Additional structure within the grab-bag of cultural values keeps a core subset of those values much more protected from maladaptive cultural drift, averting Robin Hanson's doomsday scenario.
Appreciate the reply. Now *why* have those volatile policy views been undisciplined by reason for so long?
Your theory (I think): Reason is intrinsically ineffective against many deeply held, irrational values.
My theory: Reason is effective, but it can't solve all our problems at once. There's this whole hierarchy of values, hence multiple layers out from the core. Errors have been made at many different layers. Before you can fix fertility, you probably need to fix some deeper stuff like the common vibe that "capitalism is suspect by default."
If the core is good, it's just a matter of time before a solution gets found for making layer 1 coherent with it, then onto layer 2, etc. But while progress is proceeding on layer 2, layer 5 may still look volatile and irrational. The real astounding thing to explain is all the progress of the last 300 years. I think this model does a better job at explaining both that *and* the volatility on more outer layers.
Then the question becomes: What's the most likely scenario for a serious attack against the core? I think it's something like a bad feedback loop between wokism and right-wing populism amplifying their shared postmodern attack on Enlightenment norms. Probably a multi-decade process, but very plausible.
Also possible: low fertility leading to economic stagnation, civil strife, and then a downward cultural spiral into authoritarianism, censorship, and worse. A variation on this has population decline staved off by an influx of immigrants from less rational cultures, but leading to more bad election outcomes and eroding institutions, which then fades into economic stagnation, civil strife, etc.
I just see the fertility-based scenarios as akin to many growth-skeptical worries of the past that keep getting refuted. They're sensitive to econ/tech progress, which is just not predictable on the timescales of interest. While the postmodern-attack scenario is more a projection about the unfolding of intellectual history, not as sensitive to those things. The causal process is clearer and more proximate.
"Reason" just can't tell you what values to have. There may be maladaptive values, but if you don't want to be adaptive, can't use reason to get you to reject them.
Yes, we disagree on that. Now in this case, bad housing policy is (arguably) just a simple error driven by anti-market bias. But I tend to agree that your view is more natural if values are not objective. I think this subject has been poorly understood, so I step through an argument for objectivity here:
"The same fundamental standard we use to evaluate whether or not a given mutation is biologically successful is what we can use to evaluate human choices."
You CAN use that, but many/most do not. They instead inherit values from culture, values that change according to natural selection of culture. And when selection pressure is lacking, they can drift into maladaption.
One consistent selection pressure on values is *other values*, especially core values. If reason is a core value—and if some values are objectively right—then their rightness can put positive selection pressure on them.
So I’m afraid it all hinges on the objectivity question. Sure, most people can make mistakes or just not be able to understand why certain values are right. But culture is not a democracy. Elites drive cultural evolution.
I don’t think you can finesse this. You’d have to refute value objectivity to make your case here.
https://x.com/robinhanson/status/1853844656934522966
Appreciate the reply. Now *why* have those volatile policy views been undisciplined by reason for so long?
Your theory (I think): Reason is intrinsically ineffective against many deeply held, irrational values.
My theory: Reason is effective, but it can't solve all our problems at once. There's this whole hierarchy of values, hence multiple layers out from the core. Errors have been made at many different layers. Before you can fix fertility, you probably need to fix some deeper stuff like the common vibe that "capitalism is suspect by default."
If the core is good, it's just a matter of time before a solution gets found for making layer 1 coherent with it, then onto layer 2, etc. But while progress is proceeding on layer 2, layer 5 may still look volatile and irrational. The real astounding thing to explain is all the progress of the last 300 years. I think this model does a better job at explaining both that *and* the volatility on more outer layers.
Then the question becomes: What's the most likely scenario for a serious attack against the core? I think it's something like a bad feedback loop between wokism and right-wing populism amplifying their shared postmodern attack on Enlightenment norms. Probably a multi-decade process, but very plausible.
Also possible: low fertility leading to economic stagnation, civil strife, and then a downward cultural spiral into authoritarianism, censorship, and worse. A variation on this has population decline staved off by an influx of immigrants from less rational cultures, but leading to more bad election outcomes and eroding institutions, which then fades into economic stagnation, civil strife, etc.
I just see the fertility-based scenarios as akin to many growth-skeptical worries of the past that keep getting refuted. They're sensitive to econ/tech progress, which is just not predictable on the timescales of interest. While the postmodern-attack scenario is more a projection about the unfolding of intellectual history, not as sensitive to those things. The causal process is clearer and more proximate.
"Reason" just can't tell you what values to have. There may be maladaptive values, but if you don't want to be adaptive, can't use reason to get you to reject them.
Yes, we disagree on that. Now in this case, bad housing policy is (arguably) just a simple error driven by anti-market bias. But I tend to agree that your view is more natural if values are not objective. I think this subject has been poorly understood, so I step through an argument for objectivity here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/ricksint/p/moral-values-in-living-color?r=7ew73&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
"The same fundamental standard we use to evaluate whether or not a given mutation is biologically successful is what we can use to evaluate human choices."
You CAN use that, but many/most do not. They instead inherit values from culture, values that change according to natural selection of culture. And when selection pressure is lacking, they can drift into maladaption.
One consistent selection pressure on values is *other values*, especially core values. If reason is a core value—and if some values are objectively right—then their rightness can put positive selection pressure on them.
So I’m afraid it all hinges on the objectivity question. Sure, most people can make mistakes or just not be able to understand why certain values are right. But culture is not a democracy. Elites drive cultural evolution.
I don’t think you can finesse this. You’d have to refute value objectivity to make your case here.