2

[weird, informal] What would change in EA under the assumption of quantum immortality?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality Tl;dr: Assuming that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is accurate and that practically every life-threatening situation has some chance of being survived no matter how remote, SUBJECTIVE experience will continue indefinitely for all people even as a vast, vast majority of external observers will see them die. This... Read More
Comment author: Gondolinian 02 December 2017 03:00:12PM 2 points [-]

Hmm. I wonder how to reconcile this post with this TED talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C30bJBcM_0c

Basically, the TED talk argues that more bureaucracy is very important for economic development because it allows people to invest in various ways with higher confidence that they will actually see the returns. However, as this post describes, bureaucracy can also fall into various rent-seeking traps that waste resources without any real benefit.

Perhaps one way of reconciling is holding that meta-bureaucracy is important, such as standardized testing, performance evaluations, etc.?

Comment author: Gondolinian 30 November 2017 01:07:49AM *  3 points [-]

I am pleased to find that there is (now?) a direct donation option to CSH. I had previously only known that I could donate to Charity Science through the EA Funds interface. US donors may still prefer to give through EA Funds for convenient tax deductibility.