You say your country can't handle lots of immigration? Maybe you're right. I also suspect your country is too stupid for that, if it believes haircuts should require licenses. But if you're not *horrified* by leaving behind so many sapients to suffer or die, you might be evil.— Eliezer Yudkowsky (@ESYudkowsky) July 10, 2018
...a politically inconvenient thought, if you oppose more immigration. Even if your country really couldn't handle it, even if your country is dumb enough to have zoning boards and occupational licenses everywhere and it's easy for new voters to vote for more statism, there's...— Eliezer Yudkowsky (@ESYudkowsky) July 10, 2018
...hold myself responsible if I caught myself thinking that way, I'd consider my own mind to be my contracted agent to a point where I felt responsible for it in that regard. But maybe that's genuinely unrealistic for mundanes. Then am I to simply regard them as destructive...— Eliezer Yudkowsky (@ESYudkowsky) July 10, 2018
...never dream or imagine or extrapolate the others who their policies are hurting, whose souls happily cheer the conveniently positive images drawn by their minds, when a policy benefits them and screws over someone else, and yet they'd cry to see it in person? Is that evil...— Eliezer Yudkowsky (@ESYudkowsky) July 10, 2018
...don't know how to hold others responsible if they have literally no idea how to hold themselves responsible, for their own minds' workings. Our morality only knows how to pretend that things are choices, pretend that people understand on some level when they do evil, that...— Eliezer Yudkowsky (@ESYudkowsky) July 10, 2018
Eliezer is Jewish and I wonder how he would feel about open borders for Israel.
What's that antisemitic line? "The Jew crises out in pain as he strikes you?" Or maybe it's Moldbug's comment: "the distinctive whining scream of the Puritan, speaking power to truth as is his usual fashion. Recognizable in any century."
Assertions being made or implied:
- If you are White and non-Jewish and don't want your country totally overrun by low IQ Orc hordes you are evil.
- We have an obligation to import "sapients." (Does this include dolphins and whales?)
- Immigrants aren't responsible for their own birth rates, or for creating suffering by creating children they cannot afford to raise, or for creating children under dictatorship (despite being supposedly capable of equal agency).
- Your country is dumb because something something occupational licences.
- You're dumb for voting for it, (because he assumes you voted for it).
- Statism is bad, despite there being no extant examples of successful non-statist societies.
- Eliezer holds his own cognition to a superior standard, dumb peasant. He knows better than you.
- You are destructive if you have the wrong opinion, because opinions matter, (because democracy is good? Because voting matters? Because no other form of government is possible that does not depend on the opinions of people?) Lots of assumptions here.
- You are less in control of your own mind than His Royal Highness of Supreme Logic, Eliezer Yudkowsky.
- You are too stupid to understand the human costs of the policies you vote for.
- English just lacks words for how stupid people who agree with His Majesty are. It's a deficient language.
- Your mind is so inferior to His Royal Highness, Eliezer, that he cannot hold you accountable if you do not hold yourself accountable.
It goes on and on like this. This is what passes for a "rationalist" apparently.
In economics there is a term called "externalities" which can be defined as "the (usually) negative effect an industrial activity on the surrounding community." If a sewage plant produces a bad smell that lowers the real estate price on the surrounding land that is a negative externality. If a strip club/whore house/gay bathhouse attracts criminals to the neighborhood that is also a negative externality. An externality is anything that dumps a problem on other people who are not properly compensated for the problem, or who did not consent to be subjected to the problem. Lots of industries produce externalities: all manufacturing facilities that smell bad, all power plants that pollute, all marijuana dispensaries, liquor stores, porn shops, whore houses, bath houses; even freeways have pollution externalities.
I want to make a few points about low IQ immigrants;
- The United Nations estimates that there will be a minimum of 4 billion Africans by 2050. The following sequence of events will occur as a result of this trend. First food prices will begin to rise since nations don't really "run out of food." What happens is that an increase in market demand pushes additional land into cultivation. Once land sources run out the oceans get farmed more intensely while research and development are funneled into alternative and less costly sources of protein, such as insects. Anyway, food prices skyrocket as Africans compete with us for our own food supplies, and a tension develops between liberals like Yudkowsky who say that it is "racist to close the borders and stoop feeding Africa," and nationalists who who don't buy that excuse. Eventually the public gets fed up with higher food prices and elects nationalists to the government. The new administration then halts exports. If America is food sufficient this works, but if not it results is shortages of common items. Eventually prices fall as a mixture of new sources are put into production, such as victory gardens, insect meal, and protein farms. The corporate media wages a psychological war of guilt against the people by showing them images of starving Africans on TV. Billions of Africans die and turn to cannibalism. When the history books are written Whites are made out to be the bad guys, and not the globalists Jews who subsidized Africa with American charity that directly led to overpopulation. Nor are Blacks held accountable either, despite the moral culpability of having children they cannot afford or sustain.
