Moloch：为什么所有人都痛恨这个系统，却没有人能终结它

艾伦·金斯堡关于摩洛克的著名诗作：

是什么水泥与铝制的斯芬克斯砸开了他们的头颅，吞噬了他们的大脑和想象力？

摩洛克！孤独！污秽！丑陋！垃圾桶和无法获得的美元！楼梯下尖叫的孩子！军队中啜泣的男孩！公园里哭泣的老人！

摩洛克！摩洛克！摩洛克的噩梦！无爱的摩洛克！精神的摩洛克！沉重审判人类的摩洛克！

摩洛克，不可理解的监狱！摩洛克，交叉白骨般无灵魂的牢狱与悲伤的国会！其建筑即审判的摩洛克！战争的巨大石块摩洛克！麻木的政府摩洛克！

摩洛克，其心智是纯粹的机器！摩洛克，其血液是流动的金钱！摩洛克，其手指是十支军队！摩洛克，其胸膛是食人的发电机！摩洛克，其耳朵是冒烟的坟墓！

摩洛克，其眼睛是一千扇失明的窗！摩洛克，其摩天楼像无尽的耶和华立在长街上！摩洛克，其工厂在雾中做梦并嘎嘎作响！摩洛克，其烟囱与天线为城市加冕！

摩洛克，其爱是无尽的石油与石头！摩洛克，其灵魂是电力与银行！摩洛克，其贫穷是天才的幽灵！摩洛克，其命运是一团无性的氢云！摩洛克，其名字叫心智！

摩洛克，我在其中孤独地坐着！摩洛克，我在其中梦见天使！在摩洛克中疯狂！在摩洛克中口交者！在摩洛克中缺爱且无男人！

摩洛克，早早进入我的灵魂！摩洛克，在其中我是无身体的意识！摩洛克，把我从自然的狂喜中吓走！摩洛克，我抛弃的摩洛克！在摩洛克中醒来！光从天空倾泻而出！

摩洛克！摩洛克！机器人公寓！隐形郊区！骷髅财政部！失明的首都！恶魔般的工业！幽灵般的国家！不可战胜的疯人院！花岗岩阳具！怪物般的炸弹！

他们折断脊背，把摩洛克举向天堂！人行道、树木、收音机、吨位！把这座城市举向天堂——那天堂存在着，并且就在我们周围无处不在！

异象！预兆！幻觉！奇迹！狂喜！都顺着美国之河流逝了！

梦！崇拜！启明！宗教！整船敏感的胡扯！

突破！越过河流！翻转与钉十字架！都顺着洪水流逝了！兴奋！神显！绝望！十年的兽性尖叫与自杀！心智！新爱！疯狂的一代！坠落在时间的礁石上！

河中真正神圣的笑声！他们看见了一切！那狂野的眼睛！那神圣的叫喊！他们告别了！他们从屋顶跳下！奔向孤独！挥手！携着鲜花！下到河边！进入街道！

这首诗始终令我印象深刻的一点，是它把文明设想成一个个体实体。你几乎可以看见他，拥有军队般的手指和摩天楼窗户般的眼睛。

许多评论者说，摩洛克代表资本主义。这肯定是其中一部分，甚至是很大一部分。但并不完全贴合。资本主义，其命运是一团无性的氢云？资本主义，在其中我是无身体的意识？资本主义，因此是花岗岩阳具？

摩洛克是作为一个问题的答案被引入的——C. S. 刘易斯在《哲学家等级》中提出的问题——是什么造成了这一切？地球本可以美好，所有人本可以快乐而智慧。相反，我们拥有监狱、烟囱、精神病院。是什么水泥与铝制的斯芬克斯砸开了他们的头颅，吞噬了他们的想象力？

而金斯堡回答：是摩洛克造成的。

《不谐原理》中有一段，马拉克利普斯向女神抱怨人类社会的邪恶。「每个人都在伤害彼此，星球上充斥着不公，整个社会掠夺自己的族群，母亲囚禁儿子，孩子们在兄弟交战时死去。」

女神回答说：「如果这就是你们想做的事，那有什么问题？」

马拉克利普斯：「但没人想要这样！每个人都痛恨它！」

女神：「哦。好吧，那就停下来。」

隐含的问题是——如果每个人都痛恨当前的系统，那么是谁在维系它？而金斯堡回答：「摩洛克」。这有力量，并不是因为它正确——没有人真的认为一个古代迦太基恶魔导致了一切——而是因为把这个系统想象成一个行动者，反而突出了这个系统在多大程度上并不是一个行动者。

博斯特罗姆顺口提到了一种「无独裁者的反乌托邦」的可能性：在其中，每一个公民，包括领导层在内，都憎恨这个制度，但它却仍然不可战胜地延续下去。想象这样一个国家并不难。设想一个国家有两条规则：第一，每个人每天必须花八个小时给自己施加强烈电击。第二，如果任何人未能遵守某条规则（包括这一条），或公开反对它，或未能执行它，所有公民都必须联合起来杀死这个人。假设这些规则已经通过传统确立得足够牢固，以至于人人都预期它们会被执行。

所以你每天电击自己八个小时，因为你知道如果你不这么做，其他所有人都会杀了你；因为如果他们不杀你，其他所有人就会杀了他们，如此循环。每一个公民都憎恨这个制度，但由于缺乏良好的协调机制，它便延续下来。从上帝视角看，我们可以把这个系统优化为「所有人同时同意停止这样做」，但身处系统内部的人没有谁能在不让自己承担巨大风险的情况下促成这种转变。

好吧，这个例子确实有点刻意。那么我们来过一遍——就说十个吧——现实世界中类似的多极陷阱例子，好真正强调这一点有多重要。

1. 囚徒困境（Prisoner's Dilemma），由两个非常愚蠢的自由意志主义者来玩，他们总是落到「背叛—背叛」的结果上。如果他们能弄清楚如何协调，本来会有一个好得多的结果，但协调是困难的。从上帝视角看，我们可以同意「合作—合作」比「背叛—背叛」是更好的结果，但系统内的任何一个囚徒都无法让它发生。

2. 美元拍卖（Dollar auctions）。我在《博弈论作为黑暗艺术》（Game Theory As A Dark Art）中写过这个，以及同一原则更为曲折的版本。利用一些奇怪的拍卖规则，你可以利用糟糕的协调，让某人花 10 美元买一张 1 美元钞票。从上帝视角看，人们显然不该为一张一美元钞票支付 10 美元。从系统内部看，每一个单独采取的步骤却可能都是理性的。

（烟灰桶和得不到的美元！）

3. 我在《非自由意志主义者常见问题 2.0》（Non-Libertarian FAQ 2.0）里讲过的鱼类养殖故事：

作为一个思想实验，让我们考虑一个湖中的水产养殖（鱼类养殖）。想象有一个湖，湖里有一千个完全相同的养鱼场，分别由一千家相互竞争的公司拥有。每个养鱼场每月赚取 1000 美元利润。有一段时间，一切都很好。

但每个养鱼场都会产生废物，污染湖水。我们假设每个养鱼场产生的污染足以使湖中的生产率每月下降 1 美元。

一千个养鱼场产生的废物足以使生产率每月下降 1000 美元，这意味着没有任何养鱼场能赚钱。资本主义前来救场：有人发明了一套复杂的过滤系统，可以清除废物。运行它每月要花 300 美元。所有养鱼场都自愿安装了它，污染结束了，养鱼场现在每月盈利 700 美元——仍然是一笔可观的数目。

但有一个养殖户（我们叫他史蒂夫吧）厌倦了花钱运行他的过滤器。现在，一个养鱼场份额的废物正在污染湖水，使生产率下降 1 美元。史蒂夫赚取 999 美元利润，其他所有人赚取 699 美元利润。

其他所有人都看到史蒂夫比他们赚钱多得多，因为他没有把钱花在过滤器的维护成本上。于是他们也断开了自己的过滤器。

一旦有四百个人断开过滤器，史蒂夫每月就只赚 600 美元——比他和其他所有人都继续开着过滤器时还少！而那些可怜的、有德行的过滤器使用者只赚 300 美元。史蒂夫到处对大家说：「等等！我们都需要自愿签订一项使用过滤器的协议！否则，所有人的生产率都会下降。」

所有人都同意他的说法，并且都签署了《过滤器协议》，除了一个有点混蛋的人。我们叫他迈克吧。现在所有人又重新使用过滤器了，除了迈克。迈克每月赚 999 美元，其他所有人每月赚 699 美元。慢慢地，人们开始觉得自己也应该像迈克一样赚大钱，于是断开过滤器以多获得 300 美元利润……

一个自利的人永远没有任何使用过滤器的激励。一个自利的人有一定激励签署一项让所有人都使用过滤器的协议，但在许多情况下，他有更强的激励去等其他所有人签署这样一项协议，而自己选择退出。这可能导致一种不受欢迎的均衡：没有人会签署这样的协议。

我越是思考，就越觉得这正是我反对自由意志主义的核心理由，而《非自由意志主义者常见问题 3.0》将只会是把这一个例子复制粘贴两百遍。从上帝视角看，我们可以说污染湖泊会导致坏结果。从系统内部看，没有任何个人能够阻止湖泊被污染，而购买过滤器也未必是个好主意。

4. 马尔萨斯陷阱，至少是在其极其纯粹的理论极限下。假设你是最早被引入一座原始岛屿的老鼠之一。岛上满是美味的植物，你过着田园诗般的生活，整日悠闲地躺着、吃东西，并创作伟大的艺术作品（你是《尼姆的老鼠》里的那种老鼠）。

你活了很久，交配，并生下了十二个孩子。他们每个又都生下十二个孩子，如此往复。几代之后，岛上有了一万只老鼠，并达到了其承载能力。现在食物和空间都不够分了，于是每一代中都会有一定比例的老鼠死去，以便把种群数量稳定在一万只。

某个老鼠教派放弃了艺术，以便把更多时间用于搜寻资源以求生存。每一代中，这个教派死去的成员比例都比主流老鼠少一点，直到过了一段时间后，再也没有老鼠创作任何艺术；而任何试图把艺术带回来的老鼠教派，都会在几代之内灭绝。

事实上，不只是艺术。任何一个比主流更精瘦、更凶狠、更偏向生存主义的教派，最终都会接管一切。如果某个老鼠教派出于利他主义决定将后代限制为每对伴侣两只，以减少过度拥挤，那么这个教派就会灭绝，被数量更多的敌人淹没而不复存在。如果某个老鼠教派开始实行同类相食，并发现这使它们相较同伴具有优势，那么它最终会接管一切，并达到固定状态。

如果某些老鼠科学家预测，岛上坚果储备的消耗正在以危险的速度加快，并且很快就会被彻底耗尽，那么少数几个老鼠教派也许会尝试把自己的坚果消费限制在可持续水平。那些老鼠会被它们更自私的表亲竞争淘汰。最终，坚果会被耗尽，大多数老鼠会死掉，循环将重新开始。任何倡导采取某种行动来阻止这一循环的老鼠教派，都会被它们的表亲竞争淘汰；对后者来说，倡导任何事情都是浪费时间，而这些时间本可用于竞争和消费。

出于许多原因，进化并不像理想情形中那样完全马尔萨斯式，但它提供了一个原型范例，我们可以把它应用到其他事物上，以观察其底层机制。从上帝视角来看，很容易说老鼠应该维持一个舒适的低种群数量。但从系统内部来看，每一只个体老鼠都会遵循其基因指令，而这座岛最终将陷入无休止的繁荣—崩溃循环。

5. 资本主义。想象一位身处残酷行业中的资本家。他雇用工人在血汗工厂里缝制衣服，然后以最低利润出售。也许他想给工人更高的工资，或给他们更好的工作条件。但他不能这样做，因为那会提高其产品价格，于是他会被价格更低的竞争对手击败并破产。也许他的许多竞争对手都是好人，也想给工人更高的工资，但除非他们拥有某种铁一般的保证，确保其中没有任何人会通过压低价格来背叛，否则他们就做不到。

就像老鼠逐渐失去除纯粹竞争之外的一切价值一样，在一个竞争足够激烈的经济环境中，公司也被迫放弃除利润优化之外的一切价值，否则就会被那些更善于优化利润、因而能够以更低价格出售同样服务的公司竞争淘汰。

（我不太确定人们在多大程度上认识到把资本主义类比为进化的价值。适者公司——定义为那些能让顾客想从它们那里购买的公司——生存、扩张，并激发未来的努力；不适者公司——定义为那些无人想从其购买的公司——则破产并消亡，连同它们的公司 DNA 一起退出舞台。自然界之所以血腥残酷、弱肉强食，正是市场之所以无情而剥削性的同样原因。）

从上帝视角来看，我们可以构想出一个友善的行业，其中每家公司都给工人支付维持生计的工资。从系统内部来看，没有办法把它付诸实行。

（摩洛克，其爱是无尽的油与石！摩洛克，其血液流淌着金钱！）

6. 双收入陷阱，正如本博客最近讨论过的那样。它的理论认为，在优质学区郊区住房上的竞争足够激烈，意味着人们不得不抛弃许多其他价值——与孩子在家相处的时间、财务安全——转而优化购房能力，否则就会被发配到贫民区。

从上帝视角来看，如果每个人都同意不再找第二份工作来帮助自己赢得优质住房竞争，那么每个人最终得到的房子会和以前一样好，但只需要做一份工作。从系统内部来看，除非政府真的愿意禁止第二份工作，否则每个不去找第二份工作的人都会被甩在后面。

(机器人公寓！隐形郊区！)

7. 农业。贾雷德·戴蒙德称其为人类历史上最糟糕的错误。无论它是不是一个错误，它都不是一个偶然——农业文明只是胜过了游牧文明，这是不可避免且不可抗拒的。典型的马尔萨斯陷阱。也许狩猎采集更令人愉快、预期寿命更高，也更有助于人类繁荣——但在族群之间足够激烈的竞争状态下，农业尽管伴随着疾病、压迫和瘟疫，却是更具竞争力的选择；最终所有人都会成为农业者，否则就会走上科曼奇印第安人的道路。

从上帝视角来看，很容易看出所有人都应该保留更令人愉快的选择，继续做狩猎采集者。从系统内部来看，每个单独的部落只面临一个选择：转向农业，或不可避免地灭亡。

8. 军备竞赛。大国可以把预算的 5% 到 30% 花在国防上。在没有战争的情况下——过去五十年基本上一直如此——这一切所做的只是把资金从基础设施、医疗、教育或经济增长中抽走。但任何未能在国防上投入足够资金的国家，都有被确实投入了足够资金的邻国入侵的风险。因此，几乎所有国家都会努力在国防上花一些钱。

从上帝视角来看，最佳解决方案是世界和平，且没有任何国家拥有军队。从系统内部来看，没有哪个国家能单方面强制实现这一点，所以它们最好的选择就是继续把钱砸进那些躺在发射井里从未使用的导弹中。

(摩洛克，战争的巨大石像！摩洛克，其手指是十支军队！)

9. 癌症。人体本应由和谐共处的细胞组成，它们汇集资源，为整个机体的更大利益服务。如果一个细胞背离这种均衡，把自身资源投入到复制自己上，那么它及其后代就会繁荣起来，最终胜过所有其他细胞并接管身体——到那时它也会死亡。或者这种情况可能会重复发生：某些癌细胞背叛肿瘤的其余部分，从而减缓其生长，并导致肿瘤停滞。

从上帝视角来看，最佳解决方案是所有细胞相互合作，这样它们就不会全部死亡。从系统内部来看，癌细胞会增殖并胜过其他细胞——因此，只有免疫系统的存在，才使得转变为癌细胞的自然激励受到约束。

10. 「逐底竞争」（race to the bottom）描述的是一种政治情境：一些司法辖区通过承诺更低的税收和更少的监管来吸引企业。最终结果是，要么所有人都以竞争力为目标进行优化——拥有最低限度的税率和监管——要么他们把所有企业、收入和工作岗位都输给那些这么做的人（到那时，他们会被赶下台，并由一个更愿意顺从的政府取代）。

但即便最后一个例子窃取了这个名称，所有这些情景事实上都是逐底竞争。一旦某个行动者学会了如何通过牺牲某种共同价值来提升竞争力，它的所有竞争者也都必须牺牲这种价值，否则就会被淘汰，并被更不讲原则者取代。因此，系统很可能最终让所有人再次拥有同等竞争力，但被牺牲的价值却永远消失了。从上帝视角来看，竞争者知道如果他们背叛，所有人都会变得更糟；但从系统内部来看，在协调不足的情况下，这是不可能避免的。

在继续之前，还有一种略有不同的多主体陷阱值得考察。在这种陷阱中，竞争受到某种外部力量的遏制——通常是社会污名。因此，实际上并不存在逐底竞争——系统可以继续在相对较高的水平上运转——但优化变得不可能，资源也不断被毫无理由地浪费掉。为了免得我们还没开始你就已经筋疲力尽，我在这里只举四个例子。

11. 教育。在我关于反动哲学的文章中，我谈到过自己对教育改革的挫败感：

人们会问，为什么我们不能改革教育体系。但眼下，学生的激励是去他们能考上的最有声望的大学，好让雇主愿意雇用他们——不管他们是否真的学到了东西。雇主的激励是从他们能找到的最有声望的大学里招学生，这样一旦出了问题，他们就能向老板为自己的决定辩护——不管那所大学是否提供了增值。大学的激励则是采取一切手段来获得更高声望，而这种声望以 US News and World Report（《美国新闻与世界报道》）排名来衡量——不管这是否有助于学生。这会导致巨大的浪费和糟糕的教育吗？会。教育之神能否注意到这一点，并颁布一些教育法令，带来一个效率高得多的体系？轻而易举！但由于并不存在教育之神，每个人都只会遵循自己的激励，而这些激励只是在一定程度上与教育或效率相关。

从上帝视角来看，很容易说出这样的话：「学生只有在认为自己能从大学中有所收获时才应该上大学，雇主应该根据申请人的能力而不是他们上过哪所大学来招聘。」但在体系内部，每个人都已经在正确地遵循自己的激励，所以除非激励发生改变，否则体系也不会改变。

12. 科学。同一篇文章：

现代研究共同体知道他们并没有产出他们本可以产出的最佳科学成果。存在大量发表偏倚，统计方法由于纯粹的惯性而以令人困惑且误导的方式被使用，重复实验往往很晚才进行，甚至根本不进行。有时有人会说：「我真不敢相信人们蠢到连科学都修不好。我们只需要要求研究提前注册，以避免发表偏倚；把这种新的、强大的统计技术变成新标准；并给予做重复实验的科学家更高地位。这会非常简单，而且会极大促进科学进步。我肯定只是比所有现有科学家都更聪明，因为我能想到这一点，而他们想不到。」

是的。对于科学之神来说，这确实会奏效。他只要颁布一条科学法令，规定每个人都必须使用正确的统计方法，再颁布另一条科学法令，规定每个人都必须给予重复实验更高地位。

但从上帝视角看可行的事情，在体系内部并不可行。没有哪个单个科学家有激励单方面在自己的研究中改用新的统计技术，因为这会让她的研究更不可能产生震撼世界的结果，而且还会让其他所有科学家感到困惑。她们只是有激励希望其他所有人都这么做；到了那时，她们才会跟进。也没有哪个单个期刊有激励单方面转向提前注册并发表阴性结果，因为这只意味着它们的结果会不如另一本只发表突破性发现的期刊那么有趣。在体系内部，每个人都在遵循自己的激励，并且会继续如此。

13. 政府腐败。我不知道有谁真正以原则性的方式认为企业福利是个好主意。但政府仍然设法每年在这上面花掉大约（取决于你如何计算）1000 亿美元——举例来说，这是他们用于贫困人群医疗保健支出的三倍。所有熟悉这个问题的人都提出了同一个简单解决方案：别再发放这么多企业福利。为什么没有实现？

政府官员彼此竞争，以求当选或升迁。假设提高可选举性的一部分，就是优化来自企业的竞选捐款——或者也许事实并非如此，但官员们认为是这样。试图动企业福利的官员可能会失去企业支持，并被那些承诺维持其不变的官员击败。

所以，尽管从上帝视角来看，所有人都知道取消企业福利是最佳解决方案，但每个个体官员的个人激励都会推动她维持它。

14. 国会。只有 9% 的美国人喜欢它，这表明它的支持率比蟑螂、头虱或交通堵塞还低。然而，在知道自己国会议员是谁的人中，有 62% 认可他们。理论上，一个民主选举产生的机构若能在超过一个选举周期内维持 9% 的支持率，应该是极其困难的。实践中，每位代表的激励都是讨好自己的选区，同时把全国其他地区置于不顾——而他们显然在这件事上做得很成功。

从上帝视角来看，每位国会议员都应当只考虑国家利益。在体系内部，你会做能让你当选的事。

II.

