Here are my thoughts, which may sound overly critical, but are an honest attempt to communicate my ideas clearly.
When I start reading, I immediately notice two red flags:
The argument is formatted as a long manifesto by someone without a known track record of good epistemics. The manifesto claims to solve global cooperation, something many competent people have tried hard to solve.
The idea of a type of transformative knowledge that causes people to suddenly ignore their current incentives and start cooperating sounds fantastical.
Because of these red flags, I decide that the claim is extraordinary and you need to provide extraordinary evidence. From reading further, I notice further problems. To be clear, I donât think patching these problems will save the thesis: I would still be skeptical due to the prior implausibility and lack of a clear, plausible plan for increasing the worldâs empathy levels 10%.
Aligning everyoneâs beliefs wonât solve conflict; you need to fix structural problems too.
If you could communicate obvious true beliefs and get people to internalize them properly, everyone would be an EA. A general method of communicating non-obvious true beliefs about the nature of reality to people, and getting them to act on it, sounds implausible.
You say âAt some critical point a positive feedback loop will emerge so that every human becomes supersapient over time.â If this is the natural result of some small critical mass of people becoming supersapient, why has Buddhism not taken over the world with its millions of enlightened people over thousands of years of existence?
The version of this idea that is scaled back to be plausible to me sounds something like âScientists should study the benefits of meditation more; with a LOT of funding and rigor this could possibly get past âdoes meditation workâ to identifying specific benefits and best practices. People should also practice meditation and, if they can safely, experiment with psychedelics, to better understand themselves and possibly become more rational and empathic.â Thatâs something I believe, but interventions may not be cost-effective enough to be an EA cause area. (There are EA-adjacent efforts to improve mental health in the developing world, but not many stand out as highly leveraged.)
Thomas, thanks for taking the time to read and an honest critique!
Aligning everyoneâs beliefs wonât solve conflict; you need to fix structural problems too.
I donât think so. Aligning everyoneâs beliefs solves conflicts but, indeed, doesnât fix structural problems by itself. However, if a single person is able to see structural problems (while unable to fix them alone), the society with aligned (around everyoneâs well-being) interests and pro-social attitudes would be also able to see them and cooperatively fix these problems.
If you could communicate obvious true beliefs and get people to internalize them properly, everyone would be an EA. A general method of communicating non-obvious true beliefs about the nature of reality to people, and getting them to act on it, sounds implausible.
Well, I guess that most educated people of the 17th century would find the claim of extracting huge amounts of energy from small man-made devices (nuclear weapons) implausible. But this tells nothing about physics. If I say that communicating non-obvious true beliefs about the nature of reality to people sounds plausible to me it constitutes the same argument, actually. So I doubt this argument is valid.
I think, the reason you see it implausible is that you imagine some process of common education and this is really a hard way, even for obvious true beliefs. I use the concept of TK to show that thereâs a way to learn some things fast from personal experience (in contrast to the traditional education process of conveying intellectual knowledge).
You say âAt some critical point a positive feedback loop will emerge so that every human becomes supersapient over time.â If this is the natural result of some small critical mass of people becoming supersapient, why has Buddhism not taken over the world with its millions of enlightened people over thousands of years of existence?
How did you get an estimate of millions of enlightened people? What percent of enlightened people do you account as a critical mass? I think thatâs not a case with Buddhism because it didnât deliver enough âsupersapientâ people. Maybe there were times and places when it did but they were isolated in monasteries until death (e.g., from invaders) so it had no effect on the global population.
Actually, I donât consider Buddhism as an enlightening machine. Sometimes it works, most of the time it doesnât. But because it works sometimes thereâs something we can learn.
I would still be skeptical due to the prior implausibility and lack of a clear, plausible plan for increasing the worldâs empathy levels 10%.
Indeed, I donât have a clear plan. However the aim of the manifesto is rather to
provide some framework for further thought. I also understand that my idea canât be examined from cost-effectiveness perspective (at least now).
Here are my thoughts, which may sound overly critical, but are an honest attempt to communicate my ideas clearly.
When I start reading, I immediately notice two red flags:
The argument is formatted as a long manifesto by someone without a known track record of good epistemics. The manifesto claims to solve global cooperation, something many competent people have tried hard to solve.
The idea of a type of transformative knowledge that causes people to suddenly ignore their current incentives and start cooperating sounds fantastical.
Because of these red flags, I decide that the claim is extraordinary and you need to provide extraordinary evidence. From reading further, I notice further problems. To be clear, I donât think patching these problems will save the thesis: I would still be skeptical due to the prior implausibility and lack of a clear, plausible plan for increasing the worldâs empathy levels 10%.
Aligning everyoneâs beliefs wonât solve conflict; you need to fix structural problems too.
If you could communicate obvious true beliefs and get people to internalize them properly, everyone would be an EA. A general method of communicating non-obvious true beliefs about the nature of reality to people, and getting them to act on it, sounds implausible.
You say âAt some critical point a positive feedback loop will emerge so that every human becomes supersapient over time.â If this is the natural result of some small critical mass of people becoming supersapient, why has Buddhism not taken over the world with its millions of enlightened people over thousands of years of existence?
The version of this idea that is scaled back to be plausible to me sounds something like âScientists should study the benefits of meditation more; with a LOT of funding and rigor this could possibly get past âdoes meditation workâ to identifying specific benefits and best practices. People should also practice meditation and, if they can safely, experiment with psychedelics, to better understand themselves and possibly become more rational and empathic.â Thatâs something I believe, but interventions may not be cost-effective enough to be an EA cause area. (There are EA-adjacent efforts to improve mental health in the developing world, but not many stand out as highly leveraged.)
Thomas, thanks for taking the time to read and an honest critique!
I donât think so. Aligning everyoneâs beliefs solves conflicts but, indeed, doesnât fix structural problems by itself. However, if a single person is able to see structural problems (while unable to fix them alone), the society with aligned (around everyoneâs well-being) interests and pro-social attitudes would be also able to see them and cooperatively fix these problems.
Well, I guess that most educated people of the 17th century would find the claim of extracting huge amounts of energy from small man-made devices (nuclear weapons) implausible. But this tells nothing about physics. If I say that communicating non-obvious true beliefs about the nature of reality to people sounds plausible to me it constitutes the same argument, actually. So I doubt this argument is valid.
I think, the reason you see it implausible is that you imagine some process of common education and this is really a hard way, even for obvious true beliefs. I use the concept of TK to show that thereâs a way to learn some things fast from personal experience (in contrast to the traditional education process of conveying intellectual knowledge).
How did you get an estimate of millions of enlightened people? What percent of enlightened people do you account as a critical mass? I think thatâs not a case with Buddhism because it didnât deliver enough âsupersapientâ people. Maybe there were times and places when it did but they were isolated in monasteries until death (e.g., from invaders) so it had no effect on the global population.
Actually, I donât consider Buddhism as an enlightening machine. Sometimes it works, most of the time it doesnât. But because it works sometimes thereâs something we can learn.
Indeed, I donât have a clear plan. However the aim of the manifesto is rather to
provide some framework for further thought. I also understand that my idea canât be examined from cost-effectiveness perspective (at least now).