A low-probability strategy to elminate suffering via hostile takeover of a publically traded corporation
post by jpgeiger · 2021-07-11T21:41:30.575Z · LW · GW · 8 commentsContents
8 comments
Hi Everyone,
I have an idea floating around in my head. A potential way to eliminate poverty, suffering, and irrationality for all human beings for all time.
As with all such ideas, you should treat such a claim with ENORMOUS SKEPTICISM.
Below are the possibilities, in order of decreasing probability:
1.) This idea won't work (most likely)
2.) Someone has already thought of this and it's currently being implemented or researched (possible; we have many intelligent people who spend their lives thinking about such things)
3.) This idea will work and literally no one has thought of it before (seems pretty unlikely to me, all things considered)
With that said, what would you sacrifice to eliminate all suffering for all humans for all time, with, say, a 1% chance of success? What about 10%? 50%? 0.01%?
I have no clue what the likelihood of success is for my idea. I have a strong degree of confidence it will succeed. I have had similar degrees of confidence about many other things and been totally wrong. I know that I have to deliberately lower my confidence in this strategy, I simply don't know how low to go. 1%? 0.1%? Read the strategy yourself, and see how skeptical you are.
But in my opinion, low, or even very low, probability chances of eliminating all suffering for all time deserve serious consideration. I believe that there is a way to accomplish this goal, and that if we want to do so, we are going to have to consider a whole bunch of things that probably won't work. And here is one of them.
https://eliminating-suffering-via-economic-extortion.fandom.com/wiki/Eliminating_Suffering_Via_Economic_Extortion_Wiki#Important_articles
8 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by ChristianKl · 2021-07-12T11:47:00.477Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I dislike not talking about your idea in this thread but instead speaking around it.
comment by cata · 2021-07-11T22:56:55.621Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
An organization whose decisions are managed by selfless, rational agents, will necessarily outcompete an organization whose decisions are managed by agents more selfish or less rational.
This is clearly false in the narrow sense of "rational" as meaning something like "acting logically to try to achieve goals" since it doesn't encompass competence at doing so. To actually outcompete the other organizations, you need the most competent agents, who are almost certainly not the most selfless ones or the most narrowly rational ones.
Replies from: jpgeiger↑ comment by jpgeiger · 2021-07-11T23:32:52.319Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You're definitely right. Competence is critical - I will have to edit my article to include that. I don't believe that is a fundamental flaw with the idea, but it is something I was probably not careful enough about when writing this out.
I'll need to think about how this effects the idea.
comment by benjaminikuta · 2021-07-11T23:17:06.399Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Miraheze is better than fandom. Fandom disrespects the community and is riddled with ads and outdated wiki versions.
Replies from: jpgeigercomment by wunan · 2021-07-11T21:55:00.030Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What's the advantage of taking over an existing corporation rather than creating a new organization?
Replies from: jpgeiger↑ comment by jpgeiger · 2021-07-11T23:27:29.544Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Technically, there's no difference in the long-term outcome, and if you had reason that creating a new company would be more likely to succeed, that would be a fine idea.
I assume it would be easier to take over an existing company, because you'd gain access to their infrastructure, intellectual property, experienced employees, and existing customer base.