Am curious about how the people here have become what they are and justify what they believe.
Will go first as an example, feel free to criticize me if you like but it isn't really about that. These are sorts of foundational values nearly impossible to change through discussion.
I believe humans have innate value, and that value increases the more people they know, the longer they live, and the more they are able to think. This are often loose measures, more guiding principles that hard metrics. I value those people that I know or care about personally *more* than other people, but will attempt to ignore this when dealing with larger populations.
I believe its better when people are happier. Especially when they are still able to create new and novel things while being happy.
I believe that reality not zero-sum, and that through mutual work we are able to output more. I believe people are bad at appreciating 'more' and that condition improvements have something of a logarithmic value, making it worth spreading out good as long as it doesn't reduce the size of the pie.
I believe that people who make the world a better place deserve to have more, especially if they are willing to suffer to do it.
I believe that the best society is the one that allows people to make the most total meaningful decisions for themselves and still function while adhering to previous goals. I believe in personal liberties in this way, because Happiness for me isn't a clear pleasure-seeking metric, but also means people able to do what you want.
On this note, that also means I believe in allowing people to do really stupid things as long as it doesn't damage society. I don't care if someone has sex with a cow as long as society isn't going to be too emotionally distraught by the idea. Liberties are limited by the comfort level of society, but I encourage that comfort level to be high as long as there aren't good reasons otherwise.
I believe that killing people is fine to achieve these goals, and that human life is not sacred, but that solutions related to killing often have a ton of collateral damage and should be looked at skeptically. Obviously they would only be reasonable if they lead to a net good as well, as per previous standards.
I believe that people have little motivation to be intelligent on a larger scale, and therefore will probably be idiots. I believe we should design our systems such that this inherent idiocy will not destroy us. I believe the best way to do this is by developing groups of specialists who have areas where they can not be idiots, then having semi-experts check on them in a gradual fashion such that we can communally error-check the world on a sane level.
I believe that just because people are idiots doesn't mean their desires are unreasonable (though they might also be). People want things for real reasons, those reasons should be addressed, even if the people cannot express the means to address them correctly.
I believe that people will protect their ego at all costs, and therefore any useful negotiations should be on making things that substantial majorities can agree are good, rather than fighting of significantly disparate versions.
I believe that our systems are most easily hijacked by tribalism, and that people will use this as a proxy to replace their own desires without realizing it. Tribal concerns are therefore the most difficult aspect of maintaining a functional world, and should be handled cautiously.
I believe humans are not innately good, but they aren't innately bad either. Evil is mostly a function of being too stupid to understand how to function in the world effectively. Systems that try to minimize evil should focus on making sure its easier to be good for society than bad for it. Its easier to talk to police if they won't arrest you, it is easier to make money in a real job rather than illegal activity if the economy is working or illegal activity isnt as profitable, etc.
Thats the broader strokes for me, obviously I could go on for awhile, but who cares to. What people here use as their base values?
Will go first as an example, feel free to criticize me if you like but it isn't really about that. These are sorts of foundational values nearly impossible to change through discussion.
I believe humans have innate value, and that value increases the more people they know, the longer they live, and the more they are able to think. This are often loose measures, more guiding principles that hard metrics. I value those people that I know or care about personally *more* than other people, but will attempt to ignore this when dealing with larger populations.
I believe its better when people are happier. Especially when they are still able to create new and novel things while being happy.
I believe that reality not zero-sum, and that through mutual work we are able to output more. I believe people are bad at appreciating 'more' and that condition improvements have something of a logarithmic value, making it worth spreading out good as long as it doesn't reduce the size of the pie.
I believe that people who make the world a better place deserve to have more, especially if they are willing to suffer to do it.
I believe that the best society is the one that allows people to make the most total meaningful decisions for themselves and still function while adhering to previous goals. I believe in personal liberties in this way, because Happiness for me isn't a clear pleasure-seeking metric, but also means people able to do what you want.
On this note, that also means I believe in allowing people to do really stupid things as long as it doesn't damage society. I don't care if someone has sex with a cow as long as society isn't going to be too emotionally distraught by the idea. Liberties are limited by the comfort level of society, but I encourage that comfort level to be high as long as there aren't good reasons otherwise.
I believe that killing people is fine to achieve these goals, and that human life is not sacred, but that solutions related to killing often have a ton of collateral damage and should be looked at skeptically. Obviously they would only be reasonable if they lead to a net good as well, as per previous standards.
I believe that people have little motivation to be intelligent on a larger scale, and therefore will probably be idiots. I believe we should design our systems such that this inherent idiocy will not destroy us. I believe the best way to do this is by developing groups of specialists who have areas where they can not be idiots, then having semi-experts check on them in a gradual fashion such that we can communally error-check the world on a sane level.
I believe that just because people are idiots doesn't mean their desires are unreasonable (though they might also be). People want things for real reasons, those reasons should be addressed, even if the people cannot express the means to address them correctly.
I believe that people will protect their ego at all costs, and therefore any useful negotiations should be on making things that substantial majorities can agree are good, rather than fighting of significantly disparate versions.
I believe that our systems are most easily hijacked by tribalism, and that people will use this as a proxy to replace their own desires without realizing it. Tribal concerns are therefore the most difficult aspect of maintaining a functional world, and should be handled cautiously.
I believe humans are not innately good, but they aren't innately bad either. Evil is mostly a function of being too stupid to understand how to function in the world effectively. Systems that try to minimize evil should focus on making sure its easier to be good for society than bad for it. Its easier to talk to police if they won't arrest you, it is easier to make money in a real job rather than illegal activity if the economy is working or illegal activity isnt as profitable, etc.
Thats the broader strokes for me, obviously I could go on for awhile, but who cares to. What people here use as their base values?
