I'd just like to thank this site for talking about signaling by way of misrepresenting one's goals, and how this can lead to self-deception, because having this information allowed me to realize that the reason I wasn't accomplishing a goal was because I didn't want to.
Once I realized that, I changed the goal to a related goal that I did want to accomplish. Having no incentive to fail to accomplish the goal, I actually managed to accomplish it. This modification was beneficial to both myself and the people around me.
You were really useful to me, and I really appreciate it.
(Context is of low relevance but will be made available upon request.)
Boradcasts can be stopped by nebulas and such, but if the sky is full of aliens we could be visited by probes. Depending on your philosophy you either believe that aliens consider probes too expensive/uninteresting/they don't want their probes to be visible to us or that the lack of visible/harmful probes means there are no aliens nearby.
No I mean broadcast noise. Where would the sphere of median broadcast noise carry if we were central tendency common? Should we see broadcast noise from 10 million alien civilizations? I'm asking that sort of probability question.
If the sky was full of aliens we shouldn't expect to get hello messages, but we should expect the sky to look different. Yes I'd guess half of US medicine is wasteful.
Prof Hanson, a few questions for you sir.1. Regarding your "Great Filter" heuristic, should we expect to have received obvious alien broadcast media by now if there was not some filter? Any sense on if the odds are if the filter would be lack of broadcast technique development or development of hiding/erasure of broadcast ability before it reached modern earth?2. Do you think the evidence (Rand Study) still points to that half of all medical spending is wasteful?
Russia surrounded itself with a buffer of satellite states, so I don't think there would have been much of a problem with allied states. And the U.S entered into a sort of "cold war" of dismantling those empires anyway.
Actually, most historians and nuclear strategists point to the late 50's, not 40's, as the "years of maximum danger"; when both sides are incentivised to meet a crisis with a disarming first strike.
Also, the US was far too sanguine over Soviet bomb development; contemporary estimates thought that the Soviet A-bomb would be ~1960. Hence there was no 1940's urgency to "deal" with the problem.
The US did not have a vast nuclear arsenal in the days of its nuclear monopoly. A very limited number of bombs, in the low dozens, would have been available to wage such a war.
Given unreliable delivery (especially vs deep targets in Russia), and low yields, the nuclear weapons would have been supplemented by a sustained conventional bombing campaign prior to Soviet collapse, and US chiefs were not sanguine about ground operations in the intervening period.
The numbers obviously still greatly favoured the US, but it would have been the work of months or years. Difficult to justify in policy terms short of an act of outright Soviet aggression. Remember; the Cold War was not yet at its height and many elements of the western democracies remembered the USSR as an ally against fascism. Could the war effort have been reliably maintained for the necessary duration?
I guess it was a matter of pragmatism: a first strike would have killed millions of Soviets and probably lots of civilians in surrounding nations allied to the US as well and the image of the US would be forever damaged, no one would trust them ever again, a cold war with the British (who had access to most of the Manhattan project research) and French empires could have occurred among many other bad outcomes for the US.
Bertrand Russell & John von Neumann both advocated a first-strike, and the U.S had the capacity to win such a war, but the Kennedy & Johnson administrations deliberately allowed the Soviets to build a second-strike capability.
You were inclined to think there would be nuclear war?
[Retrospectively, in light of what we now know the U.S. is capable of (unless it's changed since then), what amazes me is the fact that the U.S. didn't strike Russia pre-emptively. Once the Russians had nuclear weapons too, who would use them?]
Hi Robin. I know this is a January open thread, but it's the last i've found. Sorry if I was not supposed to post here.
What do you think about growth, resource depletion and pessimistic views of the human future?
The more I read rational texts like the ones you post, the more I think humans are not going to make it.
You are most welcome.
Am reading it now.
it might be interesting to hear your comments on this
http://marginalrevolution.c...
I'd just like to thank this site for talking about signaling by way of misrepresenting one's goals, and how this can lead to self-deception, because having this information allowed me to realize that the reason I wasn't accomplishing a goal was because I didn't want to.
Once I realized that, I changed the goal to a related goal that I did want to accomplish. Having no incentive to fail to accomplish the goal, I actually managed to accomplish it. This modification was beneficial to both myself and the people around me.
You were really useful to me, and I really appreciate it.
(Context is of low relevance but will be made available upon request.)
Boradcasts can be stopped by nebulas and such, but if the sky is full of aliens we could be visited by probes. Depending on your philosophy you either believe that aliens consider probes too expensive/uninteresting/they don't want their probes to be visible to us or that the lack of visible/harmful probes means there are no aliens nearby.
No I mean broadcast noise. Where would the sphere of median broadcast noise carry if we were central tendency common? Should we see broadcast noise from 10 million alien civilizations? I'm asking that sort of probability question.
Hopefully Anonymous
If the sky was full of aliens we shouldn't expect to get hello messages, but we should expect the sky to look different. Yes I'd guess half of US medicine is wasteful.
Prof Hanson, a few questions for you sir.1. Regarding your "Great Filter" heuristic, should we expect to have received obvious alien broadcast media by now if there was not some filter? Any sense on if the odds are if the filter would be lack of broadcast technique development or development of hiding/erasure of broadcast ability before it reached modern earth?2. Do you think the evidence (Rand Study) still points to that half of all medical spending is wasteful?
-Hopefully Anonymous
Russia surrounded itself with a buffer of satellite states, so I don't think there would have been much of a problem with allied states. And the U.S entered into a sort of "cold war" of dismantling those empires anyway.
Actually, most historians and nuclear strategists point to the late 50's, not 40's, as the "years of maximum danger"; when both sides are incentivised to meet a crisis with a disarming first strike.
Also, the US was far too sanguine over Soviet bomb development; contemporary estimates thought that the Soviet A-bomb would be ~1960. Hence there was no 1940's urgency to "deal" with the problem.
The US did not have a vast nuclear arsenal in the days of its nuclear monopoly. A very limited number of bombs, in the low dozens, would have been available to wage such a war.
http://www.alternatewars.co...
Given unreliable delivery (especially vs deep targets in Russia), and low yields, the nuclear weapons would have been supplemented by a sustained conventional bombing campaign prior to Soviet collapse, and US chiefs were not sanguine about ground operations in the intervening period.
The numbers obviously still greatly favoured the US, but it would have been the work of months or years. Difficult to justify in policy terms short of an act of outright Soviet aggression. Remember; the Cold War was not yet at its height and many elements of the western democracies remembered the USSR as an ally against fascism. Could the war effort have been reliably maintained for the necessary duration?
I guess it was a matter of pragmatism: a first strike would have killed millions of Soviets and probably lots of civilians in surrounding nations allied to the US as well and the image of the US would be forever damaged, no one would trust them ever again, a cold war with the British (who had access to most of the Manhattan project research) and French empires could have occurred among many other bad outcomes for the US.
That's so low status
Bertrand Russell & John von Neumann both advocated a first-strike, and the U.S had the capacity to win such a war, but the Kennedy & Johnson administrations deliberately allowed the Soviets to build a second-strike capability.
You were inclined to think there would be nuclear war?
[Retrospectively, in light of what we now know the U.S. is capable of (unless it's changed since then), what amazes me is the fact that the U.S. didn't strike Russia pre-emptively. Once the Russians had nuclear weapons too, who would use them?]