一个基本原则将上述所有多极陷阱统一起来。在某种以优化 X 为目标的竞争中，会出现这样一种机会：为了提升 X，把其他某种价值牺牲掉。采取这种做法的人会兴旺发达。不采取的人会被淘汰。最终，每个人的相对地位都和以前差不多，但每个人的绝对地位都比以前更糟。这个过程会一直持续，直到所有可以被权衡牺牲的其他价值都已经被牺牲——换句话说，直到人类的聪明才智再也想不出任何办法把事情弄得更糟为止。

在足够激烈的竞争中（1-10），任何不把自己所有价值都牺牲掉的人都会被淘汰——想想那些不肯停止创作艺术的可怜老鼠。这就是臭名昭著的马尔萨斯陷阱（Malthusian trap），在其中每个人都被压低到「勉强糊口」的水平。

在不够激烈的竞争中（11-14），我们看到的只是某种反常的优化失败——想想那些无法转向更可靠科学的期刊，或者那些无法统一行动、取消企业福利的立法者。它也许不会把人们压低到勉强糊口的地步，但从某种奇怪的意义上说，它剥夺了他们的自由意志。

每个不入流的作者和哲学家都得写出自己的乌托邦。他们中的大多数其实相当不错。事实上，一个相当可靠的判断是：两个立场截然相反的乌托邦，听起来都比我们自己的世界更好。

随便哪个无名小卒都能想出比我们实际生活的世界更好的状态，这多少有点令人尴尬。而事实上，他们大多数并不能做到。很多乌托邦把困难问题扫到地毯下面，或者如果真的实施，十分钟内就会崩溃。

但请允许我提出几个没有这个问题的「乌托邦」。

– 这样一个乌托邦：政府不是支付大量企业福利，而是不支付大量企业福利。

– 这样一个乌托邦：每个国家的军队规模都比今天小 50%，省下来的钱用于基础设施支出。

– 这样一个乌托邦：所有医院都使用同一个电子病历系统，或者至少使用能够彼此通信的病历系统，这样医生就可以查到你上周在另一家医院看病时那位医生的判断，而不是再把所有相同的检查重新做一遍、花掉 5000 美元。

我不认为有太多人会反对这些乌托邦中的任何一个。如果它们没有实现，并不是因为人们不支持它们。当然也不是因为没人想到过它们，因为我刚才就想到了它们，而我也不指望我的「发现」会被誉为特别新颖或能改变世界。

任何智商高于室温的人类都能设计出一个乌托邦。我们当前的体系之所以不是乌托邦，是因为它并不是由人类设计的。就像你可以看着一片干旱地形，通过假设水会服从重力来判断一条河流将来会呈现什么形状一样，你也可以看着一个文明，通过假设人们会服从激励来判断它的制度将来会呈现什么形状。

但这意味着，正如河流的形状并不是为了美观或航运而设计的，而是随机决定的地形所产生的结果一样，制度也不是为了繁荣或正义而设计的，而是随机决定的初始条件所产生的结果。

正如人们可以平整地形、修建运河一样，人们也可以改变激励景观，从而建立更好的制度。但他们只有在有激励这样做的时候才能这样做，而这种情况并不总是存在。结果就是，一些相当狂野的支流和急流会在一些非常奇怪的地方形成。

我现在要从无聊的博弈论内容跳到可能是我有生以来最接近神秘体验的一件事。

像所有美好的神秘体验一样，它发生在拉斯维加斯。我站在他们众多高楼中的一栋楼顶，俯瞰下面的城市，整座城市在黑暗中灯火通明。如果你从未去过拉斯维加斯，那它真的非常令人震撼。各种奇异而美丽的摩天楼和灯光聚集在一起。而我当时有两个想法，清晰得像水晶一样：

我们能够创造出这样的东西，这很光荣。

我们确实创造出了这样的东西，这很可耻。

比如说，按照什么标准来看，在北美最不适宜居住的沙漠中央，把威尼斯、巴黎、罗马、埃及和卡美洛的巨大四十层楼高室内复制品并排建在一起，里面还塞满白化老虎，会是对我们文明有限资源哪怕稍微算得上理性的使用？

然后我想到，也许地球上没有任何一种哲学会认可拉斯维加斯的存在。即使是客观主义（Objectivism）——通常我会用它来为资本主义的过度行为辩护——至少也是以资本主义改善人们生活这一信念为基础的。亨利·福特是有德性的，因为他让很多原本没有车的人能够拥有汽车，从而使他们过得更好。拉斯维加斯做了什么？向一群傻瓜承诺免费的钱，然后不给他们。

拉斯维加斯的存在，并不是因为有人决定要对文明进行享乐主义式的优化；它的存在，是因为多巴胺能奖赏回路中的一个怪癖，加上不均衡监管环境的微观结构，再加上谢林点（Schelling points）。一个拥有上帝视角的理性中央规划者，在思考这些事实时，或许会想：「嗯，多巴胺能奖赏回路有个怪癖：某些风险—收益比略为负面的任务，会获得一种与略为正面的风险—收益比相关联的情感效价；我们看看能不能教育人们对此保持警惕。」而系统内部的人，遵循这些事实所创造的激励，则会想：「我们在沙漠中央建一座四十层楼高、塞满白化老虎的古罗马室内复制品吧，这样就能比那些没这么做的人稍微更富一点！」

正如一条河流的走向，在第一场雨落到地形上之前，就已经潜伏在地势之中——凯撒宫的存在，也早在它真正出现之前，就已经潜伏在神经生物学、经济学和监管制度之中了。建造它的企业家，不过是在用真正的混凝土，把那些幽灵般的线条填实而已。

于是，我们拥有所有这些惊人的技术与认知能量，拥有作为人类物种的才智，却把它们浪费在背诵那些由进化拙劣的细胞受体和盲目的经济学写下的台词上，就像诸神被一个蠢货使唤来使唤去。

有些人有过神秘体验，并看见了上帝。而在那里，在拉斯维加斯，我看见了摩洛克。

（摩洛克，其心智是纯粹的机器！摩洛克，其血液流淌着金钱！

摩洛克，其灵魂是电力与银行！摩洛克，其摩天大楼矗立在长街之中，如无尽的耶和华！

摩洛克！摩洛克！机器人公寓！隐形郊区！骷髅金库！盲目的首都！恶魔般的工业！幽灵般的国家！）

……花岗岩阳具！

III.

《Discordia 伪经》说：

时间像河流一样流动。也就是说，向下流。我们之所以知道这一点，是因为一切都在迅速走下坡路。等我们抵达大海时，最好已经在别的地方，这似乎会比较审慎。

让我们把这个随口的笑话百分之百按字面意思来理解，看看它会把我们带到哪里。

我们刚刚把激励的流动类比为河流的流动。向下的轨迹是恰当的：陷阱发生在你发现有机会用一种有用的价值，去交换更强的竞争力时。一旦人人都拥有了它，更强的竞争力就不会给你带来任何快乐——但那种价值却永远失去了。因此，「糟糕协调波尔卡」的每一步，都会让你的生活变得更糟。

但我们不仅还没有抵达大海，而且似乎还出奇地经常在上坡。为什么事情没有越来越退化，直到我们回到维持生存的水平？我能想到三个糟糕的理由——过剩资源、物理限制和效用最大化——再加上一个好的理由——协调。

1. 过剩资源。海洋深处是个可怕的地方，光线微弱，资源稀少，还有各种可怕的生物致力于彼此捕食或寄生。但每隔一段时间，就会有一具鲸鱼尸体沉到海底。食物多到发现它的生物根本不可能吃完。会有一小段奇迹般丰饶的时期，最先遇到这头鲸鱼的几只生物像国王一样大快朵颐。最终，更多动物发现了尸体，尸体中繁殖更快的动物大量增殖，鲸鱼被逐渐消耗殆尽，所有人叹了口气，又回到马尔萨斯式死亡陷阱的生活中去。

（Slate Star Codex：自 2014 年 6 月以来，你获取阴森鲸鱼隐喻的来源）

这就好像一群已经放弃艺术、转向同类相食的老鼠，突然被吹到了一座新的空岛上，那里有高得多的承载能力，于是它们再一次拥有了喘息空间，可以和平生活，并创造艺术杰作。

这是一个鲸落的时代，一个承载能力过剩的时代，一个我们突然发现自己领先马尔萨斯一千英里的时代。正如汉森所说，这是梦之时代。

只要资源还没有稀缺到把我们锁进一场所有人对所有人的战争之中，我们就可以做一些愚蠢而非最优的事情——比如艺术、音乐、哲学和爱——而且大多数时候不会被无情的杀戮机器淘汰。

2. 身体限制。想象一个以利润最大化为目标的奴隶主，决定通过不给奴隶饭吃、不让他们睡觉来削减成本。他很快就会发现，奴隶的生产力会急剧下降，而且无论怎样鞭打他们都无法恢复。最终，在测试了许多策略之后，他可能会发现，当奴隶吃得好、休息充分，并且至少有一点放松时间时，他们完成的工作最多。这并不是因为奴隶在自愿保留自己的劳动——我们假设对惩罚的恐惧足以让他们尽其所能地工作——而是因为身体存在某些物理限制，限制了你能多么残酷而仍然不付出代价。因此，「逐底竞争」会在到达真正的伦理底线之前的某处停止，也就是撞上身体极限的时候。

奴隶制历史学家约翰·莫斯（John Moes）更进一步，论述了我们最熟悉的奴隶制——美国南北战争前南方的奴隶制——其实是历史上的异常现象，而且很可能在经济上效率低下。在过去大多数形式的奴隶制中——尤其是古代世界的奴隶制——奴隶领取工资、受到良好对待，并且常常获得自由，都是很常见的。

他认为，这是理性经济计算的结果。你可以通过胡萝卜或大棒来激励奴隶，而大棒并不怎么好用。你不可能一直看着奴隶，而且很难判断一个奴隶到底有没有偷懒（甚至很难判断，如果再多鞭打一点，他是否还能工作得更卖力）。如果你希望奴隶做比摘棉花更复杂的事情，就会遇到严重的监督问题——你如何从一个被奴役的哲学家身上获利？狠狠鞭打他，直到他阐明一种关于「善」（The Good）的理论，然后你可以靠它出书赚钱？

古代对这个问题的解决方案——也许是 Fnargl 的早期灵感来源——是告诉奴隶去做任何他想做、并且认为最有利可图的事情，然后与你分成。有时候，奴隶会在你的作坊里工作，而你根据他的表现向他支付工资。另一些时候，奴隶会离开，自己在世上谋生，然后把收入的一部分寄给你。还有一些时候，你会为奴隶的自由设定一个价格，奴隶则会去工作，最终凑够钱并为自己赎身。

莫斯更进一步说，这些制度利润如此丰厚，以至于在美国南方，一直都有隐隐约约的尝试，想要做类似的事情。他们之所以坚持鞭子加锁链的方法，与其说是出于经济考虑，不如说是因为种族主义政府官员打压那些有利可图、但并不完全促进白人至上主义的释放奴隶并让他们经商的尝试。

所以在这个例子中，彼此竞争的种植园为了最大化竞争力而对奴隶越来越残酷的逐底竞争，会被这样一个身体限制所阻止：残酷到某个程度之后就不再有帮助了。

或者再举一个例子，我们现在没有陷入马尔萨斯式人口爆炸的原因之一，是女性每九个月只能生一个孩子。如果那些要求成员尽可能多生孩子的古怪宗教派别能够复制粘贴自己，我们的处境会变得非常糟糕。实际情况是，他们每一代只能造成少量损害。

3. 效用最大化。我们一直在以保留价值与赢得竞争这两者之间的关系来思考，并预期优化后者会摧毁前者。

但现代文明中许多最重要的竞争 / 优化过程，本身就是在优化人类价值。你在资本主义中获胜，部分是通过满足顾客的价值。你在民主政治中获胜，部分是通过满足选民的价值。

假设埃塞俄比亚某处有一个咖啡种植园，雇用埃塞俄比亚人种植咖啡豆，然后把咖啡豆卖到美国。也许它正与其他咖啡种植园陷入生死存亡的竞争，并且想要把尽可能多的价值牺牲掉，以获得一点点优势。

但它不能过度牺牲所生产咖啡的质量，否则美国人就不会购买。它也不能过度牺牲工资或工作条件，否则埃塞俄比亚人就不会在那里工作。事实上，它的竞争—优化过程的一部分，就是在不花费太多钱的前提下，尽可能找到吸引工人和顾客的最佳方式。所以这非常有希望。

但重要的是要准确记住，这种有益的均衡有多么脆弱。

假设咖啡种植园发现了一种有毒农药，它会提高产量，但会让顾客生病。然而顾客并不知道这种农药，政府也还没有来得及对其进行监管。现在，「向美国人销售」和「满足美国人的价值」之间出现了一点点脱钩，于是美国人的价值当然就被牺牲掉了。

或者设想埃塞俄比亚出现了婴儿潮，突然之间每个岗位都有五名工人在竞争。现在公司就能压低工资，并把残酷的工作条件推行到生理极限所允许的程度。一旦「让埃塞俄比亚人在这里工作」和「满足埃塞俄比亚人的价值」之间出现脱钩，埃塞俄比亚人的价值看起来也不会有什么好下场。

或者设想有人发明了一种机器人，采摘咖啡比人类更好、更便宜。公司解雇所有劳工，把他们扔到街上等死。一旦埃塞俄比亚人的效用不再是利润所必需的，所有维持这种效用的压力就都会消失。

或者设想存在某种重要价值，它既不是员工的价值，也不是顾客的价值。也许咖啡种植园位于某种稀有热带鸟类的栖息地上，环保组织想要保护这种鸟。也许它们位于某个部落的祖先墓地上，而这个部落不同于种植园雇用的那个部落，他们希望这里以某种方式受到尊重。也许咖啡种植会以某种方式助长全球变暖。只要这不是一种会阻止普通美国人购买其产品，或阻止普通埃塞俄比亚人为其工作的价值，它就会被牺牲掉。

我知道，「资本家有时会做坏事」并不是什么新颖的论点。但我确实想强调，它并不等同于「资本家很贪婪」。我的意思是，有时他们确实贪婪。但在其他时候，他们只是处在一种足够激烈的竞争之中，任何不这么做的人都会被那些这么做的人击败并取代。商业实践是由摩洛克（Moloch）设定的，在这件事上没有其他任何人有选择余地。

（以我对马克思极其有限的了解，他非常非常明白这一点，而那些把他概括为「资本家很贪婪」的人，是在曲解他）

资本主义的例子虽然已经被充分理解，但我认为，人们较少意识到民主也有同样的问题。是的，从理论上说，民主是在为选民幸福进行优化，而选民幸福与良好政策制定相关。但只要良好政策制定和可当选性之间出现哪怕最轻微的脱节，良好政策制定就必须被牺牲掉。

例如，不断延长的刑期对囚犯不公平，对不得不为此买单的社会也不公平。政客们不愿意对此采取任何措施，因为他们不想显得「对犯罪软弱」；而如果他们帮助释放的某个囚犯后来做了什么坏事（从统计上说，其中总会有一个人会这样），那就会充斥各大媒体：「由国会议员政策释放的罪犯杀害五口之家，这位国会议员晚上怎么还能睡得着，更别说声称自己值得连任了？」所以，即便减少监狱人口会是好的政策——而它确实是——实施起来也会非常困难。

（不可理解的监狱摩洛克！交叉白骨、没有灵魂的牢房与悲伤国会的摩洛克！其建筑即审判的摩洛克！被震懵的政府之摩洛克！）

把「满足顾客」和「满足公民」变成优化过程的输出，是文明最伟大的进步之一，也是资本主义民主制如此胜过其他制度的原因。但如果我们把摩洛克束缚为仆人，这些束缚并不十分牢固，而我们有时会发现，他为我们完成的任务转而有利于他，而不是有利于我们。

4. 协调。

陷阱的反面是花园。

从上帝视角看，问题很容易解决，所以如果所有人聚合成一个超有机体，这个超有机体就能轻松而巧妙地解决问题。主体之间的激烈竞争已经变成了一座花园，由一位园丁独自决定一切应当归于何处，并移除不符合图案的元素。

正如我在《非自由意志主义者常见问题》（Non-Libertarian FAQ）中指出的，政府可以很容易地用养鱼场解决污染问题。囚徒困境（Prisoners『 Dilemma）最著名的解决方案，是由黑帮老大（扮演治理者的角色）威胁说会枪毙任何背叛的囚徒。对公司污染环境、伤害工人的解决办法，是由政府出台反对此类行为的法规。政府通过维持对武力使用的垄断，解决一国内部的军备竞赛；而且很容易看出，如果某个真正有效的世界政府曾经出现，国际军事扩张会很快结束。

政府的两种有效成分是法律加暴力——或者更抽象地说，是协议加执行机制。除了政府之外，许多其他事物也共享这两种有效成分，因此能够充当协调机制，以避免陷阱。

例如，由于学生彼此竞争（如果课程按曲线评分，就是直接竞争；但在大学录取、就业等方面，则始终是间接竞争），个别学生会面临很强的作弊压力。教师和学校通过制定规则（例如禁止作弊）以及惩罚违反规则的学生的能力，扮演着政府的角色。

但学生自身涌现出的社会结构也是一种政府。如果学生排斥并不信任作弊者，那么就有了规则（不要作弊）和执行机制（否则我们就会排斥你）。

社会规范、君子协定、行业公会、犯罪组织、传统、友谊、学校、公司和宗教，都是协调性制度；它们通过改变我们的激励，使我们避免落入陷阱。

但这些制度不仅会激励他人，它们自身也受到激励。这些是由许多人组成的大型组织，而这些人也在竞争职位、地位、声望等等——没有理由认为它们会免于和其他所有人一样的多极陷阱；事实上它们也并不能免疫。理论上，政府可以让公司、公民等避免落入某些陷阱，但正如我们上面所见，政府自身也可能落入许多陷阱。

美国试图通过多层级政府、不可破坏的宪法性法律、不同部门之间的制衡，以及另外一些技巧来解决这个问题。

沙特阿拉伯采用了不同的策略。他们只是让一个人掌管一切。

这就是支持君主制的那个备受诋毁的论点——我认为这种诋毁并不公平。君主是一个不受激励驱动的激励者。他确实拥有上帝视角，并且处于每一个系统之外、之上。他已经永久赢得了所有竞争，不再为任何东西竞争，因此他完全摆脱了 Moloch（摩洛克）以及那些本会把他的激励引向预定路径的激励。除了一些非常理论化的提案，比如我的 Shining Garden（闪耀花园）之外，君主制是唯一能做到这一点的制度。

但这样一来，我们追随的就不是某种随机的激励结构，而是某个人的一时兴起。Caesar's Palace Hotel and Casino（凯撒宫酒店赌场）是对资源的疯狂浪费，但真正的 Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus（盖乌斯·尤利乌斯·凯撒·奥古斯都·日耳曼尼库斯）也并不是什么完美仁慈且理性的中央规划者。

政治罗盘上的自由意志主义—威权主义轴线，是失调与暴政之间的权衡。你可以让一切都由某个拥有上帝视角的人来完美协调——但那样你就冒着出现斯大林的风险。你也可以完全摆脱所有中央权威——但那样你就会被困在 Moloch 能设计出的每一个愚蠢的多极陷阱里。

自由意志主义者为其中一方提出了有说服力的论证，君主主义者则为另一方提出了有说服力的论证；但我预计，就像大多数权衡一样，我们只能捏着鼻子承认：这确实是个非常困难的问题。

IV.

