I'd be interested in a blog post covering your latest thoughts on this. It's been a decent amount of time since you last covered it. I find AI vs Ems more interesting than most OB topics (signalling and sociology has been overdone recently). Perhaps I'm asking for too much in a blog post though, and I really should read your book.
In the book I gave citations on religious behavior correlating with work productivity. If someone has contrary citations, I’m all ears.
But those wouldn't seem to be the only relevant correlations - or even the main ones. What about the (strong negative) correlation between the productivity of a society and its religiosity?
People experiencing brain emulations and being highly religious? The "spiritual" would have been palpably reduced to the physical. [Would en emulation of Bryan Caplan be able to maintain his religiosity.]
Religious people have additional motives that non-religious people do not, along with all the motives that non-religious people have. So it is to be expected that religious people will be more productive, other things being equal.
Of course it does not mean that other things will actually be equal.
It still doesn't solve the fundamental Malthusian problem, there is no point in doubling the economy if per capita consumption is falling; it just quadruples the misery.
But that wasn't the point anyway, the point merely was that star ships will be unprofitable as long as there is more to gain by innovating instead.
You don't comment on what I think is his most pertinent criticism: "The incentive to enhance the intelligence of an entity which works for you is irresistible, and once we have models of minds in silico, it will be much easier to do so."
The comments regarding space seem to reflect an excluded middle. A quick jaunt to the Moon is not long term, it's a few weeks. A trip to Mercury would take only a few months if there's energy to burn. Whatever the doubling rate for the earthly economy, I can't see it being faster than the doubling rate for a Mercury based economy (for long). And a *surface* earth based economy would be nuts compared to an *orbital* earth based one, given ems or even slightly em-like software.
As I understand Robin's claim, the purported correlation isn't between religiosity and intelligence, but between religiosity and productivity.
Of course the credibility of this claim depends on productivity being separable from intelligence. I think for many of us the natural intuition is to view this idea with incredulity. Surely, we think, the people with the absolute highest IQs are 'really' the most powerful, and any other factors that seem to outweigh this one are just an illusion or only exist due to some weird temporary accident.
I'd be interested in a blog post covering your latest thoughts on this. It's been a decent amount of time since you last covered it. I find AI vs Ems more interesting than most OB topics (signalling and sociology has been overdone recently). Perhaps I'm asking for too much in a blog post though, and I really should read your book.
In the book I gave citations on religious behavior correlating with work productivity. If someone has contrary citations, I’m all ears.
But those wouldn't seem to be the only relevant correlations - or even the main ones. What about the (strong negative) correlation between the productivity of a society and its religiosity?
People experiencing brain emulations and being highly religious? The "spiritual" would have been palpably reduced to the physical. [Would en emulation of Bryan Caplan be able to maintain his religiosity.]
Aren't the religious the least likely to consent to brain emulations?
As I pointed out, there are a lot of resources within a few light minutes of Earth. No need for star ships to get to those.
What do you mean? It's in the OP.
Religious people have additional motives that non-religious people do not, along with all the motives that non-religious people have. So it is to be expected that religious people will be more productive, other things being equal.
Of course it does not mean that other things will actually be equal.
Why star ships?
It still doesn't solve the fundamental Malthusian problem, there is no point in doubling the economy if per capita consumption is falling; it just quadruples the misery.
But that wasn't the point anyway, the point merely was that star ships will be unprofitable as long as there is more to gain by innovating instead.
I'll do a whole separate post on that topic soon.
You don't comment on what I think is his most pertinent criticism: "The incentive to enhance the intelligence of an entity which works for you is irresistible, and once we have models of minds in silico, it will be much easier to do so."
Chase is reviewing my book, which has such detailed discussions.
The comments regarding space seem to reflect an excluded middle. A quick jaunt to the Moon is not long term, it's a few weeks. A trip to Mercury would take only a few months if there's energy to burn. Whatever the doubling rate for the earthly economy, I can't see it being faster than the doubling rate for a Mercury based economy (for long). And a *surface* earth based economy would be nuts compared to an *orbital* earth based one, given ems or even slightly em-like software.
Ah, correct. I confused Robin's claim with Chace's interpretation of Robin's claim.
Sure. I wasn't trying to argue that this idea is true, rather that I think many people find it intuitive and appealing.
I think we are really quite sure that factors other than intelligence are relevant for productivity.
As I understand Robin's claim, the purported correlation isn't between religiosity and intelligence, but between religiosity and productivity.
Of course the credibility of this claim depends on productivity being separable from intelligence. I think for many of us the natural intuition is to view this idea with incredulity. Surely, we think, the people with the absolute highest IQs are 'really' the most powerful, and any other factors that seem to outweigh this one are just an illusion or only exist due to some weird temporary accident.