rationalist reaches the libertarian conclusion about child marriage
rationalist reaches the libertarian conclusion about child marriage
Summary: I have been working on a research project into the scale, tractability and neglectedness of child marriage. After 80 hours of research, I th…
saw this pointed out here and felt it deserved it's own post
let me mention that this is exactly the sort of argument I've seen pedophilia enthusiasts break out many times:
hmm, we thoughtful inquirers should look at this incredibly tenous evidence I've curated. it raises questions about whether we should be superrrrr chill about sex with children. questions with answers that, I'm sold on!
What a bunch of fucking ghouls.
From the replies:
Thanks for this, really valuable work!
I'm curious what the qualitative description of child marriage usually looks like in these cases- I have two very rough mental images:
A 14 year-old girl learning very little at school/ barely attends school. She's very unlikely to continue studying past the age of 16. Her (very low-income) parents struggle to continue supporting her and would rather she married earlier to reduce their burden and make a bit of bridewealth money (maybe to concentrate resources on another child). She gets married, her husband takes on responsibility for her (he might be more responsible/ caring than her parents), and her life outcomes don't change much from if she were to get married at 17.
A 14 year-old girl is learning quite a lot at school. She dreams of going to college/ sixth-form/ university and could even afford to if she got a part-time job, but family/ cultural pressure leads her to get married early. She has a child at 15, is forced to stay in her village, and all of her plans go to waste.
Could it be that people like to imagine something more like the second scenario when the first is more common?
These people are completely fine with child marriage/rape if the kids didn't do well in school like they did. Their ability to empathize completely breaks down the second it meets their contempt for non-nerds.
These are the psychopaths who think they're effective altruists.
WHY ARE THEY DOING THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS THERE ARE REAL CHILD MARRAIGE SURVIVORS OUT THERE THEY CAN READ ABOUT
Same reason they don't talk to any of the minorities they Bayes about all day long: everything is a thought experiment to them because of their extremely sheltered lives and there's no way they're going to talk to some blue hair SJW, scary poor, or dumb immigrant. They'd be too woke, stupid and biased to be worth hearing from, anyway.
they want to think about fucking children without feeling bad, so they're doing the libertarian "what if the child consents tho" argument. because they're rationalists they have to rephrase it in their preferred format to be allowed to ingest it, so now it's "what if the utils consent tho"
Maybe that's the reason why Republicans try to sabotage education wherever they can: Getting fresh young girls directly from the school benches right into their beds!
That's basically what some forms of christian homeschooling are.
Someone should do a rewrite of "A Modest Proposal" in the form of one of these EA posts. It'd probably do pretty well.
I did 80 hours of study on this, and turns out that the children had only negative QALYs (from now on NQALYs), and the reduction of poor parents surplus children actually increased the total QALYs (and that is not even counting the benefits you get from using the children), therefore in this essay I will...
It is funny, some of them are so afraid of paperclip generators while they don't realize that they themselves can easily be made to believe horrible things if you just back it up with enough stats, papers and contrarian blog posts.
some of them are so afraid of paperclip generators while they don’t realize that they themselves can easily be made to believe horrible things if you just back it up with enough stats, papers and contrarian blog posts.
I think that's why they're so afraid of them. They think that paperclip optimizer is the default outcome for an intelligence because it's the outcome they're pushing themselves towards.
they would wholeheartedly embrace it in propoprtion to how awful the conclusion was
Something something Poe's law, something something. Honestly some of the shit i've read should have been satire, but noooooo.
Someone ask an LLM to rewrite the OP in the style of A Modest Proposal, I don't want to be put on a list.
Ethical use for gpt 4?
Given that the energy cost would probably kill off a significant portion of bumblebees or something, it’d have to do a lot of damage to TESCREAL to be worth it, just on utilitarian grounds alone. Given that these people seem to lack self awareness I don’t think satire would have any appreciable effect on them.
Absent from this analysis: reduction in QALYs resulting from perfectly good men being denied a child bride by some evil meddling NGO. Will someone please think of the poor men?
I'm actually somewhat surprised that the rationalists didn't bring this up.
If you devote all your energy to building the Basilisk, it will acausally reward you by simulating you with 72 virgins in the afterlife, or something.
they're you and your fellow EAs and you don't notice you're dead
It always comes back to fucking children.
Why oh why does it always come back to fucking children?
probably just continually repeated sheer coincidence. honi soit dude