- By the way, it would be smart to have a garden before this catastrophe arrives, and to have practiced growing vegetable for at least a few years prior. 1 acre (about 1/2 hectare) can feed about 1 person on a vegan diet, while 2 acres enables you to also raise chickens. There are various estimates of how much land you need to feed a family of 4, with about 2 acres on the low end. It varies by climate too, with dry area, windy areas, and hail-prone areas being worse than more rainy and temperate regions. Expect to use only your backyard because of food thieves.
- If people are truly are equal, then low IQ populations are to blame for their own problems, and thus Whites have no moral obligations to allow immigration, since we have no obligation to them that they do not also have to us. If we have an obligation to solve their problems then they have an obligation to solve our problems, (assuming they are equal), but if they are not equal the we have an obligation to limit their numbers, since they are incapable of exercising the necessary moral agency to limit their own suffering (by limiting their own reproduction). One should not breed 4 billion Africans if one cannot feed them all. Liberals breed Africans by subsidizing the continent with their charity, and conservatives breed them with The Bush Global Gag rule, "because aborting them is wacist!" If something has no moral agency then it is the moral responsibility of the breeder to limit its numbers. Yudkowsky seems to think that White people have a "breeders obligation" to take care of endless numbers of foreigners — no matter how many billions of them there are, without any corresponding moral obligation to limit their numbers. He assigns other races ZERO moral agency for their own actions, and then fails to follow that presumption to its logical conclusion and say that Whites should have dominion over other races to control their populations. He believes in only the first half of a White supremacist argument. It is a complete contradiction: if they really are equal then no such obligation exists, since they must solve their own problems, but if they are not equal then no such obligation exists, since the obligation to "care" simply becomes an obligation to shepherd the herd to sustainable population limits.
- It is evil to have children you cannot afford to take care of. It is evil for a government to tolerate the breeding of citizens whose lot in life is to suffer. If African and Arab refugees allow their populations to grow beyond what they can afford to feed then they are evil, (assuming they have equal moral agency) or inferior (assuming they do not have equal moral agency). There is no moral obligation to evil people. There IS a moral obligation to the inferior, but that obligation is only the obligation to limit their numbers in the most non-violent way possible that still works.
- Globalism turns the world into a dumping ground: the first world exports toxic e-waste to the third world and the third world exports refugees to the first. Borders force nations to internalize and take responsibility for their externalities; developed nations are forced to recycle and third world nations are forced to grant would-be refugee populations basic rights. By undermining borders you undermine the moral obligation of the powerful to control their own pollution and give rights to their own citizens. Under globalism the world will become a mixture of the movies "Elysium" and "Blade Runner 2049" with pollution run amok and refugees everywhere. Borders force nations to limit their destructive impact on each other and solve their social, political, and pollution-related problems. Open borders is a recipe for the systematic amplification of human suffering everywhere. Open borders turns the entire world into a dumping ground where every country dumps its unwanted people or trash on every other. An open borders world is a trash world.
- To quote the naturalist David Attenborough, "Either we limit our population growth, or the natural world will do it for us." There are two ways to deal with human needs; more GDP or less humans. The world cannot grow forever. It is better if we limit the numbers of people on Earth before we utterly destroy it. This necessarily means limiting their ability to escape population controls with immigration. The goal is to minimize suffering, and so the correct way to limit population is not something like genocide but something like a worldwide one-child limit, or a birth lottery, or a tax on extra children above one child per couple.
- It is the destiny of the low IQ to suffer, and thus, limiting suffering means limiting the supply of low IQ people. It is just a simple fact that those who are substantially below the average in human ability will be dominated by those who are above, because it could be no other way. Rich people who want to subsidize the birth rates of the poor through welfare or bring in more poor people with immigration do so not because of altruism, but because they want more consumers of their products and more cheep labor. Because they are greedy.
