[extropy-chat] Citizen Cyborg on If Uploads Come First

[Robin Hanson]

At 02:15 PM 3/31/2006, James Hughes wrote:
> >> I just think you ... do not see redistribution and regulation as
> >> desirable or inevitable
> > You keep making these false statements about me, which I deny.
>
>I'm sorry you think I'm misrepresenting you....
>You are associated, for instance, with "ideas markets" and market-based
>approaches to aggregating social preferences as a way to replace
>democratic mechanisms.... But they do indicate a ... shift from reliance on
>democratic deliberation to market mechanisms.   Isn't that the case?
>Isn't it fair to characterize you as a libertarian economist?

No, it is not fair to characterize me as a libertarian 
economist.  Some of my colleagues perhaps, but not me.   You have 
been so far complaining that since I did not talk much about 
regulation in my uploads paper, that I must be hostile to the idea 
and unaware of the regulatory issues you hold dear.   I have been 
trying to explain that I am aware of such issues and remain open to 
regulation, but that a low regulation analysis is usually the best 
first analysis step in economic analysis.   I had thought a bit about 
upload regulation, but it is a messy situation and I felt uncertain, 
and so I choose not to say anything in that twelve year old paper.

The subject of "idea futures" as applied to government policy is 
about *how* we should chose regulation.   It is not itself pro or 
anti regulation.  Yes, I've advocated trying out markets to choose 
regulation, but that doesn't make me agaisnt democratic 
deliberation.   For example, I am a fan of James Fishkin's 
experiments in deliberative democracy mechanisms.

>>I gave a long analysis showing how there were at least five 
>>different ways to conceive of who are the "poor" in such a 
>>scenario, and I have twice now asked you to clarify which of these 
>>groups you want to favor with redistribution.   You complain that I 
>>have not supported  "redistribution" but without clarification this 
>>can only be a generic slogan.
>
>Your examples are interesting, and worthy of additional discussion, 
>but I really don't have to parse them before I can advocate a 
>general principle that I want to live in a roughly equal society.

Well that is a key difference in our styles.  "Equal society" is too 
vague a slogan for me to endorse.  ("Equal in what?" my internal 
critic screams.)   I would rather not take a public position if I 
cannot find something clearer to endorse.   But please do not mistake 
my lack of many positions on upload regulation in my first uploads 
paper for not my caring about or being aware of regulatory issues.

FYI, regarding the questions I posed, my current leanings are that 
creatures who might exist should count in our moral calculus, that 
upload copies will diverge quickly enough that they should mostly be 
treated separately, instead of as clans, that the ability of humans 
to earn substantial wages should not matter much beyond its 
contribution to their income, and that while the fact that the human 
subsistence levels are higher should be a consideration, that 
consideration is greatly weakened when humans reject the option to 
convert into cheaper-to-assist uploads.   Your intuitions may differ, 
but I don't think anyone should feel very confident about such opinions.


Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323