In ’08 I forecasted: A [future] world of near-subsistence-income ems in a software-like labor market, where millions of cheap copies are made of a each expensively trained em, and then later evicted from their bodies when their training becomes obsolete.
Malthusian models hold for any material resource. The basic idea is that resources (at best) expand according to t cubed - as a population expands as fast as it can into a 3D space.
The Malthusian model holds because the limiting factor of production was land. Thus all rents accrue to land. Everything else is paid subsistence.
Its not clear what the limiting factor of production here. I would think its the EM blueprint. If I my descendent EMs have property rights over that blueprint then they should the limiting factor of production and all rents should accrue to them.
Of course in good brain designs will capture vastly more rents than bad brain designs. On the other hand they may come to dominate all EMs
I actually think the solution is extremely sensitive to the allocation of property rights.
What about split brains, where the corpus callosum has been severed, I believe there are two distinct personalities in some persons. What if there is some way to cure severe epilepsy in the future and a way to reconnect the two hemispheres(and personalities)? Would that be murder?
In this case we actually have very good evidence for two persons in one rather than the very flaky case of "Sybil".
Bock, the DID diagnosis is in DSM, and isn’t being proposed for elimination for DSM-V. The consensus of psychiatrists is therefore that it is real.
This statement is a bit careless by your usual standards. First, the inclusion of a disorder into DSM certainly doesn't indicate consensus. It might be taken as evidence of majority opinion -- or, more probably, the opinion of key high-status members of the profession -- but by no means consensus. Second, if you look at the published literature on the subject, you'll see that there is in fact a huge controversy about the issue. See for example the papers referenced at the Wikipedia page.
In general, I've noticed that alleged extremely weird and creepy phenomena like this one, which make for great plot devices in film and literature, tend to turn out much less spectacular on closer scrutiny.
If we show we believe in and hate sorcery, then have the option to later off a rival via the excuse that they have hurt someone via sorcery. If we admit we don't believe in sorcery, we unilaterally give up this option.
Why do we want to signal our willingness to make ridiculous excuses for behavior we’d otherwise consider immoral & self-serving?
Perhaps because our neighbors want to be able to count on us as loyal allies in case need (or profit opportunity) arises for a collective enterprise that involves such behavior?
Malthusian models hold for any material resource. The basic idea is that resources (at best) expand according to t cubed - as a population expands as fast as it can into a 3D space.
The Malthusian model holds because the limiting factor of production was land. Thus all rents accrue to land. Everything else is paid subsistence.
Its not clear what the limiting factor of production here. I would think its the EM blueprint. If I my descendent EMs have property rights over that blueprint then they should the limiting factor of production and all rents should accrue to them.
Of course in good brain designs will capture vastly more rents than bad brain designs. On the other hand they may come to dominate all EMs
I actually think the solution is extremely sensitive to the allocation of property rights.
Oops this should be in the previous post although they are related...
What about split brains, where the corpus callosum has been severed, I believe there are two distinct personalities in some persons. What if there is some way to cure severe epilepsy in the future and a way to reconnect the two hemispheres(and personalities)? Would that be murder?
In this case we actually have very good evidence for two persons in one rather than the very flaky case of "Sybil".
Malthus is the classical resource on that issue.
Populations that are not resource-limited typically increase exponentially - whereas resources typically increase polynomially.
The evidence here is awfully thin - and entirely non-existent in:
we plausibly also evolved a tendency to show revulsion of alters, to signal our hatred of sorcery.
Cyan, em merges would initially be infeasible; not clear how long would take to make feasible.
Fortunately, we'd have a large number of highly motivated non-meat-bound minds to work on the problem.
Robin Hanson:
Bock, the DID diagnosis is in DSM, and isn’t being proposed for elimination for DSM-V. The consensus of psychiatrists is therefore that it is real.
This statement is a bit careless by your usual standards. First, the inclusion of a disorder into DSM certainly doesn't indicate consensus. It might be taken as evidence of majority opinion -- or, more probably, the opinion of key high-status members of the profession -- but by no means consensus. Second, if you look at the published literature on the subject, you'll see that there is in fact a huge controversy about the issue. See for example the papers referenced at the Wikipedia page.
In general, I've noticed that alleged extremely weird and creepy phenomena like this one, which make for great plot devices in film and literature, tend to turn out much less spectacular on closer scrutiny.
If we show we believe in and hate sorcery, then have the option to later off a rival via the excuse that they have hurt someone via sorcery. If we admit we don't believe in sorcery, we unilaterally give up this option.
TGGP:
Why do we want to signal our willingness to make ridiculous excuses for behavior we’d otherwise consider immoral & self-serving?
Perhaps because our neighbors want to be able to count on us as loyal allies in case need (or profit opportunity) arises for a collective enterprise that involves such behavior?
Why do we want to signal our willingness to make ridiculous excuses for behavior we'd otherwise consider immoral & self-serving?
When in doubt, follow the link (at "sorcery").
"to signal our hatred of sorcery"Why do we do that?
http://ahappinessexperiment...
Yes, it is in the DSM. What does that say about the DSM? A consensus of pseudo-scientists doesn't mean much.
Here is my post regarding the DSM: