All the <people with met needs> I know are pro <removing need-meeting impulse> and everyone else I know roughly hates it proportional to how <unmet their needs> are. I don’t understand why
---
RT @nickcammarata
All the happiest people I know are pro wireheading and everyone else I know roughly hates it proportional to how unhappy they are. I don’t understand why
https://twitter.com/nickcammarata/status/1417539158386647047
to respond more seriously, wireheading is treated with suspicion because it is DANGEROUS; if you are not already in surplus, it is AVOIDANT behavior. it is DANGEROUS to have a social norm which is UNSAFE for the typical person, who is not post-scarcity.
---
RT @pee_zombie
@ollyrobot there fundamentally cannot be a universal answer here as clearly this depends on one's value system; the real problem is that it's basically impossible to…
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1417257256383651843
this is comparable to many other norm-violations which are socially discouraged but privately undertaken by those who know what they're doing. it is GOOD to have strong Chesterton fences around potential pitfalls, as mostly anyone who knows how to not fuck up won't listen anyway
I often see (among rats and teenagers) this impulse to tear down fences which do not seem to apply to them personally; this is a form of the curse of knowledge. they are failing to consider the constraints of people different from their own intelligent and capable selves.
it's good for hard drugs to be taboo. it's good for risky sexual behavior to be taboo. it's good for slipper slope ideological positions to be taboo. taboos are the guardrails of society; the hoi polloi need bumpers in the great bowling lane of life, & it is unkind to remove them