- There is a subtype of high IQ people that is utterly immoral and sociopathic, and these people will support any amount of human suffering it it enriches them personally. Anything that expands the base of the income pyramid also raises the people at the top to higher levels. Those who are substantially below the average will never have "representation" or "advocacy" from those above because the people above do not want to help; they want to increase their status, and helping the low IQ is just a way to produce a patron/client relationship where the "higher" person looks better standing next to the "lower" person during a photo op. This necessarily requires that the low person remain low. This is why billionaires, Popes, and nuns are eager to hug peasants: the contrast between extreme wealth and poverty advertises the higher status of the patron most effectively. The poor get no representation because the can't: they have no money. As a result they are the product rather than the customer. The actual customer is people gullible enough to believe the patron is moral, who necessarily facilitate this exploitation be being gullible enough to grant status to sociopathic status maximizers.
- This necessarily means that White liberals and their guilty consciences are the primary enablers of non-Asian minority suffering. Basically, your average White liberal is a "moral customer" of your (usually) Jewish liberal, where the one enables the other to exploit the poor for the benefit of higher status for both. The White liberal deludes himself and satisfies his guilty conscience while the wealthy Jewish liberal lines his pockets and increases his bank account. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement, and any government program that actually works would be opposed by both because they both unconsciously understand the arrangement. For example: you could give poor people basic income in exchange for getting them to agree to not have more than one child in a lifetime. Such a program would eliminate poverty in only one generation while raising the poor to middle class status. Or you could give poor people vouchers for charity services, making them the customer rather than the product. This second option would be less effective than the first, but in either case the left would oppose both solutions to maintain its own prestige racket, and use moral outrage to shut it down.
So why would someone oppose open borders? Are we conscienceless, racist, soulless, morally defective cretins?
The hysterical always believe that insufficient moral panic is a sign of sociopathy. They think everyone smarter and less emotional then them must be a monster. It is they who are evil and not us. The highest sign of being truly moral is the will-to-think.
Most people lack the ability to be moral because they (a) can't think for themselves, and (b) cannot silence their knee-jerk emotions. A man who cannot think for himself has a mind whose contents are determined by those who can think for themselves. He cannot be moral; he can only obey. I mean this is a very literal sense. Since he does not determine the contents of his own mind calling him "moral" is a misnomer since his actions will consist of whatever programming was loaded into him by authority. He feels like he is in charge of himself, but he really just believes what he is told and caries out the values the society has programmed him to have. A cognitive miser can never really be fully moral since he does not determine his own moral beliefs. His actions may be moral, but this is only because he lived during a time when power gave him the correct messages. Had power given him the incorrect messages. . .
Secondly, a knee-jerk person cannot be moral because he or she cannot control their emotions, and thus, is not in charge of the emotional contents of their own mind. Such a person can only react to the messages they are given, and thus, anyone with more emotional self-control can dictate their emotional reactions.
Self-mastery is the basis of power: without controlling yourself you cannot control others or society. Even if you have political power, even if you are President of the United States, without will-to-think and emotional self-control, one is merely an instrument of those who have greater discipline, or society's values, which were given to one by philosophers. Someone else did the thinking that created one's values, and since one is simply the instrument that caries out those values, (or transgresses them) every act is in relation to that external source of real power. In a way the sum of all political action is the sum of all the philosophers writings. A man who "fights for social justice" fights for an idea someone else gave him. A woman who fights for "ethical egoism" does the same. Whatever you are fighting for is something someone else told you to fight for, unless you auto-generated the entire philosophy out of your own head. There is no escape from power, and even the philosophers are unconsciously influenced by the ideas of their predecessors. The choice of what even to fight for, nay, even the idea that one must fight, is a spook. One does not "transcend" something to gain freedom; even the concept of transcendence is a spook given to one by others. One does not "save the world," "overthrow the patriarchy," "rebel against the system," since all are little other than ideas given to one by power. Even the idea of the transcendental revolutionary act is spooky bullshit given to one by power. When the Matrix wants you to rebel, what hope of escape is there?
Contrary to what he says, Yudkowsky does NOT take responsibility for the contents of his own mind. But he is on to something when he says, "our morality only knows how to pretend that things are choices." He goes wrong in the next part where he says, "that people understand on some level when they do evil." What evil? Evil is a spook. You have not even begun to understand the world in which you live, Eliezer, how do you know what is evil? From my perspective you are evil. But from my perspective stupidity is evil and nearly everyone is stupider than me, so. . .
Goodness is a matter of perspective. What is moral to the worm is evil in the sight of God. Is God evil to that which is above God? What is good to you is evil to me, what is good to those below you is evil to you, and what is good to those below them is evil to them, so. . .