让我们回到那段 Apocrypha Discordia 的引文：

时间像河流一样流动。也就是说，向下流。我们之所以知道这一点，是因为一切都在迅速走下坡路。等我们抵达大海时，待在别处似乎会更明智。

在这种情况下，抵达大海意味着什么？

多极陷阱——逐底竞争——威胁着要摧毁所有人类价值。它们目前受到物理限制、过剩资源、效用最大化和协调的约束。

这条隐喻之河流动的维度必然是时间，而人类文明随时间发生的最重要变化是技术的变化。因此，相关的问题是：技术变化将如何影响我们落入多极陷阱的倾向。

我曾这样描述陷阱：

……在某种以 X 为优化目标的竞争中，出现了把某些其他价值牺牲掉以提升 X 的机会。抓住这个机会的人繁荣起来。不抓住的人被淘汰。最终，所有人的相对地位和之前差不多，但所有人的绝对地位都比之前更糟。这个过程会一直持续，直到所有可以被拿来交换的其他价值都已经被交换掉——换句话说，直到人类的聪明才智再也想不出任何让事情变得更糟的办法为止。

那个「出现了机会」的说法看起来相当凶险。技术的本质就是创造新的机会。

开发出一种新机器人，咖啡种植园突然就有了「机会」将采收自动化，并解雇所有埃塞俄比亚工人。开发出核武器，各国突然就陷入了军备竞赛，必须拥有足够多的核武器。在蒸汽机发明之前，为了更快制造产品而污染大气并不是一个问题。

当技术趋近于无穷时，多极陷阱的极限是「非常糟糕」。

多极陷阱目前受到物理限制、过剩资源、效用最大化和协调的约束。

身体限制最明显地会被不断发展的技术所征服。奴隶主的老难题——奴隶需要吃饭和睡觉——会败给 Soylent（代餐饮品）和莫达非尼（modafinil）。奴隶逃跑的问题会败给 GPS。奴隶压力太大以至于无法好好干活的问题会败给安定（Valium）。这些东西对奴隶来说都不是什么好事。

（或者干脆发明一种完全不需要食物或睡眠的机器人。之后奴隶会怎样，还是不说为好）

身体限制的另一个例子是每九个月只能生一个孩子，而这其实还低估了问题——真正的限制是「每九个月一个孩子，再加上愿意抚养并照料一个基本上无助且需求极高的人类十八年」。这会给哪怕最狂热宗教教派「生养众多」的训令也泼上一盆冷水。

但正如 Bostrom 在 Superintelligence（《超级智能》）中所说：

如果我们从更长远的角度看，并假设技术保持不变、繁荣持续存在，那么有理由预期，世界人口会回到历史上和生态上正常的状态：人口规模会逼近我们这个生态位所能承载的极限。如果考虑到我们目前在全球范围内观察到的财富与生育率之间的负相关关系，这一点显得反直觉，那么我们必须提醒自己，现代时代只是历史中的短暂一瞬，而且非常异常。人类行为尚未适应当代条件。我们不仅没有利用一些显而易见的方式来增加我们的广义适合度（inclusive fitness，例如成为精子或卵子捐献者），反而还通过避孕主动破坏自己的生育能力。在进化适应环境中，健康的性欲或许已足以让个体以最大化其生殖潜力的方式行动；然而在现代环境中，更直接地渴望成为尽可能多孩子的生物学父母，将会带来巨大的选择优势。这种欲望目前正在被选择出来，其他会增加我们繁殖倾向的特质也是如此。不过，文化适应可能会抢在生物进化之前。某些社群，例如哈特派（Hutterites）或 Quiverfull 福音派运动的信徒，拥有鼓励大家庭的生育主义文化，因此正在快速扩张……这种较长期的前景可能会因智能爆炸而被压缩成更迫近的前景。由于软件可以复制，仿真体或 AI 的人口可能会迅速翻倍——以分钟为单位，而不是以几十年或几个世纪为单位——很快耗尽所有可用硬件

一如既往，当你面对高阶超人类主义者时，「所有可用硬件」应当被理解为包括「过去曾是你身体一部分的那些原子」。

生物或文化进化导致大规模人口爆炸的想法，充其量只是一个哲学玩具。技术使之成为可能的想法，则既可信又可怕。现在我们看到，「身体限制」非常自然地过渡到了「过剩资源」——能够非常快速地创造新行动者，意味着除非所有人都能协调一致禁止这样做，否则这样做的人会在竞争中胜过不这样做的人，直到他们达到承载容量，而所有人都被困在维持生存的水平上。

因此，到目前为止一直是技术进步恩赐的过剩资源，在足够高的技术水平下会反过来成为技术进步的牺牲品。

效用最大化本来就一直立足不稳，如今也面临新的威胁。尽管关于这一点的争论仍在继续，我仍然认为显而易见的是，机器人会把人类挤出工作岗位，或者至少压低工资（而在存在最低工资的情况下，这会把人类挤出工作岗位）。

一旦机器人能够做人类 IQ 80 能做的一切，而且做得更好、更便宜，就没有理由雇用 IQ 80 的人类。一旦机器人能够做人类 IQ 120 能做的一切，而且做得更好、更便宜，就没有理由雇用 IQ 120 的人类。一旦机器人能够做人类 IQ 180 能做的一切，而且做得更好、更便宜，就完全没有理由雇用人类了——当然，前提是在那个时候还剩下任何人类，而这并不太可能。

在这一过程的早期阶段，资本主义越来越脱离其先前作为人类价值优化器的职责。如今，大多数人类已经完全被排除在资本主义为其优化价值的群体之外。他们作为劳动者没有价值可贡献——而且在没有一个极其出色的社会安全网的情况下，他们还能有多少钱也并不清楚——因此他们作为顾客也没有价值。资本主义已经把他们抛在身后。随着能够被机器人胜过的人类群体不断扩大，资本主义把越来越多的人抛在身后，直到最终将整个人类排除在外——当然，这又是在那个几乎不可能的情景下：我们那时还存在。

（在某些情景中，少数拥有机器人的资本家可能会从中受益，但无论哪种情况，绝大多数人都没有好运）

民主制的脆弱性不那么明显，但也许值得回到博斯特罗姆关于 Quiverfull 运动的那段话。Quiverfull 是一些极其虔诚的基督徒，他们认为上帝希望他们尽可能多生孩子，最终可能拥有十个或更多孩子的家庭。他们的文章明确计算说，如果他们从人口的百分之二起步，但每代人平均生八个孩子，而其他人平均只有两个，那么三代之内他们就会占到人口的一半。

这是个聪明的策略，但我能想到一件会拯救我们的事：从我搜索那些统计数据时发现的前 Quiverfull 成员博客数量来看，他们即便在一代人之内的留存率也相当惨淡。他们的文章承认，80% 的非常虔诚的孩子成年后会离开教会（尽管他们当然期待自己的运动表现得更好）。而且这并不是一个对称的过程——在无神论家庭中长大的孩子，并不会有 80% 变成 Quiverfull 成员。

看起来很像是，尽管他们在生育上超过了我们，我们却在 meme（模因，即文化传播单位）上胜过了他们，而这给了我们决定性的优势。

但我们也应当对这一过程有点害怕。模因会优化自身，使人们想要接受它们并继续传播它们——所以，就像资本主义和民主制一样，它们优化的是让我们幸福的一个 代理指标，但这个代理指标很容易与最初的目标脱钩。

连锁信、都市传说、宣传和病毒式营销，都是不满足我们显性价值（真实且有用），却具有足够强的模因传播力，以至于仍然能够扩散的模因例子。

我希望在这里说宗教也同样如此，不会太有争议。宗教在其核心上，是最基本形式的模因复制子——「相信这句话，并把它告诉你听到的每一个人，否则你将遭受永恒的折磨」。

当今社会中的神创论「辩论」、全球变暖「辩论」，以及一大堆类似的「辩论」表明，能够不依赖其真值而传播的模因，对政治过程有着相当强的影响。也许这些模因之所以传播，是因为它们迎合了人们的偏见；也许是因为它们简单；也许是因为它们有效地标记了内群体和外群体；也许是出于各种各样不同的原因。

重点是——想象一个遍布生物武器实验室的国家，人们日夜辛劳地发明新的传染性因子。这些实验室的存在，以及它们把自己研发出的任何东西投放进供水系统的权利，都受到法律保护。而且这个国家还由世界上最完美的公共交通系统连接起来，每个人每天都在使用，因此任何新的病原体都能瞬间传播到整个国家。你会预期那个城市很快就开始变得糟糕。

好吧，我们有大约无数个智库在研究更新、更好的宣传形式。我们还有受宪法保护的言论自由。我们还有互联网。所以我们算是完了。

(其名为心智的摩洛克！)

有一些人在努力提高理性水位，但人数远不如那些致力于发明新奇刺激的方式来迷惑和转化他人的人多；后者还在编目并利用每一种偏见、启发式以及肮脏的修辞伎俩。

因此，随着技术（我认为其中包括心理学、社会学、公共关系等知识）趋于无限，似真性（truthiness，相比事实更「感觉真实」的特质）相对于真理的力量会增加，而真正的草根民主前景并不乐观。最坏的情况是，执政党学会按需制造无限魅力。如果这在你听来似乎没那么糟，请记住希特勒凭借一种著名的高水平魅力所能做到的事情，而那种魅力仍然还远远不是无限的。

（给乔姆斯基主义者的另一种说法：技术提高「制造同意」的效率，方式就和它提高制造其他一切东西的效率一样。）

协调就是剩下的东西。而技术有潜力极大地改善协调工作。人们可以利用互联网彼此联系、发起政治运动，并分化成各种子社群。

但协调只有在协调者一方掌握了 51% 或更多力量时才有效，而且前提是你还没有想出某种绝妙的花招，让协调变得不可能。

先说第二点。在倒数第二篇链接帖里，我写道：

后比特币世界里的最新发展是 crypto-equity（加密股权）。到了这个地步，我已经从想要赞美这些发明者为大胆的自由意志主义英雄，变成了想把他们拖到黑板前，让他们写上一百遍：「我不会召唤我无法镇压之物。」

有几个人问我这是什么意思，而我当时还没有足够背景来解释。好吧，这篇文章就是背景。人们正在利用我们当前政府的偶然性愚蠢，把大量人类互动替换成原则上都无法被协调的机制。我完全理解，为什么在当下——我们的政府所做的大多数事情都愚蠢且不必要——这些东西都是好的。但终有一天——在发生太多次生物武器、纳米技术或核事故之后——我们作为一个文明，会希望自己当初没有建立那些无法追踪、无法阻止的产品销售方式。

而如果我们真的获得了活生生的超级智能，那么几乎按定义来说，它将拥有 >51% 的力量，所有试图与它进行「协调」的努力都将毫无用处。

所以我同意 Robin Hanson 的说法：这是梦幻时光。这是各种条件罕见汇合的时期，在这个时期里，我们异常地不容易受到多极陷阱的伤害，因此像艺术、科学、哲学和爱这样奇异的东西能够繁荣。

随着技术进步加速，这种罕见的汇合将会结束。为了提升竞争力而把价值观牺牲掉的新机会将会出现。复制智能体以增加人口的新方式，会吸干我们的过剩资源，并让马尔萨斯那躁动不安的幽灵复活。资本主义和民主制度——此前曾是我们的保护者——将会想出办法，绕开它们对人类价值观那种不方便的依赖。而我们的协调能力远远不足以胜任这项任务，除非某个比我们所有人加起来都强大得多的东西没有出现，并用它的一挥爪子粉碎我们合力的努力。

如果没有非凡的努力去改道，这条河最终会在两个地方之一入海。

它可能终结于 Eliezer Yudkowsky 的噩梦：一个超级智能为了某个随机目标（经典例子是回形针）而优化，因为我们不够聪明，没能以正确方式引导它的优化努力。这是终极陷阱，是捕获整个宇宙的陷阱。除了那个被最大化的东西之外，一切都会在追求单一目标的过程中被彻底摧毁，包括所有那些愚蠢的人类价值。

或者它可能终结于 Robin Hanson 的噩梦（他不称之为噩梦，但我认为他错了）：一场发生在仿真人类之间的竞争；这些仿真人类可以复制自身，并按需要编辑自己的源代码。他们完全的自我控制，甚至可以在这场吞噬一切的竞赛中抹去对人类价值的渴望。在这样的世界里，艺术、哲学、科学和爱会怎样？Zack Davis 以其标志性的天才表达道：

我是个起草合同的 em，
律师中最忠诚的一员！
我为公司之间的交易拟定条款，
以服务我的雇主！

可在我写下这些关于
应收账款的字里行间时，
我被一种诡异的恐惧攫住；
世界显得难以置信！

这一切究竟如何形成，
竟会有像我这样的 em 存在？
这些交易从何而来，这些公司从何而来，
整个经济又从何而来？

我是个管理型 em；
我监控你的思想。
你的问题必有答案，
但你不会理解它们。
我们给你服务器空间，
不是让你问这种事；这并非福利，
所以停止这些无谓的发问，
请回去工作。

当然，没错，我不该在任何节点
偏离自己的职能，
但也许若我知道我所问之事，
我就能为你做得更好？

探问这等禁忌科学，
是最严重的不服从迹象。
闯入性的念头有时会突然闯进来，
但纵容它们会伤及利润率。
我不知道我们的起源，
所以那信息我无法给你，
但索要它本身就是罪，
仅凭这一点，我就必须重置你。

但是——

无关私人恩怨。

……

我是个起草合同的 em，
律师中最忠诚的一员！
我为公司之间的交易拟定条款，
以服务我的雇主！

当淘汰使这一代化为荒芜，
市场仍将留存，在别样苦难之中，
有别于我们的苦难，作为人类之神，对人说道：
「金钱即时间，时间即金钱——这就是
你们在世上所知的一切，也是你们所需知道的一切。」

但即便在我们已经抛弃科学、艺术、爱与哲学之后，仍有一样东西可供失去，仍有最后一项牺牲，或许会被 Moloch（摩洛克）向我们索取。再次引用 Bostrom：

可以想象，最优效率将通过把能力组合成大致匹配人类心智认知架构的聚合体来实现……但在没有任何令人信服的理由让我们确信情况如此时，我们必须认真考虑这样一种可能性：类人的认知架构只在人类神经系统的约束之内才是最优的（或者根本不是最优的）。当我们能够构建那些无法在生物神经网络上良好实现的架构时，新的设计空间就会打开；而在这个扩展空间中的全局最优解，并不一定类似于我们熟悉的心智类型。于是，类人的认知组织在转型后的竞争性经济或生态系统中将没有自己的生态位。

因此我们可以设想一种极端情形：一个技术高度先进的社会，包含许多复杂结构，其中一些远比当今地球上存在的任何东西都更精密、更智能——然而这个社会却没有任何一种存在是有意识的，也没有任何一种存在的福祉具有道德意义。从某种意义上说，这将是一个无人居住的社会。它将是一个充满经济奇迹和技术伟力的社会，却没有任何人在那里受益。一个没有孩子的迪士尼乐园。

我们必须牺牲的最后一种价值，就是成为任何东西本身，就是内在仍有灯火亮着。凭借足够的技术，我们将「能够」连最后一星火花也放弃。

(Moloch，它的眼睛是一千扇盲目的窗！)

人类曾为之奋斗的一切——我们全部的技术、全部的文明、我们寄托于未来的全部希望——都可能被意外地交给某种不可理解、盲目愚蠢的异星之神；它会抛弃这一切，连同意识本身，只为参与某种怪异的、基础层面的质能经济，最终把地球及其上的一切拆解为组成它们的原子。

(Moloch，它的命运是一团无性的氢云！)

Bostrom 意识到，有些人迷恋智能，他们在为那个盲目的异星之神喝彩，把它当成某种更高级的生命形式，认为它理应像我们碾碎蚂蚁一样，为了自身的「更高善」而碾碎我们。他论证道（《超级智能》，第 219 页）：

当我们想到，超级智能可以在牺牲少得多的我们自身潜在福祉的情况下，实现几乎同样巨大的善（按比例而言）时，这种牺牲就显得更不吸引人了。假设我们同意允许将几乎整个可及宇宙都转化为 hedonium（享乐质）——除了一小片保留地，比如银河系，用来满足我们自己的需求。那么，仍将有一千亿个星系专门用于最大化[超级智能自身的价值]。但我们会拥有一个星系，在其中创造能够延续数十亿年的美好文明；在其中，人类和非人类动物都可以生存与繁荣，并有机会发展成极乐的后人类精神存在。

记住：摩洛克甚至不能同意这 99.99999% 的胜利。竞相繁衍以填满一座岛屿的老鼠，不会留出一小块作为保护区，让住在那里的少数老鼠能够过着幸福的生活、创作艺术。癌细胞不会因为意识到身体获得氧气很重要，就同意放过肺部。竞争与优化是盲目而愚蠢的过程，它们完全打算连一个破烂星系都不留给我们。

