Unless I'm off base it looks like you form four different predictions on the same question. That seems odd to me. I would expect a one prediction per person making a prediction -- so later predictions would update rather than provide a new value along with the prior ones. It looks like you hold all four positions simultaneously. Also, if they are all considered current predictions then that might skew the average.
But maybe I am just not getting something about what's going on. Have not really looked beyond the LW post and comments.
Regarding the CRISPR babies, hasn't that already happened?
https://apnews.com/article/4997bb7aa36c45449b488e19ac83e86d
Is it just me or do all those prediction assessments from jungofthewon point to a rather undesirable feature of the tool?
Pure side note here. It seems that most of the vitamin and supplement producers all tend to go big -- which is generally less good than smaller, more frequent doses.
I've considered starting to directly source the chemical and then make my own doses for personal consumption. Still tossing that idea around in my head but leaning that direction the more and more I come across information as you just mentions.
Your don't do stupid things was largely me reaction to what some (many?) of the local restaurants seem to be doing. Outside dining started with spaced tables for nice weather. Then some covers to address sun/heat and shelter for light rain. Then as the weather has grown cold the tents are being enclosed. This last steps has always struck me as a WTF are you thinking here? Just because you have people outside in the parking lot, putting up that enclosed tent without any clear ventilation units to ensure the interior air is replaced with fresh external air is just trapping whatever people are exhaling within the confines.
This strikes me as potentially worse than letting people eat inside where there is actually some form of ventilation and air filtration (though yes, might be something of a coin toss depending on what seat you end up occupying inside)
As is often the case I did enjoy reading your post. They are always well presented and interesting.
I'm not sure if you had this view in mind while writing, but in many ways I read this as a very good approach to the practical application of Occam's Razor. Things need to be kept as simple as they can while still shedding light on the underlying question at hand. I think your post helps to consider just how, when and where one might simplify in our models/maps.
I'd like to see someone come at this from a slightly different direction.
What I take as "social technology" is what is often called social institutions -- law, customs, language, markets, rights regimes.... The way I tend to think about these, particularly since we tend to see a certain degree of frictions along the boarders where different institutions rub against each other, is as social tools.
Just as with any other tool, matching the wrong tool to a job produces anything from bad results to absolute disaster. Hammers don't work well with screws, and screw drivers are pretty useless with a nut and bolt.
But it seems like social problems that our social institutions arose to address are not as nicely separable or often even as recognizable.
So what I would think would be a really interesting additional to answers here would be just what is the social problem being solved and is this one of the one's we've been dealing with for human existence, since we transitions between eras or something we think will be a future social problem that existing institutions cannot even begin to address.
Just a side note. During my time in the Army it was always noted that group punishment was not to be imposed (outside basic training but I think that was a separate situation). I always thought that as a bit odd given the need for the unit to function as a whole. One might think that such an approach would promote more unity by make each unit member essentially their brother's keeper (and cell mate as it were).
The only way I could understand the point -- outside the innocent should not be punished aspect -- was that such an approach was likely to both disrupt unit cohesion and trust as well as allow one disgruntled member undermine the entire unit.
The Conboys are looking to start human trials with they neutral blood replacement approach (https://newatlas.com/medical/diluted-blood-plasma-reverse-aging-in-mice/?utm_source=New+Atlas+Subscribers&utm_campaign=9db0c9efb9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_06_16_01_29&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-9db0c9efb9-92444869).
I didn't realize they were tying their work to senescent cells though.
I think the efficiency lens is probably the wrong lens to try to make sense out of UBI. Economic efficiency is about margins, maximizing total surplus and allocation of resources. UBI is really about distribution of the available surplus.
True, connections here exist but they are not all that clear or straightforward, which is what you are asking for. Economics lacks a strong micro-macro theory linkage (no grand unification theory/ well functioning micro-based macroeconomic theories).
Last, as a question about distribution, I think the answer will actually change depending on a number of underlying factors related to both the society and the economy. I think it is clear that UBI (basically that just means that some stuff is free for people -- or at least some people) will be some function of both the total surplus in the system and probably some things like level of joint production (very high in modern large corporation and developed economies) as well as, lets call them, the elasticies of the external economies of scale in the economy. Probably some other factors as well.
I do agree that in general if everyone in the USA got 8,000 a year the impact on work would be trivial. In fact one might expect that such a marginal gift might actually promote some additional effort -- with the UBI and 2 two crappy jobs I might actually be able to afford a nice late model car. Without the UBI the two crappy jobs not only will not provide the means to buy a decent car, the additional wear and tear may leave me without a working car so the second job in not really a good return for me. (Pure hypothetical but could certainly see something like that happening)
However, that UBI would be about 13% or total GDP. That would, I believe have a direct impact on overall financial savings and investment that would need to be weighed against any non-financial investment (e.g. education) as well as any realistic savings in terms of all the existing social programs. Lots of reasons one might be a bit skeptical of that actually occurring. If we don't have a new gain socially from the UBI in terms of on-going investments then one might expect to see the pie starting to shrink over time and that would not be a good situation economically, socially, politically or culturally.