We are now in the modern era, a brief but consequential few centuries in the history of Earth civilization, between the long ages of a pre-modern era, and an as-yet-hard-to-envision post-modern era.
Imagine you set up a household. You marry, have children, and run the place in some fashion or other. You may have intuitions about how it's done well, but you don't trust them. Would you then, to settle the matter, issue shares in your household that could be bought and sold, so that the price of a share reflected people's speculation about how well you were running it?
I think I've got it now. And I agree it would align the incentives towards better outcomes. Yet my own unaligned intuition tells me I'm an obstacle to the postmodern era, which suggests I'm not being altogether rational about these things.
I see the logic in what you're saying, but I struggle to imagine market prices ever having the moral gravity of the other two. Maybe that's just my pre-post-modern mindset holding me back.
The challenge will be the aversion many people feel to co-mingling financial incentives with certain aspects of life:
It feels "cheapening" to pay someone to be our friend or romantic partner, or to marry someone purely for money, or to give money to a close friend for doing us a personal favor. We ban the practice of distributing donor organs via auction. Likewise the practice of selling indulgences was banned by the Protestant reformation. Etc.
Safe to say these aversions would need to be overcome to have a morality based on market prices.
Perhaps you don't think this is a central point, but I have struggled to see why you think "our ideals have become artists and activists, who find new and distinctive yet very sincere stances and expressions." You present this as self-evident, but…really? How many artists or activists can most people name? Scrolling through Gallup's US "most admired man and woman" polls, it's mostly just presidents and first ladies. And while there have been advocates for women's rights who have become canonical figures, I can't think of any such advocates who are primarily known for being against having children. Where is the evidence that there's all this clamoring for distinctive sincerity in a large fraction of people's lives, linked to idealization of artists and activists?
A conditional predictions market method for deciding actions could help awful people too - it depends on what they aim for. If their goal is to globally lock in their present values and they use prediction markets to find the most airtight way to crush future dissent while still clinging to power, then our problem will remain unsolved.
You are imagining a fight between two groups that know how to preserve themselves and their values indefinitely. I don't think any groups yet know how to do that.
I'm not suggesting that anyone would succeed at indefinite tyranny, but even giving it a proper try would do a lot of damage. But my simpler point was that prediction markets are an epistemic tool that helps people make shrewd decisions about achieving their ends, for good or ill. Villains who scrupulously use prediction markets will magnify their capacity for evil, compared to villains with sloppy decision procedures. Nothing about the epistemic tool pushes villains toward pro-social ends and away from villainy. They'll only help us if our decision makers aim at the flourishing of our long-term descendants. It remains unsolved how such people would get power and keep it.
Most institutions that label themselves Christian have pushed toward interiors, but don’t blame Christianity for people who only claim to be practicing Christianity. To paraphrase Matthew 22:40, real Christianity pushes toward interiors and exteriors so that we will identify and resolve the inevitable conflicts.
In the post-modern era, we will see the process that embeds moral intuitions deep inside us, and we will recognize that it has been staring us in the face all along in a multiplicity of traditions, old and new, hidden beneath the surface in the tradition’s moral foundation.
Being human is like playing chess for two reasons. Reason 1: The rules are simple, except that the two “being human” rules are much simpler. Rule 1: Interpret empirical (irrefutable) evidence with testable logic. Rule 2: Test the interpretation by subjecting the logic to rigorous skepticism. Reason 2: No matter how good you get, you can always get better, except that we all have play by the rules (that is, no cheating)!
The “speculative market price” is one of many sophisticated tools needed in our 21st century civilization’s toolbox. The tools are the means to the “healthy civilization” end. Warning: The tool becomes dangerous the moment it is allowed to become the end.
"Wonder also how in the past two eras we were persuaded to accept tradition and our inner hearts as such strong moral authorities."
Elites persuaded us, of course. Insofar as current elites disagree with your vision, there are two broad approaches - either convincing them, or replacing.
Imagine you set up a household. You marry, have children, and run the place in some fashion or other. You may have intuitions about how it's done well, but you don't trust them. Would you then, to settle the matter, issue shares in your household that could be bought and sold, so that the price of a share reflected people's speculation about how well you were running it?
