Why is highly organized/systematized violence preferable?

They obviously want heavy regulation to make sure they do not have to compete long term. This is all just part of the base strategy.

It's a stupid strategy that will put the rest of the world ahead of the US on AI. Anthropic's value will suffer for it.

Went down this rabbit hole about "back is best" recommendation for babies. Turns out back is only best for the vanishingly tiny subset of infants prone to SIDS. And appreciably worse for everyone else. "Public health" means something different to bureaucrats.

Where can I read more about this? I've been pilled on the co-sleeping thing, but hadn't heard this about "back is best"

This is exactly what the article touches on, the race to the bottom. It drags everyone's experience down. This appeal to scalability is part of the problem, IMO. Not every experience is or should be scalable. Some kids find blackberry bushes at grandma's instead of strawberries. Little is gained by strip mining human experience so the thinnest veneer can be "scaled".

But what do you do about free will? If billions of people want maple syrup, do you say “no, no, we can’t scale the real thing and corn syrup is a poor substitute, so you can’t have even a simulacrum of the experience”?

That means most people can never have it, which is why romanticism ends up pining for aristocracy.

I take your point, but the other argument against scaling in this way doesn't rely on sentiment: it's unsustainable. I actually hate that word, but the point is that current production methods create (unpriced) environmental externalities. We're draining aquifers, exhausting topsoil, pouring fertilizer into rivers, using too much petroleum - and then throwing a massive portion of what we produce away. (And that's just for food; similar arguments exist for fashion, and sometimes for buildings and infrastructure.) That argument gets effectively zero traction - despite, I think, being the better one - so some people who care more about that argue from sentiment instead, which (for the reasons you explain, and rightly object to) has better legs with the general public.

I look at this as a technical problem. We just aren't very good at this yet. We are, in fact, slowly getting better. Renewable energy was the largest category of new installed energy for the last few years at least, and that's a start. The question is whether we can get good at this fast enough to outrun ourselves.

My issue with at least some of green ideology is that it's viewed as a moral problem. We are sinning by asking for more than we deserve and, if you really scratch the surface, by trying to give too much to the unwashed hordes. Beneath the surface I think you find romanticism, and beneath that you find nostalgia for a fantasy world that never really existed. That fantasy world is the fantasy of the old aristocracy. It's the story they told themselves.

I think those kinds of greens are "trads" who don't know it yet. The only thing keeping them from going down that road is an attachment to the idea of equality and things like LGBTQ rights. If you give up those things, the rest aligns perfectly. If you want a world of rare authentic things enjoyed by cultured people and all of it to fit within present techno/ecological limits, you have to put the masses back in feudal serfdom and establish a rigid, religious, traditional system to hold everything in stasis that way. It would be sustainable.

But as I said a few levels up, there is another side of the critique that I think has more legs. That's the critique of engineered addiction and manipulation. Those are not mandatory effects of scale. They're engineered to maximize short term profits or for other purposes like political manipulation, which I guess is another kind of profit (power rather than money).

For things like strawberries and housing I think that you're right that this can be a technical problem.

But some things are inherently scarce. Not everyone can sit courtside at the NBA Finals. We can't all summit Everest. Celebrities don't have the capacity to give a personalized experience to every fan.

We can't all visit Venice at the same time. Maybe we can make more and better versions of the Venetian, but it's not the same thing.

Limiting these things to only a new aristocracy is absolutely gross. Allowing no one these experiences would also be doing a disservice to humanity. I think pursuing abundance where it is an option is the right thing to do. But I don't think we're close to any good solutions for the inherently scarce experiences.

Maybe some day there's a fair lottery system? Everyone gets a ration of limited and authentic experiences coupled with an abundance of commodities?

Good points. I expect you're familiar with the Abundance Agenda folks? They're mostly talking right now about energy and infrastructure, which I think is a correct choice, but there is a next step to take with consumer goods, so that we can end up with an abundance of quality and not more engineered addiction.

okay but most kids don’t find any kind of bushes. do they just not get to eat fruit?

How come? I find Opus to have better taste and GPT to have more rigor.

There is only one moral answer. And it is not any of the ones that boil down to strangers at a distance controlling the tech in your life.

I use it to keep infra spend low for some systems I built/maintain for a handful of volunteer orgs. These systems have multiple users, dozens to a couple hundred. I just serialize writes in app code. Backup the db files to blob storage every so often and don't think about it much more.

I've never asked anyone's permission to keep my dog. She barks at every car that pulls in my driveway like a good girl.

Because it tastes bad in my mouth. If I could get a 4% productivity boost by drinking a redbull, I would still choose not to drink a redbull.

> enforcement of cooperation

That is an oxymoron. I think you probably meant coercion.