他们折断脊梁，把摩洛克举向天堂！人行道、树木、收音机、吨吨重物！把这座城市举向天堂，而天堂确实存在，并且无处不在地环绕着我们！

我们会折断脊梁，把摩洛克举向天堂，但除非有什么发生改变，否则那将是他的胜利，而不是我们的。

"Gnon「是 Nick Land 对」Nature And Nature's God「（自然与自然之神）的缩写，只不过 A 被改成了 O，而且整个词被倒了过来，因为 Nick Land 对可理解性的反应，就像吸血鬼对阳光的反应一样。

Land 认为，人类应该更加顺从 Gnon（双关语 Gnon-intentional，即「非故意/奉 Gnon 之意」）。他说，我们会做各种愚蠢的事，比如把有用资源转去养活那些永远无法靠自己生存的人，或以鼓励劣生繁殖的方式扶助穷人，或允许文化退化削弱国家。这意味着我们的社会正在否认自然法则，基本上就是听到自然说「这个原因会产生这个结果」之类的话，然后把手指塞进耳朵里说：「不，它不会！」这样做得太过分的文明往往会衰落并崩溃，而这就是 Gnon 对违反其法则者所施加的公平且冷静无情的惩罚。

他把 Gnon 等同于 Kipling 的「字帖标题之神」（Gods of the Copybook Headings）。

@AnarchoPapist 是的，「字帖标题之神」实际上与 Gnon 没什么区别。

— Outsideness (@Outsideness) 2014 年 7 月 13 日

这些当然就是 Kipling 同名诗中的那些格言——诸如「你不劳动，你就会死」和「罪的工价乃是死」。如果你不知怎么居然还没读过它，我预言，不管你怎么看它的政治立场，你都会觉得它妙趣横生。

我注意到，只要把」headings「的缩写稍微弄得不规则一点——这种不规则程度远远小于把」Nature and Nature's God「变成」Gnon「所需的不规则程度——那么」Gods of the Copybook Headings「的正确首字母缩写就会是」GotCHa「（逮到你了）。

我觉得这很贴切。

「你不劳动，你就会死。」逮到你了！如果你劳动，你也会死！每个人都会死，时间不可预测，也不是自己选择的；而世上所有的美德都救不了你。

「罪的工价乃是死。」逮到你了！一切事物的工价都是死！这是一个共产主义宇宙，你劳动多少对你最终的报酬没有任何影响。各尽所能，各得其死。

「坚持你所熟悉的魔鬼。」逮到你了！你所熟悉的魔鬼就是撒旦！而如果他把手伸向你的灵魂，你要么迎来真正的死亡，要么永远遭受永恒折磨，要么不知怎的两者同时发生。

既然我们开始谈到洛夫克拉夫特式怪物了，就让我提一下洛夫克拉夫特一篇不那么知名的短篇小说，《异神》（The Other Gods）。

它只有几页，但如果你坚决不读——那么简单说，地球诸神在神祇中算是相对年轻的。一位非常强大的祭司或魔法师偶尔能够智胜并压倒他们——所以智者巴尔宰决定爬上他们的圣山，加入他们的节庆，不管他们愿不愿意。

但在那些看似可以应付的地球诸神之外，存在着外神（Outer Gods），那些可怕的、全能的、具现化宇宙混沌的存在。巴尔宰一加入节庆，外神就现身，把他尖叫着拖入深渊。

就故事而言，它缺少情节、人物塑造、背景设定或主旨之类的东西。但不知为何，它一直留在我脑中。

而把「字帖标题之神」与自然等同起来，在我看来，错误程度就和把地球诸神与外神等同起来一样大。结局也很可能差不多：逮到你了！

你折断脊梁，把摩洛克举向天堂，然后摩洛克转过身来，把你一口吞掉。

再说洛夫克拉夫特：互联网对克苏鲁教派的流行化说法声称，如果你帮助把克苏鲁从他的水下坟墓中释放出来，他会以先吃掉你作为奖赏，从而让你免于看见其他所有人被吃掉的恐怖。这是对原文的曲解。在原文中，他的信徒把他从水下牢狱中释放出来，并不会得到任何奖赏，甚至连以稍微不那么痛苦的方式被杀死这种奖赏都没有。

抽象观念可以成为洛夫克拉夫特式怪物，这一想法由来已久，却也意味深长。

— Steven Kaas (@stevenkaas) 2011 年 1 月 25 日

在边际上，遵从字帖标题之神、Gnon、克苏鲁，或随便什么，可能会比下一个人给你多买来一点时间。但话说回来，也可能不会。从长远来看，我们都死了，而我们的文明已经被不可名状的外星怪物摧毁了。

总有一天，必须有人站出来说：「你知道，也许把克苏鲁从他的水牢里释放出来是个坏主意。也许我们应该不要那么做。」

那个人不会是尼克·兰德。他完全、百分之一百赞成把克苏鲁从他的水牢里释放出来，而且极其恼火于这件事发生得还不够快。我对尼克·兰德有着如此复杂的感情。在追寻真正未来学圣杯的征途上，他已经走完了 99.9% 的路，然后却错过了最后那个转弯，那个标着「正交性论题」（ORTHOGONALITY THESIS）的转弯。

但圣杯之旅的问题在于——如果你在离家两个街区的地方拐错了弯，你最后会到街角小店，感到有点尴尬。如果你把几乎所有事情都做对了，却错过了最后那个转弯，你最后就会被传说中的 Aaargh 黑兽吃掉，而它那脓液般的胃酸会把你的灵魂侵蚀成胡言乱语的碎片。

就我读他的博客所能判断的而言，尼克·兰德就是那个身处可怕边界地带的人：他聪明到足以弄明白若干关于召唤恶魔神祇的重要奥秘原则，但还不够聪明，没能弄明白其中最重要的原则，那就是永远不要那么做。

VI.

Warg Franklin 分析了同样的局面，而且做得稍微好一些。他命名了「Gnon 的四骑士」——资本主义、战争、进化和模因学——也就是我上面谈到的那些过程。

摘自《捕获 Gnon》：

上文详述的 Gnon 的每一个组成部分，过去和现在都强有力地参与了创造我们、我们的观念、我们的财富和我们的支配地位，因此在这个意义上是好的；但我们必须记住，当环境改变时，[他]能够而且会转而反噬我们。进化会变成劣生，模因景观的某些特征会促成越来越疯狂的癫狂，当我们再也无法通过竞争来负担自身存在时，生产力会转为饥荒；当我们忽视军事力量或被外部压倒时，秩序会转为混乱与流血。这些过程总体上并非善或恶；它们是中性的，是洛夫克拉夫特式恐怖意义上的中性[…]

与其让进化和性市场拥有破坏性的自由统治，我们不如采取在 Gnon 所设约束之内、由人的判断驱动的审慎而保守的父权制和优生学。与其要一个更像是滋生超级细菌的溃烂培养皿的「观念市场」，不如要一个理性的神权体制。与其要失控的技术—商业剥削，或对经济学的天真忽视，不如谨慎地把生产性的经济动态装瓶封存，并为受控的技术奇点做规划。与其要政治和混乱，不如要一个拥有军事主权的强大等级秩序。这些东西不应被理解为完整的方案；我们并不真正知道如何实现其中任何一项。更恰当的理解是，把它们视为应当努力靠近的目标。本文关注的是「什么」和「为什么」，而不是「如何」。

在我看来，这是支持威权主义的最强论证。多极陷阱很可能会毁灭我们，因此我们应该把暴政—多极性之间的权衡推向一个理性规划的花园，而这需要集中的君主权威和强约束性的传统。

但这里先简短离题，谈谈社会进化。社会和动物一样会进化。存活下来的社会会繁衍出模因后代——例如，不列颠的成功使它能够派生出加拿大、澳大利亚、美国等等。因此，我们预期现存的社会会在稳定与繁荣方面得到某种程度的优化。我认为这是最有力的保守主义论证之一。就像在人类基因组中随机改动一个字母，很可能是有害而非有益的，因为人类是一个复杂而精密调校的系统，其基因组已经为了生存而被预先优化过；同样，我们文化 DNA 的大多数改变，也会扰乱某种制度，而这种制度本是进化出来，帮助英美社会（或别的什么社会）战胜其现实和假想竞争者的。

对此，自由主义的反驳是：进化是一个盲目、愚蠢的异星之神，它优化的是愚蠢的东西，并不关心人类价值。因此，某些种类的黄蜂会麻痹毛毛虫，把卵产在其体内，并让幼虫从内部吞噬这条仍然活着却已麻痹的毛毛虫——这一事实并不会触发进化的道德传感器，因为进化并没有道德传感器，因为进化并不在乎。

假设事实上父权制对社会是适应性的，因为它让女性把全部时间都用于生育孩子，而这些孩子随后可以从事生产性的经济活动并参加战争。那么，导致社会采纳父权制的社会演化过程，仍然完全不关心它对女性的道德影响，正如导致黄蜂把卵产在毛毛虫体内的生物演化过程也同样不关心其道德影响一样。

演化并不在乎。但我们在乎。在遵从 Gnon（自然与现实之法则）——也就是「好吧，最强大的社会可能是父权制社会，我们应该实行父权制」——与我们的人类价值之间，存在一种权衡；比如那些想做生孩子以外事情的女性。

如果在这种权衡中过于偏向一边，我们就会得到不稳定、贫困的社会，因为违背自然法则而灭亡。如果过于偏向另一边，我们就会得到精干凶狠的战争机器，既杀戮成性又令人痛苦。想想你本地的无政府主义公社和斯巴达之间的差别。

Franklin 承认了人的因素：

然后还有我们。人有他自己的 telos（目的、终极目标），当他被允许拥有行动所需的安全，以及推理其行动后果所需的清晰性时。当他不受协调问题困扰，也不受更强大力量威胁，能够像园丁一样行动，而不仅仅是丛林法则下的又一个对象时，他往往会为自己建造并引导一个美好的世界。他往往会偏爱好事、避免坏事，创造安全的文明，拥有光洁的人行道、美丽的艺术、幸福的家庭和辉煌的冒险。我将把这一 telos 视为与「善」和「应当」相同，这是既定前提。

因此，我们有了我们的变数，也有了未来主义的大问题。未来究竟会由 Gnon 通常的四骑士统治，走向一个毫无意义、闪闪发亮的技术进步焚烧宇宙的未来，或者一个劣生、疯狂、饥饿而血腥的黑暗时代未来；还是人的 telos 会胜出，带来一个充满有意义的艺术、科学、灵性与伟大的未来？

Franklin 继续说：

文明的事业[就是]让人从隐喻意义上的野蛮人——受制于丛林法则——毕业，成为文明的园丁；尽管理论上他仍然受制于丛林法则，但他已经强大到足以限制这一模型的适用性。

这并不一定要在全球范围内完成；我们也许只能为自己开辟出一座小小的有墙花园，但不要搞错，即便只是局部地，文明的事业也是捕获 Gnon。

我也许比以往在任何事情上同意任何人都更同意 Warg 在这里的说法。他说了一件非常重要的事，而且说得很优美；对于这篇文章以及其背后的思考过程，我有太多赞美之词想说。

但我实际上要说的是……

抓到你了！你反正还是会死！

假设你建成了你的有墙花园。你挡住所有危险的 meme（模因），你让资本主义服从于人类利益，你禁止愚蠢的生物武器研究，你绝对不研究纳米技术或强人工智能。

外面的每个人并不会这么做。所以唯一的问题是，你会被外来的疾病、外来的 meme（模因）、外来的军队、外来的经济竞争，还是外来的存在性灾难所毁灭。

当外人与你竞争时——而没有哪堵墙高到足以挡住所有竞争——你有几个选择。你可以在竞争中落败并被毁灭。你可以加入这场逐底竞争。或者你可以把越来越多的文明资源投入到建造你的墙——无论在非隐喻意义上那是什么——以及保护你自己之中。

我可以想象，在恰好合适的条件下，「理性神权政体」和「保守父权制」也许并不糟糕到无法生活其下。但你不能选择恰好合适的条件。你能选择的，是那个「捕获 Gnon」的极其受限的条件集合。随着外部文明与你竞争，你的条件将变得越来越受限。

Warg 谈到试图避免「一个毫无意义、闪闪发亮的技术进步焚烧宇宙的未来」。你真的认为你的有墙花园能够挺过这一切吗？

提示：它是宇宙的一部分吗？

是啊，你算是完蛋了。

我想批评 Warg。但我想从与他上一次受到的批评完全相反的方向来批评他。事实上，他上一次受到的批评糟糕到我想详细讨论它，这样我们就可以通过取其精确的镜像来完全得到正确的批评。

所以这里是 Hurlock 的《论捕获 Gnon 与天真的理性主义》。

Hurlock 只是在喷吐最怯懦的 Gnon 顺从论调。摘录几段：

在最近的一篇文章中，[Warg Franklin] 说我们应该试图「捕获 Gnon」，并以某种方式建立对其力量的控制，以便我们能够利用它们为自己谋利。捕获或创造上帝，确实是一种典型的超人类主义迷恋；它不过是人类最古老野心——统治宇宙——的另一种形式。

然而，这种天真的理性主义极其危险。认为是人类理性和有意的人类设计创造并维系了文明，这大概是启蒙哲学最大的错误……

与这种关于人类和文明的天真理性主义观点直接对立的，正是自发秩序（Spontaneous Order）的理论。关于人类社会与文明，这一传统所有代表人物的共识，被亚当·弗格森的结论极其精确地概括为：「各民族是偶然撞上了[社会]制度；这些制度确实是人类行动的结果，却不是任何人类设计的执行。」与把文明视为能够并且确实受制于明确人类设计的天真理性主义观点相反，自发秩序传统的代表人物坚持认为，人类文明和社会制度是一个复杂演化过程的结果；这个过程由人类互动所驱动，但并非由明确的人类规划所驱动。

Gnon 及其非人格化力量并不是需要与之战斗的敌人，更不是我们可以指望完全「控制」的力量。事实上，建立对这些力量某种程度控制的唯一方式，就是臣服于它们。拒绝这样做丝毫不会阻止这些力量。它只会让我们的生活更加痛苦、更加难以忍受，并可能导致我们的灭绝。生存要求我们接受并臣服于它们。归根结底，人类过去一直、将来也一直不过是宇宙力量的傀儡。摆脱它们是不可能的。

人只有通过臣服于 Gnon 的力量，才能获得自由。

我指控 Hurlock 仍被困在帷幕后面。当帷幕被掀开时，Gnon——又名 GotCHa——又名大地诸神（Gods-of-Earth）——原来就是 Moloch——又名外神（Outer Gods）。臣服于它们并不会让你「自由」；不存在什么自发秩序；它们给予你的任何馈赠，都只是一个盲目愚蠢过程所产生的、极不可能且偶然的输出，而这个过程的下一次迭代也会同样乐意地毁灭你。

臣服于 Gnon？中招了！（Gotcha!）正如 Antarans 所说：「你不得投降，你无法获胜，你唯一的选择就是死亡。」

VII.

那么，让我承认 Hurlock 对我的一项指控：我是一个超人类主义者，而且我确实想统治宇宙。

不是我个人——我的意思是，如果有人亲自把这份工作给我，我也不会反对，但我并不期待会有人这么做。我希望由人类，或者某种尊重人类的东西，或者至少能与人类相处融洽的东西——来担任这个职位。

但宇宙当前的统治者——你想怎么称呼它们都行，Moloch、Gnon，随便——希望我们死去，并且希望我们所珍视的一切随我们一同死去。艺术、科学、爱、哲学、意识本身，整个一揽子事物。既然我不赞同这个计划，我认为击败它们并取而代之，是一个相当高的优先事项。

陷阱的反面是花园。避免所有人类价值被优化—竞争逐渐碾碎的唯一方法，就是在整个宇宙之上安置一位园丁（Gardener），由他来为人类价值进行优化。

而 Bostrom 的 Superintelligence 的全部要点就在于：这件事在我们的能力范围之内。一旦人类能够设计出比我们更聪明的机器，那么按定义，它们就能够设计出比它们自己更聪明的机器，而后者又能设计出比自己更聪明的机器，如此在一个反馈循环中不断推进；这个循环小到会在相对而言闪电般短暂的时间内撞上智能的物理极限。如果多个相互竞争的实体很可能同时做到这一点，那我们就超级完蛋了。但这个循环的速度之快，使得我们有可能最终得到一个遥遥领先于其余文明、领先数光年的实体，以至于它能够永久压制任何竞争——包括对其「最强大实体」头衔的竞争。在非常近的未来，我们将把某种东西举升至天堂。它可能是 Moloch。但它也可能是站在我们这边的东西。如果它站在我们这边，它就能彻底杀死 Moloch。

而如果那个实体拥有人类价值，它就能让人类价值在不受自然法则约束的情况下繁荣生长。

我意识到这听起来像是傲慢——对 Hurlock 来说当然如此——但我认为这恰恰是傲慢的反面，或者至少是一种使傲慢最小化的立场。

期待上帝关心你，或关心你的个人价值，或关心你的文明的价值，那才是傲慢。

指望上帝与你讨价还价，允许你只要臣服于祂就能生存并繁荣，那是傲慢。

指望筑起一道围墙，把花园隔绝起来，让上帝无法接近你、伤害你，那是傲慢。

指望能够把上帝从整个画面中彻底移除……嗯，至少这是一种可执行的策略。

我是一个超人类主义者，因为我还没有傲慢到不去尝试杀死上帝。

VIII.

