comment by Pattern ·
2021-06-11T18:38:13.546Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
One day at work you discover a protein that crosses the blood-brain barrier and causes crippling migraine headaches if someone's attention drifts while driving.
Seems way too specific. This is going to go off under at least some other condition.
If these genes really are an adaptation, it shows how ruthless evolution can be. If you implanted a device in your kid that mildly poisoned them every time they drank, you'd be a monster. But evolution basically did that.
It doesn't make them get drunk faster?
No one cares about my freedom to rob convenience stores or burn down public buildings.
Unless you live in a tyrannical regime.
so he wanted to remove freedom from himself to overcome that.
He wanted to enjoy the beauty of the song, without the downside of the actions he'd take in response (drowning). It's like someone wanting to try heroine without getting addicted. There's a metaphor involving alcohol here. (And he's lucky that he didn't get addicted to siren song.)
Most real-world scenarios are different:
- We need society to enforce constraints.
- Those constraints affect everyone to some degree, even those who don't want them.
What I'd really like is for society to criminalize all mint-chocolate flavored snacks.
Tell us more about your dystopian dictatorship, where people are free from temptation.
I still think there's arguably a fix which doesn't have problem 2 "Those constraints affect everyone to some degree, even those who don't want them." - having opt-in constraints. This might work if you can voluntarily get yourself banned from something (say for the next week), but open tables with snacks don't quite mix with this.
Less distantly, maybe places could share info about what snacks they will have, in advance.
Say you used to be addicted but now you've quit. If you could snap your fingers and make all drugs disappear, wouldn't you do that?
No. There's a difference between all drugs, and a specific drug. 'Snapping' here, would literally kill people.
Interesting consequentialist question here - do drugs save (and help) more people than they kill (and destroy)?
Obviously, criminalizing cookies (or fentanyl) is bad for both responsible users and people who can't or don't want to quit. I'm just trying to point out that there is a tradeoff. Society has decided that tradeoff in favor of responsible Twinkie users and against responsible fentanyl users.
Are there responsible cookie users? Or do we just resist the urge to buy it, but give in when it's available as a free snack? You want to not have 'mint chocolate' options - you want them banned. You want to stop, but you're having trouble doing so. Are you addicted to mint chocolate sweets? Are we addicted to cookies?
Sometimes we can give people the chance to "Odysseus" themselves without intruding too much on the freedom of others. An example is gambling. Some locations allow people to "self-exclude" from gambling, after which casinos won't let you play for a time period of your choice. This isn't perfect, since now responsible gamblers have their ID checked, and addicts can still cross state lines or play the lotto or whatever.
This is perfect. It's perfect for you, and particular style of irresponsible mint chocolate consumption.
We can informally picture the different regimes like so:
You're still distinguishing freedom and constraints. From your perspective isn't there just a line, instead of two dimensions?
Roughly 10% of people in the US are raging alcoholics. Could we offer them the chance to self-exclude from alcohol?
Unfortunately, it seems very difficult.
We're back at ignoring the simpler policy that would work for someone like you - i.e., I want to not buy it, and would opt in to 'not having the option to buy it'.
Some studies show great results for people who are married but not for single people.
Maybe friends aren't the weak link you made them out to be.