That's the sort of thing I suggest may become common in the post-modern era.
I think I've got it now. And I agree it would align the incentives towards better outcomes. Yet my own unaligned intuition tells me I'm an obstacle to the postmodern era, which suggests I'm not being altogether rational about these things.
I see the logic in what you're saying, but I struggle to imagine market prices ever having the moral gravity of the other two. Maybe that's just my pre-post-modern mindset holding me back.
Yes, its a big ask, which is why civs may continue to rise and fall for a long while.
The challenge will be the aversion many people feel to co-mingling financial incentives with certain aspects of life:
It feels "cheapening" to pay someone to be our friend or romantic partner, or to marry someone purely for money, or to give money to a close friend for doing us a personal favor. We ban the practice of distributing donor organs via auction. Likewise the practice of selling indulgences was banned by the Protestant reformation. Etc.
Safe to say these aversions would need to be overcome to have a morality based on market prices.
Perhaps you don't think this is a central point, but I have struggled to see why you think "our ideals have become artists and activists, who find new and distinctive yet very sincere stances and expressions." You present this as self-evident, but…really? How many artists or activists can most people name? Scrolling through Gallup's US "most admired man and woman" polls, it's mostly just presidents and first ladies. And while there have been advocates for women's rights who have become canonical figures, I can't think of any such advocates who are primarily known for being against having children. Where is the evidence that there's all this clamoring for distinctive sincerity in a large fraction of people's lives, linked to idealization of artists and activists?
A conditional predictions market method for deciding actions could help awful people too - it depends on what they aim for. If their goal is to globally lock in their present values and they use prediction markets to find the most airtight way to crush future dissent while still clinging to power, then our problem will remain unsolved.
You are imagining a fight between two groups that know how to preserve themselves and their values indefinitely. I don't think any groups yet know how to do that.
I'm not suggesting that anyone would succeed at indefinite tyranny, but even giving it a proper try would do a lot of damage. But my simpler point was that prediction markets are an epistemic tool that helps people make shrewd decisions about achieving their ends, for good or ill. Villains who scrupulously use prediction markets will magnify their capacity for evil, compared to villains with sloppy decision procedures. Nothing about the epistemic tool pushes villains toward pro-social ends and away from villainy. They'll only help us if our decision makers aim at the flourishing of our long-term descendants. It remains unsolved how such people would get power and keep it.
Most institutions that label themselves Christian have pushed toward interiors, but don’t blame Christianity for people who only claim to be practicing Christianity. To paraphrase Matthew 22:40, real Christianity pushes toward interiors and exteriors so that we will identify and resolve the inevitable conflicts.
In the post-modern era, we will see the process that embeds moral intuitions deep inside us, and we will recognize that it has been staring us in the face all along in a multiplicity of traditions, old and new, hidden beneath the surface in the tradition’s moral foundation.
Being human is like playing chess for two reasons. Reason 1: The rules are simple, except that the two “being human” rules are much simpler. Rule 1: Interpret empirical (irrefutable) evidence with testable logic. Rule 2: Test the interpretation by subjecting the logic to rigorous skepticism. Reason 2: No matter how good you get, you can always get better, except that we all have play by the rules (that is, no cheating)!
The “speculative market price” is one of many sophisticated tools needed in our 21st century civilization’s toolbox. The tools are the means to the “healthy civilization” end. Warning: The tool becomes dangerous the moment it is allowed to become the end.
Classic Robin Hanson clarity! Tracing how moral authority shifts across eras helps put our current algorithmic anxiety into perspective.
When automated systems become decision makers, our philosophical basis for authority and truth faces another big test. Wrote a bit about that epistemological shift here: https://gzambrano.substack.com/p/o-fantasma-de-hume-na-maquina-uma
Always love how you zoom out to civilizational scale!
"Wonder also how in the past two eras we were persuaded to accept tradition and our inner hearts as such strong moral authorities."
Elites persuaded us, of course. Insofar as current elites disagree with your vision, there are two broad approaches - either convincing them, or replacing.