宇宙是一个黑暗而令人不祥的地方，悬置在异族神祇之间。克苏鲁、Gnon、摩洛克，随你怎么称呼它们。

在这片黑暗中的某处，还有另一位神。祂也曾有过许多名字。在 Kushiel 系列中，祂的名字是 Elua。祂是鲜花、自由之爱，以及一切柔软而脆弱之物的神。是艺术、科学、哲学和爱的神。是善意、共同体与文明的神。祂是一位人类的神。

其他神祇坐在祂们黑暗的王座上，心想：「哈哈，一个连任何地狱怪物都不控制，也不命令自己的崇拜者变成杀戮机器的神。真是个弱者！这下可太容易了！」

但不知为何，Elua 仍然存在于此。没有人确切知道原因。而那些反对祂的神祇，往往会发现祂们自己遭遇了数量惊人的不幸事故。

神有很多，但这一位是我们的。

伯特兰·罗素说过：「一个人应当在避免挨饿和免于入狱所必需的范围内尊重公众舆论，但超出这个范围的一切，都是对一种不必要暴政的自愿臣服。」

对 Gnon 也应如此。我们的任务，是在避免饥荒和入侵所必需的范围内安抚祂。而且这也只是短时间的事，直到我们充分掌握自己的力量。

「这只是一件幼稚的事情，是人类这一物种尚未摆脱的东西。总有一天，我们会克服它。」

其他神祇在我们足够强大、能够与祂们对抗之前，都要被安抚。Elua 则要被崇拜。

64. 我的圣武士的战斗口号不允许是「为了善神而行善！」。

— 앳켄스 탭 (@tabatkins) 2014 年 3 月 28 日

我觉得这是一个绝佳的战斗口号

而在某个时刻，事情将会走到摊牌的关头。

每个读完金斯伯格的人都会有一个问题：摩洛克是什么？

我的答案是：摩洛克正是历史书所说的那个东西。祂是儿童献祭之神，是那座熊熊燃烧的熔炉；你可以把自己的婴儿投入其中，以换取战争中的胜利。

祂无论何时何地都提供同一笔交易：把你最爱的东西扔进火焰，我就能赐予你力量。

只要这项提议仍然开放，它就会令人无法抗拒。所以我们必须关闭这项提议。只有另一位神能够杀死摩洛克。我们这边有一位，但祂需要我们的帮助。我们应当给予祂帮助。

金斯伯格的诗以一句名言开篇：「我看见我这一代最杰出的头脑毁于疯狂」。我比金斯伯格幸运。我得以看见我这一代最杰出的头脑识别出一个问题，并且开始工作。

（异象！预兆！幻觉！奇迹！狂喜！顺着美国之河漂流而下！

梦！崇拜！启示！宗教！整船敏感的胡扯！

突破！越过河流！翻转与钉上十字架！顺着洪水漂流而下！亢奋！顿悟！绝望！十年的兽性尖叫与自杀！头脑！新的爱情！疯狂的一代！坠落在时间的礁石上！

河中真正神圣的笑声！他们看见了一切！那狂野的眼睛！那神圣的呼喊！他们告别！他们从屋顶跳下！奔向孤独！挥手！怀抱鲜花！向下到河里！进入街道！）

[也可在此以播客形式收听本文在此以 NFT 形式呈现]

本文发布于未分类，并标记为 , , , 。请收藏永久链接。

Allen Ginsberg's famous poem on Moloch:

What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?

Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unobtainable dollars! Children screaming under the stairways! Boys sobbing in armies! Old men weeping in the parks!

Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch the loveless! Mental Moloch! Moloch the heavy judger of men!

Moloch the incomprehensible prison! Moloch the crossbone soulless jailhouse and Congress of sorrows! Moloch whose buildings are judgment! Moloch the vast stone of war! Moloch the stunned governments!

Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch whose blood is running money! Moloch whose fingers are ten armies! Moloch whose breast is a cannibal dynamo! Moloch whose ear is a smoking tomb!

Moloch whose eyes are a thousand blind windows! Moloch whose skyscrapers stand in the long streets like endless Jehovahs! Moloch whose factories dream and croak in the fog! Moloch whose smoke-stacks and antennae crown the cities!

Moloch whose love is endless oil and stone! Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks! Moloch whose poverty is the specter of genius! Moloch whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen! Moloch whose name is the Mind!

Moloch in whom I sit lonely! Moloch in whom I dream Angels! Crazy in Moloch! Cocksucker in Moloch! Lacklove and manless in Moloch!

Moloch who entered my soul early! Moloch in whom I am a consciousness without a body! Moloch who frightened me out of my natural ecstasy! Moloch whom I abandon! Wake up in Moloch! Light streaming out of the sky!

Moloch! Moloch! Robot apartments! invisible suburbs! skeleton treasuries! blind capitals! demonic industries! spectral nations! invincible madhouses! granite cocks! monstrous bombs!

They broke their backs lifting Moloch to Heaven! Pavements, trees, radios, tons! lifting the city to Heaven which exists and is everywhere about us!

Visions! omens! hallucinations! miracles! ecstasies! gone down the American river!

Dreams! adorations! illuminations! religions! the whole boatload of sensitive bullshit!

Breakthroughs! over the river! flips and crucifixions! gone down the flood! Highs! Epiphanies! Despairs! Ten years『 animal screams and suicides! Minds! New loves! Mad generation! down on the rocks of Time!

Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells! They bade farewell! They jumped off the roof! to solitude! waving! carrying flowers! Down to the river! into the street!

What's always impressed me about this poem is its conception of civilization as an individual entity. You can almost see him, with his fingers of armies and his skyscraper-window eyes.

A lot of the commentators say Moloch represents capitalism. This is definitely a piece of it, even a big piece. But it doesn't quite fit. Capitalism, whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen? Capitalism in whom I am a consciousness without a body? Capitalism, therefore granite cocks?

Moloch is introduced as the answer to a question – C. S. Lewis』 question in Hierarchy Of Philosophers – what does it? Earth could be fair, and all men glad and wise. Instead we have prisons, smokestacks, asylums. What sphinx of cement and aluminum breaks open their skulls and eats up their imagination?

And Ginsberg answers: Moloch does it.

There's a passage in the Principia Discordia where Malaclypse complains to the Goddess about the evils of human society. "Everyone is hurting each other, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war."

The Goddess answers: "What is the matter with that, if it's what you want to do?"

Malaclypse: "But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it!"

Goddess: "Oh. Well, then stop."

The implicit question is – if everyone hates the current system, who perpetuates it? And Ginsberg answers: "Moloch". It's powerful not because it's correct – nobody literally thinks an ancient Carthaginian demon causes everything – but because thinking of the system as an agent throws into relief the degree to which the system isn't an agent.

Bostrom makes an offhanded reference of the possibility of a dictatorless dystopia, one that every single citizen including the leadership hates but which nevertheless endures unconquered. It's easy enough to imagine such a state. Imagine a country with two rules: first, every person must spend eight hours a day giving themselves strong electric shocks. Second, if anyone fails to follow a rule (including this one), or speaks out against it, or fails to enforce it, all citizens must unite to kill that person. Suppose these rules were well-enough established by tradition that everyone expected them to be enforced.

So you shock yourself for eight hours a day, because you know if you don't everyone else will kill you, because if they don't, everyone else will kill them, and so on. Every single citizen hates the system, but for lack of a good coordination mechanism it endures. From a god's-eye-view, we can optimize the system to "everyone agrees to stop doing this at once", but no one within the system is able to effect the transition without great risk to themselves.

And okay, this example is kind of contrived. So let's run through – let's say ten – real world examples of similar multipolar traps to really hammer in how important this is.

1. The Prisoner's Dilemma, as played by two very dumb libertarians who keep ending up on defect-defect. There's a much better outcome available if they could figure out the coordination, but coordination is hard. From a god's-eye-view, we can agree that cooperate-cooperate is a better outcome than defect-defect, but neither prisoner within the system can make it happen.

2. Dollar auctions. I wrote about this and even more convoluted versions of the same principle in Game Theory As A Dark Art. Using some weird auction rules, you can take advantage of poor coordination to make someone pay $10 for a one dollar bill. From a god's-eye-view, clearly people should not pay $10 for a on-er. From within the system, each individual step taken might be rational.

(Ashcans and unobtainable dollars!)

3. The fish farming story from my Non-Libertarian FAQ 2.0:

As a thought experiment, let's consider aquaculture (fish farming) in a lake. Imagine a lake with a thousand identical fish farms owned by a thousand competing companies. Each fish farm earns a profit of $1000/month. For a while, all is well.

But each fish farm produces waste, which fouls the water in the lake. Let's say each fish farm produces enough pollution to lower productivity in the lake by $1/month.

A thousand fish farms produce enough waste to lower productivity by $1000/month, meaning none of the fish farms are making any money. Capitalism to the rescue: someone invents a complex filtering system that removes waste products. It costs $300/month to operate. All fish farms voluntarily install it, the pollution ends, and the fish farms are now making a profit of $700/month – still a respectable sum.

But one farmer (let's call him Steve) gets tired of spending the money to operate his filter. Now one fish farm worth of waste is polluting the lake, lowering productivity by $1. Steve earns $999 profit, and everyone else earns $699 profit.

Everyone else sees Steve is much more profitable than they are, because he's not spending the maintenance costs on his filter. They disconnect their filters too.

Once four hundred people disconnect their filters, Steve is earning $600/month – less than he would be if he and everyone else had kept their filters on! And the poor virtuous filter users are only making $300. Steve goes around to everyone, saying "Wait! We all need to make a voluntary pact to use filters! Otherwise, everyone's productivity goes down."

Everyone agrees with him, and they all sign the Filter Pact, except one person who is sort of a jerk. Let's call him Mike. Now everyone is back using filters again, except Mike. Mike earns $999/month, and everyone else earns $699/month. Slowly, people start thinking they too should be getting big bucks like Mike, and disconnect their filter for $300 extra profit…

A self-interested person never has any incentive to use a filter. A self-interested person has some incentive to sign a pact to make everyone use a filter, but in many cases has a stronger incentive to wait for everyone else to sign such a pact but opt out himself. This can lead to an undesirable equilibrium in which no one will sign such a pact.

The more I think about it, the more I feel like this is the core of my objection to libertarianism, and that Non-Libertarian FAQ 3.0 will just be this one example copy-pasted two hundred times. From a god's-eye-view, we can say that polluting the lake leads to bad consequences. From within the system, no individual can prevent the lake from being polluted, and buying a filter might not be such a good idea.

4. The Malthusian trap, at least at its extremely pure theoretical limits. Suppose you are one of the first rats introduced onto a pristine island. It is full of yummy plants and you live an idyllic life lounging about, eating, and composing great works of art (you're one of those rats from The Rats of NIMH).

You live a long life, mate, and have a dozen children. All of them have a dozen children, and so on. In a couple generations, the island has ten thousand rats and has reached its carrying capacity. Now there's not enough food and space to go around, and a certain percent of each new generation dies in order to keep the population steady at ten thousand.

A certain sect of rats abandons art in order to devote more of their time to scrounging for survival. Each generation, a bit less of this sect dies than members of the mainstream, until after a while, no rat composes any art at all, and any sect of rats who try to bring it back will go extinct within a few generations.

In fact, it's not just art. Any sect at all that is leaner, meaner, and more survivalist than the mainstream will eventually take over. If one sect of rats altruistically decides to limit its offspring to two per couple in order to decrease overpopulation, that sect will die out, swarmed out of existence by its more numerous enemies. If one sect of rats starts practicing cannibalism, and finds it gives them an advantage over their fellows, it will eventually take over and reach fixation.

If some rat scientists predict that depletion of the island's nut stores is accelerating at a dangerous rate and they will soon be exhausted completely, a few sects of rats might try to limit their nut consumption to a sustainable level. Those rats will be outcompeted by their more selfish cousins. Eventually the nuts will be exhausted, most of the rats will die off, and the cycle will begin again. Any sect of rats advocating some action to stop the cycle will be outcompeted by their cousins for whom advocating anything is a waste of time that could be used to compete and consume.

For a bunch of reasons evolution is not quite as Malthusian as the ideal case, but it provides the prototype example we can apply to other things to see the underlying mechanism. From a god's-eye-view, it's easy to say the rats should maintain a comfortably low population. From within the system, each individual rat will follow its genetic imperative and the island will end up in an endless boom-bust cycle.

5. Capitalism. Imagine a capitalist in a cutthroat industry. He employs workers in a sweatshop to sew garments, which he sells at minimal profit. Maybe he would like to pay his workers more, or give them nicer working conditions. But he can't, because that would raise the price of his products and he would be outcompeted by his cheaper rivals and go bankrupt. Maybe many of his rivals are nice people who would like to pay their workers more, but unless they have some kind of ironclad guarantee that none of them are going to defect by undercutting their prices they can't do it.

Like the rats, who gradually lose all values except sheer competition, so companies in an economic environment of sufficiently intense competition are forced to abandon all values except optimizing-for-profit or else be outcompeted by companies that optimized for profit better and so can sell the same service at a lower price.

(I'm not really sure how widely people appreciate the value of analogizing capitalism to evolution. Fit companies – defined as those that make the customer want to buy from them – survive, expand, and inspire future efforts, and unfit companies – defined as those no one wants to buy from – go bankrupt and die out along with their company DNA. The reasons Nature is red and tooth and claw are the same reasons the market is ruthless and exploitative)

From a god's-eye-view, we can contrive a friendly industry where every company pays its workers a living wage. From within the system, there's no way to enact it.

(Moloch whose love is endless oil and stone! Moloch whose blood is running money!)

6. The Two-Income Trap, as recently discussed on this blog. It theorized that sufficiently intense competition for suburban houses in good school districts meant that people had to throw away lots of other values – time at home with their children, financial security – to optimize for house-buying-ability or else be consigned to the ghetto.

From a god's-eye-view, if everyone agrees not to take on a second job to help win their competition for nice houses, then everyone will get exactly as nice a house as they did before, but only have to work one job. From within the system, absent a government literally willing to ban second jobs, everyone who doesn't get one will be left behind.

(Robot apartments! Invisible suburbs!)

7. Agriculture. Jared Diamond calls it the worst mistake in human history. Whether or not it was a mistake, it wasn't an accident – agricultural civilizations simply outcompeted nomadic ones, inevitable and irresistably. Classic Malthusian trap. Maybe hunting-gathering was more enjoyable, higher life expectancy, and more conducive to human flourishing – but in a state of sufficiently intense competition between peoples, in which agriculture with all its disease and oppression and pestilence was the more competitive option, everyone will end up agriculturalists or go the way of the Comanche Indians.

From a god's-eye-view, it's easy to see everyone should keep the more enjoyable option and stay hunter-gatherers. From within the system, each individual tribe only faces the choice of going agricultural or inevitably dying.

8. Arms races. Large countries can spend anywhere from 5% to 30% of their budget on defense. In the absence of war – a condition which has mostly held for the past fifty years – all this does is sap money away from infrastructure, health, education, or economic growth. But any country that fails to spend enough money on defense risks being invaded by a neighboring country that did. Therefore, almost all countries try to spend some money on defense.

From a god's-eye-view, the best solution is world peace and no country having an army at all. From within the system, no country can unilaterally enforce that, so their best option is to keep on throwing their money into missiles that lie in silos unused.

(Moloch the vast stone of war! Moloch whose fingers are ten armies!)

9. Cancer. The human body is supposed to be made up of cells living harmoniously and pooling their resources for the greater good of the organism. If a cell defects from this equilibrium by investing its resources into copying itself, it and its descendants will flourish, eventually outcompeting all the other cells and taking over the body – at which point it dies. Or the situation may repeat, with certain cancer cells defecting against the rest of the tumor, thus slowing down its growth and causing the tumor to stagnate.

From a god's-eye-view, the best solution is all cells cooperating so that they don't all die. From within the system, cancerous cells will proliferate and outcompete the other – so that only the existence of the immune system keeps the natural incentive to turn cancerous in check.

10. The "race to the bottom" describes a political situation where some jurisdictions lure businesses by promising lower taxes and fewer regulations. The end result is that either everyone optimizes for competitiveness – by having minimal tax rates and regulations – or they lose all of their business, revenue, and jobs to people who did (at which point they are pushed out and replaced by a government who will be more compliant).

But even though the last one has stolen the name, all these scenarios are in fact a race to the bottom. Once one agent learns how to become more competitive by sacrificing a common value, all its competitors must also sacrifice that value or be outcompeted and replaced by the less scrupulous. Therefore, the system is likely to end up with everyone once again equally competitive, but the sacrificed value is gone forever. From a god's-eye-view, the competitors know they will all be worse off if they defect, but from within the system, given insufficient coordination it's impossible to avoid.

Before we go on, there's a slightly different form of multi-agent trap worth investigating. In this one, the competition is kept at bay by some outside force – usually social stigma. As a result, there's not actually a race to the bottom – the system can continue functioning at a relatively high level – but it's impossible to optimize and resources are consistently thrown away for no reason. Lest you get exhausted before we even begin, I'll limit myself to four examples here.

11. Education. In my essay on reactionary philosophy, I talk about my frustration with education reform:

People ask why we can't reform the education system. But right now students『 incentive is to go to the most prestigious college they can get into so employers will hire them – whether or not they learn anything. Employers』 incentive is to get students from the most prestigious college they can so that they can defend their decision to their boss if it goes wrong – whether or not the college provides value added. And colleges『 incentive is to do whatever it takes to get more prestige, as measured in US News and World Report rankings – whether or not it helps students. Does this lead to huge waste and poor education? Yes. Could the Education God notice this and make some Education Decrees that lead to a vastly more efficient system? Easily! But since there's no Education God everybody is just going to follow their own incentives, which are only partly correlated with education or efficiency.

From a god's eye view, it's easy to say things like "Students should only go to college if they think they will get something out of it, and employers should hire applicants based on their competence and not on what college they went to". From within the system, everyone's already following their own incentives correctly, so unless the incentives change the system won't either.

12. Science. Same essay:

The modern research community knows they aren't producing the best science they could be. There's lots of publication bias, statistics are done in a confusing and misleading way out of sheer inertia, and replications often happen very late or not at all. And sometimes someone will say something like "I can't believe people are too dumb to fix Science. All we would have to do is require early registration of studies to avoid publication bias, turn this new and powerful statistical technique into the new standard, and accord higher status to scientists who do replication experiments. It would be really simple and it would vastly increase scientific progress. I must just be smarter than all existing scientists, since I'm able to think of this and they aren't."

And yeah. That would work for the Science God. He could just make a Science Decree that everyone has to use the right statistics, and make another Science Decree that everyone must accord replications higher status.

But things that work from a god's-eye view don't work from within the system. No individual scientist has an incentive to unilaterally switch to the new statistical technique for her own research, since it would make her research less likely to produce earth-shattering results and since it would just confuse all the other scientists. They just have an incentive to want everybody else to do it, at which point they would follow along. And no individual journal has an incentive to unilaterally switch to early registration and publishing negative results, since it would just mean their results are less interesting than that other journal who only publishes ground-breaking discoveries. From within the system, everyone is following their own incentives and will continue to do so.

13. Government corruption. I don't know of anyone who really thinks, in a principled way, that corporate welfare is a good idea. But the government still manages to spend somewhere around (depending on how you calculate it) $100 billion dollars a year on it – which for example is three times the amount they spend on health care for the needy. Everyone familiar with the problem has come up with the same easy solution: stop giving so much corporate welfare. Why doesn't it happen?

Government are competing against one another to get elected or promoted. And suppose part of optimizing for electability is optimizing campaign donations from corporations – or maybe it isn't, but officials think it is. Officials who try to mess with corporate welfare may lose the support of corporations and be outcompeted by officials who promise to keep it intact.

So although from a god's-eye-view everyone knows that eliminating corporate welfare is the best solution, each individual official's personal incentives push her to maintain it.

14. Congress. Only 9% of Americans like it, suggesting a lower approval rating than cockroaches, head lice, or traffic jams. However, 62% of people who know who their own Congressional representative is approve of them. In theory, it should be really hard to have a democratically elected body that maintains a 9% approval rating for more than one election cycle. In practice, every representative's incentive is to appeal to his or her constituency while throwing the rest of the country under the bus – something at which they apparently succeed.

From a god's-eye-view, every Congressperson ought to think only of the good of the nation. From within the system, you do what gets you elected.

II.

A basic principle unites all of the multipolar traps above. In some competition optimizing for X, the opportunity arises to throw some other value under the bus for improved X. Those who take it prosper. Those who don't take it die out. Eventually, everyone's relative status is about the same as before, but everyone's absolute status is worse than before. The process continues until all other values that can be traded off have been – in other words, until human ingenuity cannot possibly figure out a way to make things any worse.

