If something dangerous occurs when driving, slamming on the brakes is often a pretty good heuristic, regardless of the specific nature of the danger. I think we can make a similar analogy for Anchoring, because some the same reasons that make Steering more attractive now than in the past also apply for Anchoring. If there are an unusually large number of icebergs up ahead, or you are afraid the Mutineers will steer us towards them, or you are attempting to moor up alongside a larger vessel, reducing speed could be a generally prudent move—and this is the case even if full speed ahead was the optimal strategy in the past when you were on the open seas.
I think we can make a similar analogy for Anchoring, because some the same reasons that make Steering more attractive now than in the past also apply for Anchoring. If there are an unusually large number of icebergs up ahead, or you are afraid the Mutineers will steer us towards them, or you are attempting to moor up alongside a larger vessel, reducing speed could be a generally prudent move—and this is the case even if full speed ahead was the optimal strategy in the past when you were on the open seas.
What if you think that the people currently Steering are the ones blindly heading towards the icebergs? Wouldn’t Mutiny be an option worth considering? What if the ship is taking on water and people in the lower decks are drowning? Wouldn’t you want to Speed up and get to land as fast as possible?
This metaphor doesn’t seem too informative until we’ve made sense of what world we actually live in.
Sorry, I think I must have been unclear. I didn’t mean to conclude that Anchoring was definitively the best strategy for us to adopt, merely that some of the pro tanto reasons Holden mentioned in favour of Steering also seemed like they should apply to Anchoring.
As you mention, opposed against this are arguments like Aschenbrennerism, that the world would actually be safer if we went faster. And obviously many Anchoring arguments are quite problematic—e.g. an extreme version of stare decisis whereby rules cannot be changed, even gradually, if they are agreed to be wrong.
some of the pro tanto reasons Holden mentioned in favour of Steering also seemed like they should apply to Anchoring
- e.g. an extreme version of stare genesiswhereby rules cannot be changed
Whelp.
< Googles heavily >
pro tanto: So it turns out pro tanto means just to the limit it exists, e.g. “some of the reasons Holden mentioned apply to anchoring, but only to some limited extent”.
stare genesis: I can’t find stare genesis in the link provided, but stare decisis is in there, and that refers to the legal doctrine of precedent.
Note that in latin, “stare” means to “stand or remains’, and “decisis” means “past decisions”.
In latin, “genesis’ means “from the beginning, origin”. So maybe “stare genesis” means an extreme case where nothing ever changes?
I’m working with a below average IQ and a STEM degree here.
The first bit just means that I was laying out some reasons that Holden missed, but I didn’t mean to imply they were the most important reasons. For example, we have a pro tanto duty not to lie, but you should still lie if it’s necessary to save people in your attic from being murdered, because saving people from murdered is a more important reason.
The second bit refers to a legal doctrine whereby once a decision has been made, it shouldn’t be changed by subsequent courts, even if they think the decision was wrong. The idea is to promote predictable and consistent law, but the disadvantage is that it makes it difficult/impossible to correct previous mistakes. And yes I misremembered my latin, sorry!
If something dangerous occurs when driving, slamming on the brakes is often a pretty good heuristic, regardless of the specific nature of the danger. I think we can make a similar analogy for Anchoring, because some the same reasons that make Steering more attractive now than in the past also apply for Anchoring. If there are an unusually large number of icebergs up ahead, or you are afraid the Mutineers will steer us towards them, or you are attempting to moor up alongside a larger vessel, reducing speed could be a generally prudent move—and this is the case even if full speed ahead was the optimal strategy in the past when you were on the open seas.
What if you’re being chased by a dragon?
What if you think that the people currently Steering are the ones blindly heading towards the icebergs? Wouldn’t Mutiny be an option worth considering? What if the ship is taking on water and people in the lower decks are drowning? Wouldn’t you want to Speed up and get to land as fast as possible?
This metaphor doesn’t seem too informative until we’ve made sense of what world we actually live in.
Sorry, I think I must have been unclear. I didn’t mean to conclude that Anchoring was definitively the best strategy for us to adopt, merely that some of the pro tanto reasons Holden mentioned in favour of Steering also seemed like they should apply to Anchoring.
As you mention, opposed against this are arguments like Aschenbrennerism, that the world would actually be safer if we went faster. And obviously many Anchoring arguments are quite problematic—e.g. an extreme version of stare decisis whereby rules cannot be changed, even gradually, if they are agreed to be wrong.
Whelp.
< Googles heavily >
pro tanto: So it turns out pro tanto means just to the limit it exists, e.g. “some of the reasons Holden mentioned apply to anchoring, but only to some limited extent”.
stare genesis: I can’t find stare genesis in the link provided, but stare decisis is in there, and that refers to the legal doctrine of precedent.
Note that in latin, “stare” means to “stand or remains’, and “decisis” means “past decisions”.
In latin, “genesis’ means “from the beginning, origin”. So maybe “stare genesis” means an extreme case where nothing ever changes?
I’m working with a below average IQ and a STEM degree here.
Ahh, sorry!
The first bit just means that I was laying out some reasons that Holden missed, but I didn’t mean to imply they were the most important reasons. For example, we have a pro tanto duty not to lie, but you should still lie if it’s necessary to save people in your attic from being murdered, because saving people from murdered is a more important reason.
The second bit refers to a legal doctrine whereby once a decision has been made, it shouldn’t be changed by subsequent courts, even if they think the decision was wrong. The idea is to promote predictable and consistent law, but the disadvantage is that it makes it difficult/impossible to correct previous mistakes. And yes I misremembered my latin, sorry!
Thanks for clarifying. I did somewhat misinterpret the intention of your comment.