ethanbond

What? People benefit from higher land prices?

The opioid issue is absolutely a big degradation in QOL from recent years, but no the current crime rate is still well below decades ago, especially on a per capita basis.

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_p...

It’s the land price. Gets baked into every single good and service and goes up in lockstep with productivity gains.

Crime is much much lower than it was decades ago almost everywhere in the US.

Also “run down” in reference to cities is just not true outside of a few failed areas like Detroit. NYC today is dramatically nicer than it was decades ago.

This is easy: how much did an acre of land in Palo Alto cost then, and how much does it cost now? Why? Why does the price of land “need” to go up? It pays no wages, no rent, no suppliers, no anything. It’s just there being land, no matter what price it is. So why has its price gone up and who benefits from that?

Vibes > clinical trials

What's there to criticize if it's not bad?

Got it, so post-abolition United States is not “more righteous,” even on the dimension of human rights, than pre-abolition United States. It is, as you say, “impossible” to compare them. You don’t actually explain how you get from this position to the assertion you would be proactive against slavery, but I think the utter nonsense of the first claim reveals sufficient moral confusion by itself. You’re just trapped between “can’t criticize modern slavers” and “can’t say I accept slavers of the past,” which obviously is totally incoherent.

Not clear what point you’re arguing against by saying “HDI says UAE is good yet you don’t agree with it!” Why on earth would I defer full moral judgment to HDI?

I never claimed my moral system is objective, so I’m also not sure what facade you’re referring to.

That is an immense leap from "if we could have machines do it, we wouldn't have slaves do it" to seeing slavery as undesirable. Aristotle was a staunch believer in "natural slaves" who didn't have the faculty of rational deliberation and therefore were (and should be) guided by those who do have that faculty.

This line of thought can be traced all the way through to the modern day, and obviously well up to abolition.

There's really not much evidence at all that slaveholders saw their activities the way you describe ("necessary evil"). There's no evidence that we first had a necessity for slavery and then obviated it through automation. In fact, automation in the Americas increased demand on the labor of enslaved people.

If there was any external triggering event of abolition, it'd have been Darwin's On The Origin of Species and contemporaneous breakthroughs in science that destroyed the philosophical foundations that slavery was built upon (natural god-given supremacy, as Aristotle believed).

The abolitionist movement was an intellectual and moral one, through and through. You can just read the writings of abolitionists to hear what convinced them into their positions.

Obligatory: Tailwind

No, I didn't say that you are indifferent to nor pro-slavery.

I said that you'd land on the conclusion of allowing it, presumably despite your own personal preferences. Many people who opposed abolition also personally opposed slavery, but used arguments identical to yours to oppose action against slavery. The lack of action would've, obviously, allowed slavery to persist indefinitely.

Can you explain how (or if) your moral system would prevent you from landing on that conclusion? It's a simple question that doesn't depend on theatrics to ask nor answer.

Well no, we need billions of human-level AIs who are experiencing a world as rich and various as the world that the billions of humans inhabit.

You are aware that the existence of grey areas does not negate the existence of different ends of the spectrum, right? I’m not arguing the world is simple and entire countries/civilizations can be placed on one end or the other.

I am saying that there are countless dimensions that matter, and there are better and worse locations along those dimensions.

On the dimension of drug addiction rates, Singapore is doing better than the US. On the dimension of personal liberties, Singapore is doing worse than the US.

This observation is not a counter argument to my position, it’s a disproof of yours.

Saying we cannot make value judgments about these things implies we cannot justifiably take action that would nudge us into a different location along any of these different dimensions. How could you possibly decide to change things if there’s no such thing as a better, more preferable possible future state?

Here’s a gut check: are you comfortable with your moral system landing you solidly in the “let’s allow slavery” camp in the 1800s? After all, the disagreement between slave holders and abolitionists was one of culture and opinions, and as we know now there’s no such thing as a better or worse position to hold on such matters. Does that moral system seem like a good one to you?

Sure, I don’t believe cultural relativism is itself in all cases wrong. I think it’s obviously wrong when used to excuse obviously immoral things done in a context where they are in fact obviously immoral (such as much of the Middle East in the modern day).

Those countries can outlaw those conditions whenever they want. When they do, they’ll have achieved some additional moral progress. I’m pretty sure you’d be crying foul if the US decided to go and enforce its laws over there.

No, what we’re finding is actually quite the opposite. High volumes of light weapons is not only enough, but preferable on the modern battlefield even fighting against heavy weapons.

What specific weapon systems would you like to see sent to Ukraine?

And what bearing does this have on where blame should land for the US turning its back on Ukraine?

Uh no. Republicans control the House which is enough to prevent even $1 from being spent or sent anywhere.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/What-are-some-yxB.yA2.SzS7M...

There’s not some big mystery here. Democrats are proposing bill after bill after bill, and republicans are loudly and proudly blocking them.

Was slavery-era America worse on the dimension of human rights or just different?

Why does cultural relativism excuse horrors of actual modern people with access to and awareness of all modern thinking, modern technology, and modern examples of societies who achieved moral progress, but we’re perfectly comfortable saying slave owners of the past are responsible for their crimes despite being raised by slave owners in a society of slave owners embedded in a world of slave owners with a history absolutely chalk full of slave owners?

To be clear that’s Republicans. Democrats overwhelmingly support military aid to Ukraine. Republicans are split (at best) on the issue.

Israel-Gaza is a more complicated breakdown for sure, but it’s also a much more complicated conflict.

And as we all know, capable of == actually doing

Primary motivator being insecurity and rapidly deteriorating mental health

The Supernote A5X is the only device that has managed to wiggle its way into my daily life alongside my MBP and iPhone. A big e-reader like the Supernote is amazing not just for reading books but as a searchable journal/planner that you always have with you.

Exactly. These people (the anti-EA’ers) are in too deep on the memes. It is absolutely hilarious seeing anti-EA’ers on this thread “pondering questions” about charity that are literally the exact questions posed by EA. EA produces extremely pragmatic answers and the anti-EAers get stuck at “hmm is it really so bad to give to people who live next door just because?”

Of course they cannot even write the answer they’re implicating because it’s laughable on its face, so they’re just here to “ponder” the questions, then accuse EA of navel gazing.

As you say, EA asks those same questions, gets to an answer that’s far less ridiculous than “my neighbors deserve more by virtue of being my neighbors,” then writes checks.

You’ve “wondered” whether it’s actually preferable to help fewer people in less substantial and less cost-effective ways just because they happen to live near you?

What answer did you find in this inquiry?

Have you met Silicon Valley?

I didn’t claim otherwise.

Would it affect what laws we have in place to protect dogs?

Yeah, my understanding is that it's highly undesirable to have no sense of self-awareness.

How do you falsify the claim that all living humans are conscious? Or that none of them except you are? Or that you are not conscious?

This is an inconvenience for every theory of consciousness, isn't it?

> We know what consciousness is. It's our self-awareness

Not really. There are plenty of disorders that destroy a person’s self-awareness but appear to leave a fully conscious person there anyway.