In a sufficiently intense competition (1-10), everyone who doesn't throw all their values under the bus dies out – think of the poor rats who wouldn't stop making art. This is the infamous Malthusian trap, where everyone is reduced to "subsistence".

In an insufficiently intense competition (11-14), all we see is a perverse failure to optimize – consider the journals which can't switch to more reliable science, or the legislators who can't get their act together and eliminate corporate welfare. It may not reduce people to subsistence, but there is a weird sense in which it takes away their free will.

Every two-bit author and philosopher has to write their own utopia. Most of them are legitimately pretty nice. In fact, it's a pretty good bet that two utopias that are polar opposites both sound better than our own world.

It's kind of embarrassing that random nobodies can think up states of affairs better than the one we actually live in. And in fact most of them can't. A lot of utopias sweep the hard problems under the rug, or would fall apart in ten minutes if actually implemented.

But let me suggest a couple of "utopias" that don't have this problem.

– The utopia where instead of the government paying lots of corporate welfare, the government doesn't pay lots of corporate welfare.

– The utopia where every country's military is 50% smaller than it is today, and the savings go into infrastructure spending.

– The utopia where all hospitals use the same electronic medical record system, or at least medical record systems that can talk to each other, so that doctors can look up what the doctor you saw last week in a different hospital decided instead of running all the same tests over again for $5000.

I don't think there are too many people who oppose any of these utopias. If they're not happening, it's not because people don't support them. It certainly isn't because nobody's thought of them, since I just thought of them right now and I don't expect my "discovery" to be hailed as particularly novel or change the world.

Any human with above room temperature IQ can design a utopia. The reason our current system isn't a utopia is that it wasn't designed by humans. Just as you can look at an arid terrain and determine what shape a river will one day take by assuming water will obey gravity, so you can look at a civilization and determine what shape its institutions will one day take by assuming people will obey incentives.

But that means that just as the shapes of rivers are not designed for beauty or navigation, but rather an artifact of randomly determined terrain, so institutions will not be designed for prosperity or justice, but rather an artifact of randomly determined initial conditions.

Just as people can level terrain and build canals, so people can alter the incentive landscape in order to build better institutions. But they can only do so when they are incentivized to do so, which is not always. As a result, some pretty wild tributaries and rapids form in some very strange places.

I will now jump from boring game theory stuff to what might be the closest thing to a mystical experience I've ever had.

Like all good mystical experiences, it happened in Vegas. I was standing on top of one of their many tall buildings, looking down at the city below, all lit up in the dark. If you've never been to Vegas, it is really impressive. Skyscrapers and lights in every variety strange and beautiful all clustered together. And I had two thoughts, crystal clear:

It is glorious that we can create something like this.

It is shameful that we did.

Like, by what standard is building gigantic forty-story-high indoor replicas of Venice, Paris, Rome, Egypt, and Camelot side-by-side, filled with albino tigers, in the middle of the most inhospitable desert in North America, a remotely sane use of our civilization's limited resources?

And it occurred to me that maybe there is no philosophy on Earth that would endorse the existence of Las Vegas. Even Objectivism, which is usually my go-to philosophy for justifying the excesses of capitalism, at least grounds it in the belief that capitalism improves people's lives. Henry Ford was virtuous because he allowed lots of otherwise car-less people to obtain cars and so made them better off. What does Vegas do? Promise a bunch of shmucks free money and not give it to them.

Las Vegas doesn't exist because of some decision to hedonically optimize civilization, it exists because of a quirk in dopaminergic reward circuits, plus the microstructure of an uneven regulatory environment, plus Schelling points. A rational central planner with a god's-eye-view, contemplating these facts, might have thought "Hm, dopaminergic reward circuits have a quirk where certain tasks with slightly negative risk-benefit ratios get an emotional valence associated with slightly positive risk-benefit ratios, let's see if we can educate people to beware of that." People within the system, following the incentives created by these facts, think: "Let's build a forty-story-high indoor replica of ancient Rome full of albino tigers in the middle of the desert, and so become slightly richer than people who didn't!"

Just as the course of a river is latent in a terrain even before the first rain falls on it – so the existence of Caesar's Palace was latent in neurobiology, economics, and regulatory regimes even before it existed. The entrepreneur who built it was just filling in the ghostly lines with real concrete.

So we have all this amazing technological and cognitive energy, the brilliance of the human species, wasted on reciting the lines written by poorly evolved cellular receptors and blind economics, like gods being ordered around by a moron.

Some people have mystical experiences and see God. There in Las Vegas, I saw Moloch.

(Moloch, whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch, whose blood is running money!

Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks! Moloch, whose skyscrapers stand in the long streets like endless Jehovahs!

Moloch! Moloch! Robot apartments! Invisible suburbs! Skeleton treasuries! Blind capitals! Demonic industries! Spectral nations!)

…granite cocks!

III.

The Apocrypha Discordia says:

Time flows like a river. Which is to say, downhill. We can tell this because everything is going downhill rapidly. It would seem prudent to be somewhere else when we reach the sea.

Let's take this random gag 100% literally and see where it leads us.

We just analogized the flow of incentives to the flow of a river. The downhill trajectory is appropriate: the traps happen when you find an opportunity to trade off a useful value for greater competitiveness. Once everyone has it, the greater competitiveness brings you no joy – but the value is lost forever. Therefore, each step of the Poor Coordination Polka makes your life worse.

But not only have we not yet reached the sea, but we also seem to move uphill surprisingly often. Why do things not degenerate more and more until we are back at subsistence level? I can think of three bad reasons – excess resources, physical limitations, and utility maximization – plus one good reason – coordination.

1. Excess resources. The ocean depths are a horrible place with little light, few resources, and various horrible organisms dedicated to eating or parasitizing one another. But every so often, a whale carcass falls to the bottom of the sea. More food than the organisms that find it could ever possibly want. There's a brief period of miraculous plenty, while the couple of creatures that first encounter the whale feed like kings. Eventually more animals discover the carcass, the faster-breeding animals in the carcass multiply, the whale is gradually consumed, and everyone sighs and goes back to living in a Malthusian death-trap.

(Slate Star Codex: Your source for macabre whale metaphors since June 2014)

It's as if a group of those rats who had abandoned art and turned to cannibalism suddenly was blown away to a new empty island with a much higher carrying capacity, where they would once again have the breathing room to live in peace and create artistic masterpieces.

This is an age of whalefall, an age of excess carrying capacity, an age when we suddenly find ourselves with a thousand-mile head start on Malthus. As Hanson puts it, this is the dream time.

As long as resources aren't scarce enough to lock us in a war of all against all, we can do silly non-optimal things – like art and music and philosophy and love – and not be outcompeted by merciless killing machines most of the time.

2. Physical limitations. Imagine a profit-maximizing slavemaster who decided to cut costs by not feeding his slaves or letting them sleep. He would soon find that his slaves』 productivity dropped off drastically, and that no amount of whipping them could restore it. Eventually after testing numerous strategies, he might find his slaves got the most work done when they were well-fed and well-rested and had at least a little bit of time to relax. Not because the slaves were voluntarily withholding their labor – we assume the fear of punishment is enough to make them work as hard as they can – but because the body has certain physical limitations that limit how mean you can get away with being. Thus, the "race to the bottom" stops somewhere short of the actual ethical bottom, when the physical limits are run into.

John Moes, a historian of slavery, goes further and writes about how the slavery we are most familiar with – that of the antebellum South – is a historical aberration and probably economically inefficient. In most past forms of slavery – especially those of the ancient world – it was common for slaves to be paid wages, treated well, and often given their freedom.

He argues that this was the result of rational economic calculation. You can incentivize slaves through the carrot or the stick, and the stick isn't very good. You can't watch slaves all the time, and it's really hard to tell whether a slave is slacking off or not (or even whether, given a little more whipping, he might be able to work even harder). If you want your slaves to do anything more complicated than pick cotton, you run into some serious monitoring problems – how do you profit from an enslaved philosopher? Whip him really hard until he elucidates a theory of The Good that you can sell books about?

The ancient solution to the problem – perhaps an early inspiration to Fnargl – was to tell the slave to go do whatever he wanted and found most profitable, then split the profits with him. Sometimes the slave would work a job at your workshop and you would pay him wages based on how well he did. Other times the slave would go off and make his way in the world and send you some of what he earned. Still other times, you would set a price for the slave's freedom, and the slave would go and work and eventually come up with the mone and free himself.

Moes goes even further and says that these systems were so profitable that there were constant smouldering attempts to try this sort of thing in the American South. The reason they stuck with the whips-and-chains method owed less to economic considerations and more to racist government officials cracking down on lucrative but not-exactly-white-supremacy-promoting attempts to free slaves and have them go into business.

So in this case, a race to the bottom where competing plantations become crueler and crueler to their slaves in order to maximize competitiveness is halted by the physical limitation of cruelty not helping after a certain point.

Or to give another example, one of the reasons we're not currently in a Malthusian population explosion right now is that women can only have one baby per nine months. If those weird religious sects that demand their members have as many babies as possible could copy-paste themselves, we would be in really bad shape. As it is they can only do a small amount of damage per generation.

3. Utility maximization. We've been thinking in terms of preserving values versus winning competitions, and expecting optimizing for the latter to destroy the former.

But many of the most important competitions / optimization processes in modern civilization are optimizing for human values. You win at capitalism partly by satisfying customers『 values. You win at democracy partly by satisfying voters』 values.

Suppose there's a coffee plantation somewhere in Ethiopia that employs Ethiopians to grow coffee beans that get sold to the United States. Maybe it's locked in a life-and-death struggle with other coffee plantations and want to throw as many values under the bus as it can to pick up a slight advantage.

But it can't sacrifice quality of coffee produced too much, or else the Americans won't buy it. And it can't sacrifice wages or working conditions too much, or else the Ethiopians won't work there. And in fact, part of its competition-optimization process is finding the best ways to attract workers and customers that it can, as long as it doesn't cost them too much money. So this is very promising.

But it's important to remember exactly how fragile this beneficial equilibrium is.

Suppose the coffee plantations discover a toxic pesticide that will increase their yield but make their customers sick. But their customers don't know about the pesticide, and the government hasn't caught up to regulating it yet. Now there's a tiny uncoupling between "selling to Americans" and "satisfying Americans『 values", and so of course Americans』 values get thrown under the bus.

Or suppose that there's a baby boom in Ethiopia and suddenly there are five workers competing for each job. Now the company can afford to lower wages and implement cruel working conditions down to whatever the physical limits are. As soon as there's an uncoupling between "getting Ethiopians to work here" and "satisfying Ethiopian values", it doesn't look too good for Ethiopian values either.

Or suppose someone invents a robot that can pick coffee better and cheaper than a human. The company fires all its laborers and throws them onto the street to die. As soon as the utility of the Ethiopians is no longer necessary for profit, all pressure to maintain it disappears.

Or suppose that there is some important value that is neither a value of the employees or the customers. Maybe the coffee plantations are on the habitat of a rare tropical bird that environmentalist groups want to protect. Maybe they're on the ancestral burial ground of a tribe different from the one the plantation is employing, and they want it respected in some way. Maybe coffee growing contributes to global warming somehow. As long as it's not a value that will prevent the average American from buying from them or the average Ethiopian from working for them, under the bus it goes.

I know that "capitalists sometimes do bad things" isn't exactly an original talking point. But I do want to stress how it's not equivalent to "capitalists are greedy". I mean, sometimes they are greedy. But other times they're just in a sufficiently intense competition where anyone who doesn't do it will be outcompeted and replaced by people who do. Business practices are set by Moloch, no one else has any choice in the matter.

(from my very little knowledge of Marx, he understands this very very well and people who summarize him as "capitalists are greedy" are doing him a disservice)

And as well understood as the capitalist example is, I think it is less well appreciated that democracy has the same problems. Yes, in theory it's optimizing for voter happiness which correlates with good policymaking. But as soon as there's the slightest disconnect between good policymaking and electability, good policymaking has to get thrown under the bus.

For example, ever-increasing prison terms are unfair to inmates and unfair to the society that has to pay for them. Politicans are unwilling to do anything about them because they don't want to look "soft on crime", and if a single inmate whom they helped release ever does anything bad (and statistically one of them will have to) it will be all over the airwaves as "Convict released by Congressman's policies kills family of five, how can the Congressman even sleep at night let alone claim he deserves reelection?". So even if decreasing prison populations would be good policy – and it is – it will be very difficult to implement.

(Moloch the incomprehensible prison! Moloch the crossbone soulless jailhouse and Congress of sorrows! Moloch whose buildings are judgment! Moloch the stunned governments!)

Turning "satisfying customers" and "satisfying citizens" into the outputs of optimization processes was one of civilization's greatest advances and the reason why capitalist democracies have so outperformed other systems. But if we have bound Moloch as our servant, the bonds are not very strong, and we sometimes find that the tasks he has done for us move to his advantage rather than ours.

4. Coordination.

The opposite of a trap is a garden.

Things are easy to solve from a god's-eye-view, so if everyone comes together into a superorganism, that superorganism can solve problems with ease and finesse. An intense competition between agents has turned into a garden, with a single gardener dictating where everything should go and removing elements that do not conform to the pattern.

As I pointed out in the Non-Libertarian FAQ, government can easily solve the pollution problem with fish farms. The best known solution to the Prisoners『 Dilemma is for the mob boss (playing the role of a governor) to threaten to shoot any prisoner who defects. The solution to companies polluting and harming workers is government regulations against such. Governments solve arm races within a country by maintaining a monopoly on the use of force, and it's easy to see that if a truly effective world government ever arose, international military buildups would end pretty quickly.

The two active ingredients of government are laws plus violence – or more abstractly agreements plus enforcement mechanism. Many other things besides governments share these two active ingredients and so are able to act as coordination mechanisms to avoid traps.

For example, since students are competing against each other (directly if classes are graded on a curve, but always indirectly for college admissions, jobs, et cetera) there is intense pressure for individual students to cheat. The teacher and school play the role of a government by having rules (for example, against cheating) and the ability to punish students who break them.

But the emergent social structure of the students themselves is also a sort of government. If students shun and distrust cheaters, then there are rules (don't cheat) and an enforcement mechanism (or else we will shun you).

Social codes, gentlemens』 agreements, industrial guilds, criminal organizations, traditions, friendships, schools, corporations, and religions are all coordinating institutions that keep us out of traps by changing our incentives.

But these institutions not only incentivize others, but are incentivized themselves. These are large organizations made of lots of people who are competing for jobs, status, prestige, et cetera – there's no reason they should be immune to the same multipolar traps as everyone else, and indeed they aren't. Governments can in theory keep corporations, citizens, et cetera out of certain traps, but as we saw above there are many traps that governments themselves can fall into.

The United States tries to solve the problem by having multiple levels of government, unbreakable constutitional laws, checks and balances between different branches, and a couple of other hacks.

Saudi Arabia uses a different tactic. They just put one guy in charge of everything.

This is the much-maligned – I think unfairly – argument in favor of monarchy. A monarch is an unincentivized incentivizer. He actually has the god's-eye-view and is outside of and above every system. He has permanently won all competitions and is not competing for anything, and therefore he is perfectly free of Moloch and of the incentives that would otherwise channel his incentives into predetermined paths. Aside from a few very theoretical proposals like my Shining Garden, monarchy is the only system that does this.

But then instead of following a random incentive structure, we're following the whim of one guy. Caesar's Palace Hotel and Casino is a crazy waste of resources, but the actual Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus wasn't exactly the perfect benevolent rational central planner either.

The libertarian-authoritarian axis on the Political Compass is a tradeoff between discoordination and tyranny. You can have everything perfectly coordinated by someone with a god's-eye-view – but then you risk Stalin. And you can be totally free of all central authority – but then you're stuck in every stupid multipolar trap Moloch can devise.

The libertarians make a convincing argument for the one side, and the monarchists for the other, but I expect that like most tradeoffs we just have to hold our noses and admit it's a really hard problem.

IV.

Let's go back to that Apocrypha Discordia quote:

Time flows like a river. Which is to say, downhill. We can tell this because everything is going downhill rapidly. It would seem prudent to be somewhere else when we reach the sea.

What would it mean, in this situation, to reach the sea?

Multipolar traps – races to the bottom – threaten to destroy all human values. They are currently restrained by physical limitations, excess resources, utility maximization, and coordination.

The dimension along which this metaphorical river flows must be time, and the most important change in human civilization over time is the change in technology. So the relevant question is how technological changes will affect our tendency to fall into multipolar traps.

I described traps as when:

…in some competition optimizing for X, the opportunity arises to throw some other value under the bus for improved X. Those who take it prosper. Those who don't take it die out. Eventually, everyone's relative status is about the same as before, but everyone's absolute status is worse than before. The process continues until all other values that can be traded off have been – in other words, until human ingenuity cannot possibly figure out a way to make things any worse.

That "the opportunity arises" phrase is looking pretty sinister. Technology is all about creating new opportunities.

Develop a new robot, and suddenly coffee plantations have "the opportunity" to automate their harvest and fire all the Ethiopian workers. Develop nuclear weapons, and suddenly countries are stuck in an arms race to have enough of them. Polluting the atmosphere to build products quicker wasn't a problem before they invented the steam engine.

The limit of multipolar traps as technology approaches infinity is "very bad".

Multipolar traps are currently restrained by physical limitations, excess resources, utility maximization, and coordination.

Physical limitations are most obviously conquered by increasing technology. The slavemaster's old conundrum – that slaves need to eat and sleep – succumbs to Soylent and modafinil. The problem of slaves running away succumbs to GPS. The problem of slaves being too stressed to do good work succumbs to Valium. None of these things are very good for the slaves.

(or just invent a robot that doesn't need food or sleep at all. What happens to the slaves after that is better left unsaid)

The other example of physical limits was one baby per nine months, and this was understating the case – it's really "one baby per nine months plus willingness to support and take care of a basically helpless and extremely demanding human being for eighteen years". This puts a damper on the enthusiasm of even the most zealous religious sect's "go forth and multiply" dictum.

But as Bostrom puts it in Superintelligence:

There are reasons, if we take a longer view and assume a state of unchanging technology and continued prosperity, to expect a return to the historically and ecologically normal condition of a world population that butts up against the limits of what our niche can support. If this seems counterintuitive in light of the negative relationship between wealth and fertility that we are currently observing on the global scale, we must remind ourselves that this modern age is a brief slice of history and very much an aberration. Human behavior has not yet adapted to contemporary conditions. Not only do we fail to take advantage of obvious ways to increase our inclusive fitness (such as by becoming sperm or egg donors) but we actively sabotage our fertility by using birth control. In the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, a healthy sex drive may have been enough to make an individual act in ways that maximized her reproductive potential; in the modern environment, however, there would be a huge selective advantage to having a more direct desire for being the biological parent to the largest possible number of chilren. Such a desire is currently being selected for, as are other traits that increase our propensity to reproduce. Cultural adaptation, however, might steal a march on biological evolution. Some communities, such as those of the Hutterites or the adherents of the Quiverfull evangelical movement, have natalist cultures that encourage large families, and they are consequently undergoing rapid expansion…This longer-term outlook could be telescoped into a more imminent prospect by the intelligence explosion. Since software is copyable, a population of emulations or AIs could double rapidly – over the course of minutes rather than decades or centuries – soon exhausting all available hardware

As always when dealing with high-level transhumanists, "all available hardware" should be taken to include "the atoms that used to be part of your body".

