I recently adopted a worldview in which more complex things are inherently better than less complex things. As in, a dog is better than an amoeba, which is better than an atom, etc. This makes since on an intuitive level, but as I started to consider the implications of this, I felt somewhat disturbed.
The main concern is whether more complex evils are worth it. Instead of just a bad thing happiness, in a more complex world this bad thing would be insidious. My main line of reasoning was the gut feeling of a more complex world entailing more complex forms of, for example, sexual assault. However, I've since realized that I've made a fatal error in correlating the intensity with the complexity. In a correct model, they should be on separate axes. An extreme event can be overly simple, and the smallest detail can be jarringly complex.
Does this mean that complex tragedy is better than a simple tragedy of the same intensity? Imagine a mosquito that bites you: in one universe, it flew straight to it's preferred spot and bit you. In another universe, it took a complex route (unbeknownst to you) with lots of loops and twists before landing and biting you all the same. Are you better off in the complex universe? Well, no. So maybe thinking of complexity as a separate axes (when determining how good a thing is) is not a great idea either.
I guess when I think about a long-term relationship versus a one-night stand, the number of domains involved seems to matter. They both have a physical aspect, but true love would also entail the emotional and social aspects of having a long-term partner. It seems that goodness of complexity is better charted by the number of axes when graphing an experience. A one-night stand isn't worse because the wallpaper in the background was a solid color, but rather because it only contains the physical aspect.
It seems worth noting that complexity can also be a negative multiplier as well. Getting ghosted by the one-night stand is sucky, yes, but getting ghosted by a long-term partner is a recipe for constant heartbreak over the coming months.
So is the ability to have a long-term partner better (than not having the ability) despite the risks? I'd say so. It can also be tempting (when assessing the risk) to associate complexity with frequency, or assume that both good and bad events have equal outcome, but that's not the case. (Refer to the child mortality graph over the last 250 years). You can still educate yourself on good dating habits and partner selection, and if done for everyone, you've essentially raised the complexity for good human experience while also lowering bad human experience, even though there's new complex avenues for it.
That being said, it still seems like raising the complexity in the world (by enabling people, for instance) is good despite the increase of harm that could come from it. Complexity is not coupled to frequency, complexity is not an axis but rather the dimensionality, and complexity is multiplied by the valence.
In other words, the dog is better than the amoeba because it's able to experience the world through sight, emotions, and dopamine, while the amoeba only experiences the world through dopamine (overly exaggerated for the point, I know). The dog having more complexity doesn't make bad things or good things more or less likely to happen, but it does mean bad things will be worse for it, and good things will be better for it. So, while complexity might not be a good thing full stop, if we manage it well, and give that dog a good owner, or educating the masses on good dating habits, complexity becomes a tool for increasing the amount of good in the world.
I recently adopted a worldview in which more complex things are inherently better than less complex things. As in, a dog is better than an amoeba, which is better than an atom, etc. This makes since on an intuitive level, but as I started to consider the implications of this, I felt somewhat disturbed.
The main concern is whether more complex evils are worth it. Instead of just a bad thing happiness, in a more complex world this bad thing would be insidious. My main line of reasoning was the gut feeling of a more complex world entailing more complex forms of, for example, sexual assault. However, I've since realized that I've made a fatal error in correlating the intensity with the complexity. In a correct model, they should be on separate axes. An extreme event can be overly simple, and the smallest detail can be jarringly complex.
Does this mean that complex tragedy is better than a simple tragedy of the same intensity? Imagine a mosquito that bites you: in one universe, it flew straight to it's preferred spot and bit you. In another universe, it took a complex route (unbeknownst to you) with lots of loops and twists before landing and biting you all the same. Are you better off in the complex universe? Well, no. So maybe thinking of complexity as a separate axes (when determining how good a thing is) is not a great idea either.
I guess when I think about a long-term relationship versus a one-night stand, the number of domains involved seems to matter. They both have a physical aspect, but true love would also entail the emotional and social aspects of having a long-term partner. It seems that goodness of complexity is better charted by the number of axes when graphing an experience. A one-night stand isn't worse because the wallpaper in the background was a solid color, but rather because it only contains the physical aspect.
It seems worth noting that complexity can also be a negative multiplier as well. Getting ghosted by the one-night stand is sucky, yes, but getting ghosted by a long-term partner is a recipe for constant heartbreak over the coming months.
So is the ability to have a long-term partner better (than not having the ability) despite the risks? I'd say so. It can also be tempting (when assessing the risk) to associate complexity with frequency, or assume that both good and bad events have equal outcome, but that's not the case. (Refer to the child mortality graph over the last 250 years). You can still educate yourself on good dating habits and partner selection, and if done for everyone, you've essentially raised the complexity for good human experience while also lowering bad human experience, even though there's new complex avenues for it.
That being said, it still seems like raising the complexity in the world (by enabling people, for instance) is good despite the increase of harm that could come from it. Complexity is not coupled to frequency, complexity is not an axis but rather the dimensionality, and complexity is multiplied by the valence.
In other words, the dog is better than the amoeba because it's able to experience the world through sight, emotions, and dopamine, while the amoeba only experiences the world through dopamine (overly exaggerated for the point, I know). The dog having more complexity doesn't make bad things or good things more or less likely to happen, but it does mean bad things will be worse for it, and good things will be better for it. So, while complexity might not be a good thing full stop, if we manage it well, and give that dog a good owner, or educating the masses on good dating habits, complexity becomes a tool for increasing the amount of good in the world.