, as we have since recorded history began, despite specific predictions and even explicit, forcefully-implemented plans backed by millions of man-years of human effort to alter these specific things. Technology has changed surface details. Sometimes it has, temporarily, changed how these basic drives express themselves. What hasn't happened is fundamental changes in how humans live. Whether it's the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Bible, or the Meditations, analysis of the human condition written thousands of years ago remain immediately relevant today, because nothing substantive has changed. Better weapons change how we fight wars, but they don't change the fact that we fight.
It bears emphasizing the degree to which this reality directly contradicts the explicit, detailed predictions of many of our society's most influential minds. We were not supposed to have crime, ignorance, poverty, war, addiction, or the other ills at this point. One whole branch claimed we wouldn't have families, and made considerable effort to eradicate them. All their schemes failed, because their structures, mercifully, collapsed.
Human society is fractal, and the seed is human nature. As society grows more complex, the fundamental patterns express themselves with increasing elaboration, but their nature remains constant. Our ability to alter the form of that pattern remains shockingly limited.
Yes, you do have to argue that. How did Stalin winning WII make the planet significantly more likely to be dominated by anti-human values? His ideology was incompatible with fundamental aspects of human nature, and so for all its ruthlessness and barbarity, it crumbled.
The planet is not, in fact, dominated by US values. The US just spent 20 years attempting to impose its values on a handful of middle-eastern shitholes, and completely failed. US values are visibly crumbling within the US itself. US values conflict with human nature less than Soviet values did, so they crumble slower, but they still crumble.
I do not believe that social change is random instead of self-reinforcing. I believe that social change is cyclical. There's a sort of low-energy state, and moving off that low-energy state, whether to the positive or the negative, requires exponentially-increasing energy. Once the energy is expended, society reverts back to the low-energy state in fairly short order. Societies tend toward being livable, not "benevolent". Social change is not self-reinforcing, but rather self-negating. The "massive" social changes we've seen lately have resulted in the people who've embraced the changes not having any kids. What do you think the long-term result of that is going to be?
The current society is comfortable, in the way a heroin addict with a steady supply is comfortable. I do not agree that it is "benevolent", and I am not particularly interested in preserving it, since it seems to me that it is both unsustainable, unhealthy and unjust. War and other forms of violence happen for a variety of reasons, not all of them evil; most of the plausible mechanisms where the current peace break down seem, at a minimum, necessary.
This is the core of our disagreement. You think that Stalin's successor was determined by a random roll of the dice. I think Stalin's successor was determined by the sum wills of his underlings, and the sum of those wills was decidedly against continuing the slaughter. People can be convinced, temporarily, to commit heinous atrocities for some greater good. When the greater good stubbornly refuses to materialize, they grow disillusioned and quit. North Korea is repressive by our standards, but not terribly repressive by historical standards. They aren't running extermination camps. They aren't waging aggressive wars. And so, with a great deal of outside support, they'll maintain for a little while longer, and then they too will revert to the mean.
And now all you have to do is maintain it. Did Pinker cite the decrease in murder post 1990s? Do you believe, looking at the world around you, that "victory" over violence is a realistic possibility? If so, I must respectfully disagree.
Those sacrifices were indeed brave and noble. It's just that their effect is temporary, not eternal. Evil re-emerges, and must again be fought, but conversely even when Evil is victorious, its victories do not last forever. The mongols swept across a fair portion of the world in a tide of destruction, but a thousand years later, their impact is imperceptible. The Aztecs cemented a monstrous regime based on pervasive slavery and ritualized mass-murder... and then they were no more, and again left no permanent stamp on humanity.
I haven't read the book, but this claim definately contradicts my own understanding. The south was in a bad position both economically and politically, which is why they attempted to force a favorable resolution, and why their attempt was doomed. If the outlook was favorable to them long-term, why not simply play the long game?
No, I claim that "social science" is technology for manipulating a society, in the same way that materials science is technology for manipulating materials. The better your social science, the better your ability to temporarily deform society away from the core tendencies of human nature. Energy cost of maintaining such deformations increases exponentially over time. I see little evidence that the ways tech advances alter society can be reliably predicted at all, beyond the observation that human nature itself prevails.
North Korea is a pretty weak dystopia. It's fairly poor and somewhat hungry, and generally drab, not particularly murderous. It's also not self-sustaining or capable of expanding beyond its borders. Its imposition required starting conditions that do not exist elsewhere. It is not a persuasive model for what can be imposed on the rest of the world, nor for how the long-term trajectory of humanity can be altered.
That's unfortunate, but it's a conclusion you're free to draw. Have a good one, sir.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link