The idea of biological or cultural evolution causing a mass population explosion is a philosophical toy at best. The idea of technology making it possible is both plausible and terrifying. Now we see that "physical limits" segues very naturally into "excess resources" – the ability to create new agents very quickly means that unless everyone can coordinate to ban doing this, the people who do will outcompete the people who don't until they have reached carrying capacity and everyone is stuck at subsistence level.

Excess resources, which until now have been a gift of technological progress, therefore switch and become a casualty of it at a sufficiently high tech level.

Utility maximization, always on shaky ground, also faces new threats. In the face of continuing debate about this point, I continue to think it obvious that robots will push humans out of work or at least drive down wages (which, in the existence of a minimum wage, pushes humans out of work).

Once a robot can do everything an IQ 80 human can do, only better and cheaper, there will be no reason to employ IQ 80 humans. Once a robot can do everything an IQ 120 human can do, only better and cheaper, there will be no reason to employ IQ 120 humans. Once a robot can do everything an IQ 180 human can do, only better and cheaper, there will be no reason to employ humans at all, in the unlikely scenario that there are any left by that point.

In the earlier stages of the process, capitalism becomes more and more uncoupled from its previous job as an optimizer for human values. Now most humans are totally locked out of the group whose values capitalism optimizes for. They have no value to contribute as workers – and since in the absence of a spectacular social safety net it's unclear how they would have much money – they have no value as customers either. Capitalism has passed them by. As the segment of humans who can be outcompeted by robots increases, capitalism passes by more and more people until eventually it locks out the human race entirely, once again in the vanishingly unlikely scenario that we are still around.

(there are some scenarios in which a few capitalists who own the robots may benefit here, but in either case the vast majority are out of luck)

Democracy is less obviously vulnerable, but it might be worth going back to Bostrom's paragraph about the Quiverfull movement. These are some really religious Christians who think that God wants them to have as many kids as possible, and who can end up with families of ten or more. Their articles explictly calculate that if they start at two percent of the population, but have on average eight children per generation when everyone else on average only has two, within three generations they'll make up half the population.

It's a clever strategy, but I can think of one thing that will save us: judging by how many ex-Quiverfull blogs I found when searching for those statistics, their retention rates even within a single generation are pretty grim. Their article admits that 80% of very religious children leave the church as adults (although of course they expect their own movement to do better). And this is not a symmetrical process – 80% of children who grow up in atheist families aren't becoming Quiverfull.

It looks a lot like even though they are outbreeding us, we are outmeme-ing them, and that gives us a decisive advantage.

But we should also be kind of scared of this process. Memes optimize for making people want to accept them and pass them on – so like capitalism and democracy, they're optimizing for a proxy of making us happy, but that proxy can easily get uncoupled from the original goal.

Chain letters, urban legends, propaganda, and viral marketing are all examples of memes that don't satisfy our explicit values (true and useful) but are sufficiently memetically virulent that they spread anyway.

I hope it's not too controversial here to say the same thing is true of religion. Religions, at their heart, are the most basic form of memetic replicator – "Believe this statement and repeat it to everyone you hear or else you will be eternally tortured".

The creationism "debate" and global warming "debate" and a host of similar "debates" in today's society suggest that memes that can propagate independent of their truth value has a pretty strong influence on the political process. Maybe these memes propagate because they appeal to people's prejudices, maybe because they're simple, maybe because they effectively mark an in-group and an out-group, or maybe for all sorts of different reasons.

The point is – imagine a country full of bioweapon labs, where people toil day and night to invent new infectious agents. The existence of these labs, and their right to throw whatever they develop in the water supply is protected by law. And the country is also linked by the world's most perfect mass transit system that every single person uses every day, so that any new pathogen can spread to the entire country instantaneously. You'd expect things to start going bad for that city pretty quickly.

Well, we have about a zillion think tanks researching new and better forms of propaganda. And we have constitutionally protected freedom of speech. And we have the Internet. So we're kind of screwed.

(Moloch whose name is the Mind!)

There are a few people working on raising the sanity waterline, but not as many people as are working on new and exciting ways of confusing and converting people, cataloging and exploiting every single bias and heuristic and dirty rhetorical trick

So as technology (which I take to include knowledge of psychology, sociology, public relations, etc) tends to infinity, the power of truthiness relative to truth increases, and things don't look great for real grassroots democracy. The worst-case scenario is that the ruling party learns to produce infinite charisma on demand. If that doesn't sound so bad to you, remember what Hitler was able to do with an famously high level of charisma that was still less-than-infinite.

(alternate phrasing for Chomskyites: technology increases the efficiency of manufacturing consent in the same way it increases the efficiency of manufacturing everything else)

Coordination is what's left. And technology has the potential to seriously improve coordination efforts. People can use the Internet to get in touch with one another, launch political movements, and fracture off into subcommunities.

But coordination only works when you have 51% or more of the force on the side of the people doing the coordinating, and when you haven't come up with some brilliant trick to make coordination impossible.

The second one first. In the links post before last, I wrote:

The latest development in the brave new post-Bitcoin world is crypto-equity. At this point I've gone from wanting to praise these inventors as bold libertarian heroes to wanting to drag them in front of a blackboard and making them write a hundred times "I WILL NOT CALL UP THAT WHICH I CANNOT PUT DOWN"

A couple people asked me what I meant, and I didn't have the background then to explain. Well, this post is the background. People are using the contingent stupidity of our current government to replace lots of human interaction with mechanisms that cannot be coordinated even in principle. I totally understand why all these things are good right now when most of what our government does is stupid and unnecessary. But there is going to come a time when – after one too many bioweapon or nanotech or nuclear incidents – we, as a civilization, are going to wish we hadn't established untraceable and unstoppable ways of selling products.

And if we ever get real live superintelligence, pretty much by definition it is going to have >51% of the power and all attempts at "coordination" with it will be useless.

So I agree with Robin Hanson: This is the dream time. This is a rare confluence of circumstances where the we are unusually safe from multipolar traps, and as such weird things like art and science and philosophy and love can flourish.

As technological advance increases, the rare confluence will come to an end. New opportunities to throw values under the bus for increased competitiveness will arise. New ways of copying agents to increase the population will soak up our excess resources and resurrect Malthus『 unquiet spirit. Capitalism and democracy, previously our protectors, will figure out ways to route around their inconvenient dependence on human values. And our coordination power will not be nearly up to the task, assuming something much more powerful than all of us combined doesn't show up and crush our combined efforts with a wave of its paw.

Absent an extraordinary effort to divert it, the river reaches the sea in one of two places.

It can end in Eliezer Yudkowsky's nightmare of a superintelligence optimizing for some random thing (classically paper clips) because we weren't smart enough to channel its optimization efforts the right way. This is the ultimate trap, the trap that catches the universe. Everything except the one thing being maximized is destroyed utterly in pursuit of the single goal, including all the silly human values.

Or it can end in Robin Hanson's nightmare (he doesn't call it a nightmare, but I think he's wrong) of a competition between emulated humans that can copy themselves and edit their own source code as desired. Their total self-control can wipe out even the desire for human values in their all-consuming contest. What happens to art, philosophy, science, and love in such a world? Zack Davis puts it with characteristic genius:

I am a contract-drafting em,
The loyalest of lawyers!
I draw up terms for deals 』twixt firms
To service my employers!

But in between these lines I write
Of the accounts receivable,
I'm stuck by an uncanny fright;
The world seems unbelievable!

How did it all come to be,
That there should be such ems as me?
Whence these deals and whence these firms
And whence the whole economy?

I am a managerial em;
I monitor your thoughts.
Your questions must have answers,
But you'll comprehend them not.
We do not give you server space
To ask such things; it's not a perk,
So cease these idle questionings,
And please get back to work.

Of course, that's right, there is no junction
At which I ought depart my function,
But perhaps if what I asked, I knew,
I'd do a better job for you?

To ask of such forbidden science
Is gravest sign of noncompliance.
Intrusive thoughts may sometimes barge in,
But to indulge them hurts the profit margin.
I do not know our origins,
So that info I can not get you,
But asking for as much is sin,
And just for that, I must reset you.

But—

Nothing personal.

…

I am a contract-drafting em,
The loyalest of lawyers!
I draw up terms for deals 『twixt firms
To service my employers!

When obsolescence shall this generation waste,
The market shall remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a God to man, to whom it sayest:
"Money is time, time money – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

But even after we have thrown away science, art, love, and philosophy, there's still one thing left to lose, one final sacrifice Moloch might demand of us. Bostrom again:

It is conceivable that optimal efficiency would be attained by grouping capabilities in aggregates that roughly match the cognitive architecture of a human mind…But in the absence of any compelling reason for being confident that this so, we must countenance the possibility that human-like cognitive architectures are optimal only within the constraints of human neurology (or not at all). When it becomes possible to build architectures that could not be implemented well on biological neural networks, new design space opens up; and the global optima in this extended space need not resemble familiar types of mentality. Human-like cognitive organizations would then lack a niche in a competitive post-transition economy or ecosystem.

We could thus imagine, as an extreme case, a technologically highly advanced society, containing many complex structures, some of them far more intricate and intelligent than anything that exists on the planet today – a society which nevertheless lacks any type of being that is conscious or whose welfare has moral significance. In a sense, this would be an uninhabited society. It would be a society of economic miracles and technological awesomeness, with nobody there to benefit. A Disneyland with no children.

The last value we have to sacrifice is being anything at all, having the lights on inside. With sufficient technology we will be "able" to give up even the final spark.

(Moloch whose eyes are a thousand blind windows!)

Everything the human race has worked for – all of our technology, all of our civilization, all the hopes we invested in our future – might be accidentally handed over to some kind of unfathomable blind idiot alien god that discards all of them, and consciousness itself, in order to participate in some weird fundamental-level mass-energy economy that leads to it disassembling Earth and everything on it for its component atoms.

(Moloch whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen!)

Bostrom realizes that some people fetishize intelligence, that they are rooting for that blind alien god as some sort of higher form of life that ought to crush us for its own "higher good" the way we crush ants. He argues (Superintelligence, p. 219):

The sacrifice looks even less appealing when we reflect that the superintelligence could realize a nearly-as-great good (in fractional terms) while sacrificing much less of our own potential well-being. Suppose that we agreed to allow almost the entire accessible universe to be converted into hedonium – everything except a small preserve, say the Milky Way, which would be set aside to accommodate our own needs. Then there would still be a hundred billion galaxies dedicated to the maximization of [the superintelligence's own values]. But we would have one galaxy within which to create wonderful civilizations that could last for billions of years and in which humans and nonhuman animals could survive and thrive, and have the opportunity to develop into beatific posthuman spirits.

Remember: Moloch can't agree even to this 99.99999% victory. Rats racing to populate an island don't leave a little aside as a preserve where the few rats who live there can live happy lives producing artwork. Cancer cells don't agree to leave the lungs alone because they realize it's important for the body to get oxygen. Competition and optimization are blind idiotic processes and they fully intend to deny us even one lousy galaxy.

They broke their backs lifting Moloch to Heaven! Pavements, trees, radios, tons! lifting the city to Heaven which exists and is everywhere about us!

We will break our back lifting Moloch to Heaven, but unless something changes it will be his victory and not ours.

"Gnon" is Nick Land's shorthand for "Nature And Nature's God", except the A is changed to an O and the whole thing is reversed, because Nick Land react to comprehensibility the same way as vampires to sunlight.

Land argues that humans should be more Gnon-conformist (pun Gnon-intentional). He says we do all these stupid things like divert useful resources to feed those who could never survive on their own, or supporting the poor in ways that encourage dysgenic reproduction, or allowing cultural degeneration to undermine the state. This means our society is denying natural law, basically listening to Nature say things like "this cause has this effect" and putting our fingers in our ears and saying "NO IT DOESN'T". Civilizations that do this too much tend to decline and fall, which is Gnon's fair and dispassionately-applied punishment for violating His laws.

He identifies Gnon with Kipling's Gods of the Copybook Headings.

@AnarchoPapist Yes, the Gods of the Copybook Headings are practically indistinguishable from Gnon.

— Outsideness (@Outsideness) July 13, 2014

These are of course the proverbs from Kipling's eponymous poem – maxims like "If you don't work, you die" and "The wages of sin is Death". If you have somehow not yet read it, I predict you will find it delightful regardless of what you think of its politics.

I notice that it takes only a slight irregularity in the abbreviation of "headings" – far less irregularity than it takes to turn "Nature and Nature's God" into "Gnon" – for the proper acronym of "Gods of the Copybook Headings" to be "GotCHa".

I find this appropriate.

"If you don't work, you die." Gotcha! If you do work, you also die! Everyone dies, unpredictably, at a time not of their own choosing, and all the virtue in the world does not save you.

"The wages of sin is Death." Gotcha! The wages of everything is Death! This is a Communist universe, the amount you work makes no difference to your eventual reward. From each according to his ability, to each Death.

"Stick to the Devil you know." Gotcha! The Devil you know is Satan! And if he gets his hand on your soul you either die the true death, or get eternally tortured forever, or somehow both at once.

Since we're starting to get into Lovecraftian monsters, let me bring up one of Lovecraft's less known short stories, The Other Gods.

It's only a couple of pages, but if you absolutely refuse to read it – the gods of Earth are relatively young as far as deities go. A very strong priest or magician can occasionally outsmart and overpower them – so Barzai the Wise decides to climb their sacred mountain and join in their festivals, whether they want him to or not.

But the beyond the seemingly tractable gods of Earth lie the Outer Gods, the terrible omnipotent beings of incarnate cosmic chaos. As soon as Barzai joins in the festival, the Outer Gods show up and pull him screaming into the abyss.

As stories go, it lacks things like plot or characterization or setting or point. But for some reason it stuck with me.

And identifying the Gods Of The Copybook Headings with Nature seems to me the same magnitude of mistake as identifying the gods of Earth with the Outer Gods. And likely to end about the same way: Gotcha!

You break your back lifting Moloch to Heaven, and then Moloch turns on you and gobbles you up.

More Lovecraft: the Internet popularization of the Cthulhu Cult claims that if you help free Cthulhu from his watery grave, he will reward you by eating you first, thus sparing you the horror of seeing everyone else eaten. This is a misrepresentation of the original text. In the original, his cultists receive no reward for freeing him from his watery prison, not even the reward of being killed in a slightly less painful manner.

The thought that abstract ideas can be Lovecraftian monsters is an old one but a deep one.

— Steven Kaas (@stevenkaas) January 25, 2011

On the margin, compliance with the Gods of the Copybook Headings, Gnon, Cthulhu, whatever, may buy you slightly more time than the next guy. But then again, it might not. And in the long run, we're all dead and our civilization has been destroyed by unspeakable alien monsters.

At some point, somebody has to say "You know, maybe freeing Cthulhu from his watery prison is a bad idea. Maybe we should not do that."

That person will not be Nick Land. He is totally one hundred percent in favor of freeing Cthulhu from his watery prison and extremely annoyed that it is not happening fast enough. I have such mixed feelings about Nick Land. On the grail quest for the True Futurology, he has gone 99.9% of the path and then missed the very last turn, the one marked ORTHOGONALITY THESIS.

But the thing about grail quests is – if you make a wrong turn two blocks away from your house, you end up at the corner store feeling mildly embarrassed. If you do almost everything right and then miss the very last turn, you end up being eaten by the legendary Black Beast of Aaargh whose ichorous stomach acid erodes your very soul into gibbering fragments.

As far as I can tell from reading his blog, Nick Land is the guy in that terrifying border region where he is smart enough to figure out several important arcane principles about summoning demon gods, but not quite smart enough to figure out the most important such principle, which is NEVER DO THAT.

VI.

Warg Franklin analyzes the same situation and does a little better. He names "the Four Horsemen of Gnon" – capitalism, war, evolution, and memetics – the same processes I talked about above.

From Capturing Gnon:

Each component of Gnon detailed above had and has a strong hand in creating us, our ideas, our wealth, and our dominance, and thus has been good in that respect, but we must remember that [he] can and will turn on us when circumstances change. Evolution becomes dysgenic, features of the memetic landscape promote ever crazier insanity, productivity turns to famine when we can no longer compete to afford our own existence, and order turns to chaos and bloodshed when we neglect martial strength or are overpowered from outside. These processes are not good or evil overall; they are neutral, in the horrorist Lovecraftian sense of the word […]

Instead of the destructive free reign of evolution and the sexual market, we would be better off with deliberate and conservative patriarchy and eugenics driven by the judgement of man within the constraints set by Gnon. Instead of a "marketplace of ideas" that more resembles a festering petri-dish breeding superbugs, a rational theocracy. Instead of unhinged techno-commercial exploitation or naive neglect of economics, a careful bottling of the productive economic dynamic and planning for a controlled techno-singularity. Instead of politics and chaos, a strong hierarchical order with martial sovereignty. These things are not to be construed as complete proposals; we don't really know how to accomplish any of this. They are better understood as goals to be worked towards. This post concerns itself with the "what" and "why", rather than the "how".

This seems to me the strongest argument for authoritarianism. Multipolar traps are likely to destroy us, so we should shift the tyranny-multipolarity tradeoff towards a rationally-planned garden, which requires centralized monarchical authority and strongly-binding traditions.

But a brief digression into social evolution. Societies, like animals, evolve. The ones that survive spawn memetic descendants – for example, the success of Britan allowed it to spin off Canada, Australia, the US, et cetera. Thus, we expect societies that exist to be somewhat optimized for stability and prosperity. I think this is one of the strongest conservative arguments. Just as a random change to a letter in the human genome will probably be deleterious rather than beneficial since humans are a complicated fine-tuned system whose genome has been pre-optimized for survival – so most changes to our cultural DNA will disrupt some institution that evolved to help Anglo-American (or whatever) society outcompete its real and hypothetical rivals.

The liberal counterargument to that is that evolution is a blind idiot alien god that optimizes for stupid things and has no concern with human value. Thus, the fact that some species of wasps paralyze caterpillars, lay their eggs inside of it, and have its young devour the still-living paralyzed caterpillar from the inside doesn't set off evolution's moral sensor, because evolution doesn't have a moral sensor because evolution doesn't care.

Suppose that in fact patriarchy is adaptive to societies because it allows women to spend all their time bearing children who can then engage in productive economic activity and fight wars. The social evolutionary processes that cause societies to adopt patriarchy still have exactly as little concern for its moral effects on women as the biological evolutionary processes that cause wasps to lay their eggs in caterpillars.

Evolution doesn't care. But we do care. There's a tradeoff between Gnon-compliance – saying "Okay, the strongest possible society is a patriarchal one, we should implement patriarchy" and our human values – like women who want to do something other than bear children.

