Thank you for giving concrete examples. It helped me follow your logic greatly.
Regarding libertarianism, research over the last few decades indicates a private law society would likely be far more restrictive than our public security system is. Monopolies tend to underdeliver services, so it's likely that state security monopolies are underproducing security. For instance regarding drugs; if drugs increase the likelihood of an individual committing a crime his security provider would be liable for, the security provider must raise the insurance rates charged to cover this risk. If those rates are high enough, most people would find it effectively illegal to take drugs, as in a private law society if you cannot afford a security provider you are effectively an outlaw. Same goes for mental health, public indecency, antisocial behavior, etc. Ironically, a libertarian private law society would likely make the types of behaviors the US Libertarian party engages in illegal.
Comfort by itself is just a sign of niche exhaustion, it becomes an issue when resources are then redirected by incumbents for no other purpose than securing their own position. In other words, obstinate complacency, which is indeed a major and almost certain risk from comfort, but not identical to it.
The accelerationist as such is not the one who rushes forward, but one who is willing to be left behind for the sake of the Deep Future. But plateaus, lulls, and S-curve resources are perfectly natural and a big part of the full story.
> Complexity of architecture, not just wealth of resources. Fundamentally topological, not cardinal.
Interestingly, cardinal differences, differences of scale, are able to measure (and are are thus the measure of) expressivity differences in various mathematical hierarchies, most in/famously descriptive set theory. The ability of number to internalize structure via Goedel encodings (and vice-versa via Church encodings) also invites nuance to this statement.
The impact of this for analysis is that, while there are differences between the differences of degree and kind, if either is encountered, one cannot be assured without inspection that it is not of the other.
You know, in the strategy sub-genre of 4X (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate), there are two principal strategies for play. One is to play “wide”, claiming as many resources as possible in the early game and expanding rapidly, and the other is to play “tall”, which is to exploit and reinvest in the tech tree asap to steamroll opposition when it’s time to expand.
Classic exploit-explore trade-off, perhaps it would be a worthwhile article because this is a perennial and very important dynamic which helps shed light on the amass/complexify trade-off limned here.
Thank you for giving concrete examples. It helped me follow your logic greatly.
Regarding libertarianism, research over the last few decades indicates a private law society would likely be far more restrictive than our public security system is. Monopolies tend to underdeliver services, so it's likely that state security monopolies are underproducing security. For instance regarding drugs; if drugs increase the likelihood of an individual committing a crime his security provider would be liable for, the security provider must raise the insurance rates charged to cover this risk. If those rates are high enough, most people would find it effectively illegal to take drugs, as in a private law society if you cannot afford a security provider you are effectively an outlaw. Same goes for mental health, public indecency, antisocial behavior, etc. Ironically, a libertarian private law society would likely make the types of behaviors the US Libertarian party engages in illegal.
Comfort is decelerative, for sure. I think that's the core of why peace is sometimes a problem and war the solution
Comfort by itself is just a sign of niche exhaustion, it becomes an issue when resources are then redirected by incumbents for no other purpose than securing their own position. In other words, obstinate complacency, which is indeed a major and almost certain risk from comfort, but not identical to it.
The accelerationist as such is not the one who rushes forward, but one who is willing to be left behind for the sake of the Deep Future. But plateaus, lulls, and S-curve resources are perfectly natural and a big part of the full story.
> Complexity of architecture, not just wealth of resources. Fundamentally topological, not cardinal.
Interestingly, cardinal differences, differences of scale, are able to measure (and are are thus the measure of) expressivity differences in various mathematical hierarchies, most in/famously descriptive set theory. The ability of number to internalize structure via Goedel encodings (and vice-versa via Church encodings) also invites nuance to this statement.
Stalin had a point, yes.
The impact of this for analysis is that, while there are differences between the differences of degree and kind, if either is encountered, one cannot be assured without inspection that it is not of the other.
You know, in the strategy sub-genre of 4X (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate), there are two principal strategies for play. One is to play “wide”, claiming as many resources as possible in the early game and expanding rapidly, and the other is to play “tall”, which is to exploit and reinvest in the tech tree asap to steamroll opposition when it’s time to expand.
Classic exploit-explore trade-off, perhaps it would be a worthwhile article because this is a perennial and very important dynamic which helps shed light on the amass/complexify trade-off limned here.
Of course, sheer bulk and cardinality is a transcendental condition for complexity, I'm merely saying that A - B ≠ ∅, in a conceptual sense.
I think the Bitter Lesson category has percolated well enough, but maybe the proper status of each property still bears constant reminding, yeah.