[FRIAM] unstated motivation for prediction across "phase transitions"

[uǝlƃ ☣]

I'd mostly recovered from the conversation on Friday morning (primed by the GDoc mentioning trading freedom for safety) by last night. Then this morning, I read the article below, with a thought experiment excerpted.

The "obvious" answer the author provides: "No, of course not" is preposterous to me. Not preposterous because he's wrong. *I* would not want that life. But I try not to extrapolate my own thoughts to predict the thoughts of others. It seems clear to me that many of us *do* want that life. That's why we clamor for the ability to predict across "phase transitions" ... neurosis personified. What percentage of people would opt for the life of a well-kept pet? I have no data. But my hunch, based on pop culture, is *most* of us want that life. I'm sure it's a spectrum. A little risk, like bungee jumping, is fun. Too much risk is harrowing. So the question boils down to infrastructure (a partly-designed landscape) wherein the risk profile of each individual can settle into a risk-profile region of the landscape. But there are 2 purposes in which to think of such a landscape: 1) to make the individuals "happy" (or comfortable, or whatever) versus 2) to make the most USE of that individual.

I'm told that evolution speeds up under stress. My guess is that many of us who *want* to live like well-kept pets might, in contrast, *perform* better if they live like wild animals. If that's not a reason to welcome the phase transition, I don't know what is. The trick is that old, privileged, white people like in the Zoom meeting (including me) will be privileged enough to *retain* our lifestyles as well-kept pets, leaving the burden of speedy evolution up to those of us unprivileged enough to be pushed into risk-prone regions of the landscape. The wild dogs will be doing all the evolutionary work while the pets reap all the benefits.

Against Dog Ownership
https://dormin.org/2020/03/21/against-dog-ownership/
> Imagine that you, a human, were kidnapped by aliens at birth and given an approximation of a dog’s life, and a good dog’s life at that. Ignore the subservience, dependence on a superior life form, and all the other psychological aspects of being owned and just focus on how you would feel about your material conditions.
> 
> You live in a big building that wasn’t designed for your body type nor size, but is comfortable, warm, and decently spacious. You’re given ample healthy food which tastes good, but you eat the same thing almost every day for months straight. Fortunately, you’re occasionally given cookies or brownies or whatever treat you like. Your alien owners give you little massages and talk to you in a friendly way even though you can’t understand them. Most of your time is spent in the big building, but 3-4 times per day you get to walk around outside the big alien world where you see other humans walking around too. Once per day, you go to a nice, open human field where you can play sports with other humans and maybe even make some friends. However, your balls or ovaries were removed when you were a baby, so you will never have sex, nor the desire to do so.
> 
> That is basically your life. You’re never in danger, you’re treated well, you get attention and fun (though not that much), and you’ll probably live into your 90s. Would you want this life?
> 
> No, of course not. ...


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