0 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by jessicata (jessica.liu.taylor) · 2019-09-18T16:19:24.840Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Congrats, you've invented accelerationism!
comment by interstice · 2019-09-18T14:47:18.133Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A better system won't just magically form itself after the existing system has been destroyed. In all likelihood what will form will be either a far more corrupt and oligarchical system, or no system at all. I think a better target for intervention would be attempting to build superior alternatives so that something is available when the existing systems start to fail. In education for example, Lambda School is providing a better way for many people to learn programming than college.
Note also that existing systems of power are very big, so efforts to damage them probably have low marginal impact. Building initially small new things can have much higher marginal impact. If the systems are as a corrupt as you think they are, they should destroy themselves on their own in any case.
Replies from: jmh, notjaelkoh↑ comment by jmh · 2019-09-18T16:57:14.583Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Agree with most of what is said. I would also point to educational alternatives like the Khan Academy.
Regarding " If the systems are as a corrupt as you think they are, they should destroy themselves on their own in any case." I am wondering if that is saying we will not see stable systems that are inherently corrupt (no stable equilibrium with corruption) or "that level" is not stable -- but I didn't see anything that suggest some excessively large level of corruption.
I think I would be more concerned about corrupt practices driving out possible innovations and perhaps limiting growth (but here not sure as I see China's economy and polity as largely corrupt but they seem to be growing fine and are as stable as the USA or EU I would suggest)
Replies from: notjaelkoh↑ comment by notjaelkoh · 2019-09-19T12:16:08.264Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
deleted
↑ comment by notjaelkoh · 2019-09-19T12:14:38.028Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
deleted