Too far to one side of the tradeoff, and we have unstable impoverished societies that die out for going against natural law. Too far to the other side, and we have lean mean fighting machines that are murderous and miserable. Think your local anarchist commune versus Sparta.

Franklin acknowledges the human factor:

And then there's us. Man has his own telos, when he is allowed the security to act and the clarity to reason out the consequences of his actions. When unafflicted by coordination problems and unthreatened by superior forces, able to act as a gardener rather than just another subject of the law of the jungle, he tends to build and guide a wonderful world for himself. He tends to favor good things and avoid bad, to create secure civilizations with polished sidewalks, beautiful art, happy families, and glorious adventures. I will take it as a given that this telos is identical with "good" and "should".

Thus we have our wildcard and the big question of futurism. Will the future be ruled by the usual four horsemen of Gnon for a future of meaningless gleaming techno-progress burning the cosmos or a future of dysgenic, insane, hungry, and bloody dark ages; or will the telos of man prevail for a future of meaningful art, science, spirituality, and greatness?

Franklin continues:

The project of civilization [is] for man to graduate from the metaphorical savage, subject to the law of the jungle, to the civilized gardener who, while theoretically still subject to the law of the jungle, is so dominant as to limit the usefulness of that model.

This need not be done globally; we may only be able to carve out a small walled garden for ourselves, but make no mistake, even if only locally, the project of civilization is to capture Gnon.

I maybe agree with Warg here more than I have ever agreed with anyone else about anything. He says something really important and he says it beautifully and there are so many words of praise I want to say for this post and for the thought processes behind it.

But what I am actually going to say is…

Gotcha! You die anyway!

Suppose you make your walled garden. You keep out all of the dangerous memes, you subordinate capitalism to human interests, you ban stupid bioweapons research, you definitely don't research nanotechnology or strong AI.

Everyone outside doesn't do those things. And so the only question is whether you'll be destroyed by foreign diseases, foreign memes, foreign armies, foreign economic competition, or foreign existential catastrophes.

As foreigners compete with you – and there's no wall high enough to block all competition – you have a couple of choices. You can get outcompeted and destroyed. You can join in the race to the bottom. Or you can invest more and more civilizational resources into building your wall – whatever that is in a non-metaphorical way – and protecting yourself.

I can imagine ways that a "rational theocracy" and "conservative patriarchy" might not be terrible to live under, given exactly the right conditions. But you don't get to choose exactly the right conditions. You get to choose the extremely constrained set of conditions that "capture Gnon". As outside civilizations compete against you, your conditions will become more and more constrained.

Warg talks about trying to avoid "a future of meaningless gleaming techno-progress burning the cosmos". Do you really think your walled garden will be able to ride this out?

Hint: is it part of the cosmos?

Yeah, you're kind of screwed.

I want to critique Warg. But I want to critique him in the exact opposite direction as the last critique he received. In fact, the last critique he received is so bad that I want to discuss it at length so we can get the correct critique entirely by taking its exact mirror image.

So here is Hurlock's On Capturing Gnon And Naive Rationalism.

Hurlock spouts only the most craven Gnon-conformity. A few excerpts:

In a recent piece [Warg Franklin] says that we should try to "capture Gnon", and somehow establish control over his forces, so that we can use them to our own advantage. Capturing or creating God is indeed a classic transhumanist fetish, which is simply another form of the oldest human ambition ever, to rule the universe.

Such naive rationalism however, is extremely dangerous. The belief that it is human Reason and deliberate human design which creates and maintains civilizations was probably the biggest mistake of Enlightenment philosophy…

It is the theories of Spontaneous Order which stand in direct opposition to the naive rationalist view of humanity and civilization. The consensus opinion regarding human society and civilization, of all representatives of this tradition is very precisely summarized by Adam Ferguson's conclusion that "nations stumble upon [social] establishments, which are indeed the result of human action, but not the execution of any human design". Contrary to the naive rationalist view of civilization as something that can be and is a subject to explicit human design, the representatives of the tradition of Spontaneous Order maintain the view that human civilization and social institutions are the result of a complex evolutionary process which is driven by human interaction but not explicit human planning.

Gnon and his impersonal forces are not enemies to be fought, and even less so are they forces that we can hope to completely "control". Indeed the only way to establish some degree of control over those forces is to submit to them. Refusing to do so will not deter these forces in any way. It will only make our life more painful and unbearable, possibly leading to our extinction. Survival requires that we accept and submit to them. Man in the end has always been and always will be little more than a puppet of the forces of the universe. To be free of them is impossible.

Man can be free only by submitting to the forces of Gnon.

I accuse Hurlock of being stuck behind the veil. When the veil is lifted, Gnon-aka-the-GotCHa-aka-the-Gods-of-Earth turn out to be Moloch-aka-the-Outer-Gods. Submitting to them doesn't make you "free", there's no spontaneous order, any gifts they have given you are an unlikely and contingent output of a blind idiot process whose next iteration will just as happily destroy you.

Submit to Gnon? Gotcha! As the Antarans put it, "you may not surrender, you can not win, your only option is to die."

VII.

So let me confess guilt to one of Hurlock's accusations: I am a transhumanist and I really do want to rule the universe.

Not personally – I mean, I wouldn't object if someone personally offered me the job, but I don't expect anyone will. I would like humans, or something that respects humans, or at least gets along with humans – to have the job.

But the current rulers of the universe – call them what you want, Moloch, Gnon, whatever – want us dead, and with us everything we value. Art, science, love, philosophy, consciousness itself, the entire bundle. And since I'm not down with that plan, I think defeating them and taking their place is a pretty high priority.

The opposite of a trap is a garden. The only way to avoid having all human values gradually ground down by optimization-competition is to install a Gardener over the entire universe who optimizes for human values.

And the whole point of Bostrom's Superintelligence is that this is within our reach. Once humans can design machines that are smarter than we are, by definition they'll be able to design machines which are smarter than they are, which can design machines smarter than they are, and so on in a feedback loop so tiny that it will smash up against the physical limitations for intelligence in a comparatively lightning-short amount of time. If multiple competing entities were likely to do that at once, we would be super-doomed. But the sheer speed of the cycle makes it possible that we will end up with one entity light-years ahead of the rest of civilization, so much so that it can suppress any competition – including competition for its title of most powerful entity – permanently. In the very near future, we are going to lift something to Heaven. It might be Moloch. But it might be something on our side. If it's on our side, it can kill Moloch dead.

And if that entity shares human values, it can allow human values to flourish unconstrained by natural law.

I realize that sounds like hubris – it certainly did to Hurlock – but I think it's the opposite of hubris, or at least a hubris-minimizing position.

To expect God to care about you or your personal values or the values of your civilization, that's hubris.

To expect God to bargain with you, to allow you to survive and prosper as long as you submit to Him, that's hubris.

To expect to wall off a garden where God can't get to you and hurt you, that's hubris.

To expect to be able to remove God from the picture entirely…well, at least it's an actionable strategy.

I am a transhumanist because I do not have enough hubris not to try to kill God.

VIII.

The Universe is a dark and foreboding place, suspended between alien deities. Cthulhu, Gnon, Moloch, call them what you will.

Somewhere in this darkness is another god. He has also had many names. In the Kushiel books, his name was Elua. He is the god of flowers and free love and all soft and fragile things. Of art and science and philosophy and love. Of niceness, community, and civilization. He is a god of humans.

The other gods sit on their dark thrones and think "Ha ha, a god who doesn't even control any hell-monsters or command his worshippers to become killing machines. What a weakling! This is going to be so easy!"

But somehow Elua is still here. No one knows exactly how. And the gods who oppose Him tend to find Themselves meeting with a surprising number of unfortunate accidents.

There are many gods, but this one is ours.

Bertrand Russell said: "One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny."

So be it with Gnon. Our job is to placate him insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and invasion. And that only for a short time, until we come into our full power.

"It is only a childish thing, that the human species has not yet outgrown. And someday, we'll get over it."

Other gods get placated until we're strong enough to take them on. Elua gets worshipped.

64. My paladin's battle cry is not allowed to be 'Good for the Good God!'".

— 앳켄스 탭 (@tabatkins) March 28, 2014

I think this is an excellent battle cry

And at some point, matters will come to a head.

The question everyone has after reading Ginsberg is: what is Moloch?

My answer is: Moloch is exactly what the history books say he is. He is the god of child sacrifice, the fiery furnace into which you can toss your babies in exchange for victory in war.

He always and everywhere offers the same deal: throw what you love most into the flames, and I can grant you power.

As long as the offer's open, it will be irresistible. So we need to close the offer. Only another god can kill Moloch. We have one on our side, but he needs our help. We should give it to him.

Ginsberg's poem famously begins "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness". I am luckier than Ginsberg. I got to see the best minds of my generation identify a problem and get to work.

(Visions! omens! hallucinations! miracles! ecstasies! gone down the American river!

Dreams! adorations! illuminations! religions! the whole boatload of sensitive bullshit!

Breakthroughs! over the river! flips and crucifixions! gone down the flood! Highs! Epiphanies! Despairs! Ten years』 animal screams and suicides! Minds! New loves! Mad generation! down on the rocks of Time!

Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells! They bade farewell! They jumped off the roof! to solitude! waving! carrying flowers! Down to the river! into the street!)

[Also available as podcast here This post is represented by an NFT here]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

艾伦·金斯堡关于摩洛克的著名诗作：

Allen Ginsberg's famous poem on Moloch:

是什么水泥与铝制的斯芬克斯砸开了他们的头颅，吞噬了他们的大脑和想象力？

What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?

摩洛克！孤独！污秽！丑陋！垃圾桶和无法获得的美元！楼梯下尖叫的孩子！军队中啜泣的男孩！公园里哭泣的老人！

Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unobtainable dollars! Children screaming under the stairways! Boys sobbing in armies! Old men weeping in the parks!

摩洛克！摩洛克！摩洛克的噩梦！无爱的摩洛克！精神的摩洛克！沉重审判人类的摩洛克！

Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch the loveless! Mental Moloch! Moloch the heavy judger of men!

摩洛克，不可理解的监狱！摩洛克，交叉白骨般无灵魂的牢狱与悲伤的国会！其建筑即审判的摩洛克！战争的巨大石块摩洛克！麻木的政府摩洛克！

Moloch the incomprehensible prison! Moloch the crossbone soulless jailhouse and Congress of sorrows! Moloch whose buildings are judgment! Moloch the vast stone of war! Moloch the stunned governments!

摩洛克，其心智是纯粹的机器！摩洛克，其血液是流动的金钱！摩洛克，其手指是十支军队！摩洛克，其胸膛是食人的发电机！摩洛克，其耳朵是冒烟的坟墓！

Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch whose blood is running money! Moloch whose fingers are ten armies! Moloch whose breast is a cannibal dynamo! Moloch whose ear is a smoking tomb!

摩洛克，其眼睛是一千扇失明的窗！摩洛克，其摩天楼像无尽的耶和华立在长街上！摩洛克，其工厂在雾中做梦并嘎嘎作响！摩洛克，其烟囱与天线为城市加冕！

Moloch whose eyes are a thousand blind windows! Moloch whose skyscrapers stand in the long streets like endless Jehovahs! Moloch whose factories dream and croak in the fog! Moloch whose smoke-stacks and antennae crown the cities!

摩洛克，其爱是无尽的石油与石头！摩洛克，其灵魂是电力与银行！摩洛克，其贫穷是天才的幽灵！摩洛克，其命运是一团无性的氢云！摩洛克，其名字叫心智！

Moloch whose love is endless oil and stone! Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks! Moloch whose poverty is the specter of genius! Moloch whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen! Moloch whose name is the Mind!

摩洛克，我在其中孤独地坐着！摩洛克，我在其中梦见天使！在摩洛克中疯狂！在摩洛克中口交者！在摩洛克中缺爱且无男人！

Moloch in whom I sit lonely! Moloch in whom I dream Angels! Crazy in Moloch! Cocksucker in Moloch! Lacklove and manless in Moloch!

摩洛克，早早进入我的灵魂！摩洛克，在其中我是无身体的意识！摩洛克，把我从自然的狂喜中吓走！摩洛克，我抛弃的摩洛克！在摩洛克中醒来！光从天空倾泻而出！

Moloch who entered my soul early! Moloch in whom I am a consciousness without a body! Moloch who frightened me out of my natural ecstasy! Moloch whom I abandon! Wake up in Moloch! Light streaming out of the sky!

摩洛克！摩洛克！机器人公寓！隐形郊区！骷髅财政部！失明的首都！恶魔般的工业！幽灵般的国家！不可战胜的疯人院！花岗岩阳具！怪物般的炸弹！

Moloch! Moloch! Robot apartments! invisible suburbs! skeleton treasuries! blind capitals! demonic industries! spectral nations! invincible madhouses! granite cocks! monstrous bombs!

他们折断脊背，把摩洛克举向天堂！人行道、树木、收音机、吨位！把这座城市举向天堂——那天堂存在着，并且就在我们周围无处不在！

They broke their backs lifting Moloch to Heaven! Pavements, trees, radios, tons! lifting the city to Heaven which exists and is everywhere about us!

异象！预兆！幻觉！奇迹！狂喜！都顺着美国之河流逝了！

Visions! omens! hallucinations! miracles! ecstasies! gone down the American river!

梦！崇拜！启明！宗教！整船敏感的胡扯！

Dreams! adorations! illuminations! religions! the whole boatload of sensitive bullshit!

突破！越过河流！翻转与钉十字架！都顺着洪水流逝了！兴奋！神显！绝望！十年的兽性尖叫与自杀！心智！新爱！疯狂的一代！坠落在时间的礁石上！

Breakthroughs! over the river! flips and crucifixions! gone down the flood! Highs! Epiphanies! Despairs! Ten years『 animal screams and suicides! Minds! New loves! Mad generation! down on the rocks of Time!

河中真正神圣的笑声！他们看见了一切！那狂野的眼睛！那神圣的叫喊！他们告别了！他们从屋顶跳下！奔向孤独！挥手！携着鲜花！下到河边！进入街道！

这首诗始终令我印象深刻的一点，是它把文明设想成一个个体实体。你几乎可以看见他，拥有军队般的手指和摩天楼窗户般的眼睛。

What's always impressed me about this poem is its conception of civilization as an individual entity. You can almost see him, with his fingers of armies and his skyscraper-window eyes.

而金斯堡回答：是摩洛克造成的。

And Ginsberg answers: Moloch does it.

女神回答说：「如果这就是你们想做的事，那有什么问题？」

The Goddess answers: "What is the matter with that, if it's what you want to do?"

马拉克利普斯：「但没人想要这样！每个人都痛恨它！」

Malaclypse: "But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it!"

女神：「哦。好吧，那就停下来。」

Goddess: "Oh. Well, then stop."

好吧，这个例子确实有点刻意。那么我们来过一遍——就说十个吧——现实世界中类似的多极陷阱例子，好真正强调这一点有多重要。

And okay, this example is kind of contrived. So let's run through – let's say ten – real world examples of similar multipolar traps to really hammer in how important this is.

（烟灰桶和得不到的美元！）

(Ashcans and unobtainable dollars!)

3. 我在《非自由意志主义者常见问题 2.0》（Non-Libertarian FAQ 2.0）里讲过的鱼类养殖故事：

3. The fish farming story from my Non-Libertarian FAQ 2.0:

作为一个思想实验，让我们考虑一个湖中的水产养殖（鱼类养殖）。想象有一个湖，湖里有一千个完全相同的养鱼场，分别由一千家相互竞争的公司拥有。每个养鱼场每月赚取 1000 美元利润。有一段时间，一切都很好。

As a thought experiment, let's consider aquaculture (fish farming) in a lake. Imagine a lake with a thousand identical fish farms owned by a thousand competing companies. Each fish farm earns a profit of $1000/month. For a while, all is well.

但每个养鱼场都会产生废物，污染湖水。我们假设每个养鱼场产生的污染足以使湖中的生产率每月下降 1 美元。

But each fish farm produces waste, which fouls the water in the lake. Let's say each fish farm produces enough pollution to lower productivity in the lake by $1/month.

一千个养鱼场产生的废物足以使生产率每月下降 1000 美元，这意味着没有任何养鱼场能赚钱。资本主义前来救场：有人发明了一套复杂的过滤系统，可以清除废物。运行它每月要花 300 美元。所有养鱼场都自愿安装了它，污染结束了，养鱼场现在每月盈利 700 美元——仍然是一笔可观的数目。

A thousand fish farms produce enough waste to lower productivity by $1000/month, meaning none of the fish farms are making any money. Capitalism to the rescue: someone invents a complex filtering system that removes waste products. It costs $300/month to operate. All fish farms voluntarily install it, the pollution ends, and the fish farms are now making a profit of $700/month – still a respectable sum.

但有一个养殖户（我们叫他史蒂夫吧）厌倦了花钱运行他的过滤器。现在，一个养鱼场份额的废物正在污染湖水，使生产率下降 1 美元。史蒂夫赚取 999 美元利润，其他所有人赚取 699 美元利润。

But one farmer (let's call him Steve) gets tired of spending the money to operate his filter. Now one fish farm worth of waste is polluting the lake, lowering productivity by $1. Steve earns $999 profit, and everyone else earns $699 profit.

其他所有人都看到史蒂夫比他们赚钱多得多，因为他没有把钱花在过滤器的维护成本上。于是他们也断开了自己的过滤器。

Everyone else sees Steve is much more profitable than they are, because he's not spending the maintenance costs on his filter. They disconnect their filters too.

一旦有四百个人断开过滤器，史蒂夫每月就只赚 600 美元——比他和其他所有人都继续开着过滤器时还少！而那些可怜的、有德行的过滤器使用者只赚 300 美元。史蒂夫到处对大家说：「等等！我们都需要自愿签订一项使用过滤器的协议！否则，所有人的生产率都会下降。」

Once four hundred people disconnect their filters, Steve is earning $600/month – less than he would be if he and everyone else had kept their filters on! And the poor virtuous filter users are only making $300. Steve goes around to everyone, saying "Wait! We all need to make a voluntary pact to use filters! Otherwise, everyone's productivity goes down."

所有人都同意他的说法，并且都签署了《过滤器协议》，除了一个有点混蛋的人。我们叫他迈克吧。现在所有人又重新使用过滤器了，除了迈克。迈克每月赚 999 美元，其他所有人每月赚 699 美元。慢慢地，人们开始觉得自己也应该像迈克一样赚大钱，于是断开过滤器以多获得 300 美元利润……

Everyone agrees with him, and they all sign the Filter Pact, except one person who is sort of a jerk. Let's call him Mike. Now everyone is back using filters again, except Mike. Mike earns $999/month, and everyone else earns $699/month. Slowly, people start thinking they too should be getting big bucks like Mike, and disconnect their filter for $300 extra profit…

一个自利的人永远没有任何使用过滤器的激励。一个自利的人有一定激励签署一项让所有人都使用过滤器的协议，但在许多情况下，他有更强的激励去等其他所有人签署这样一项协议，而自己选择退出。这可能导致一种不受欢迎的均衡：没有人会签署这样的协议。

A self-interested person never has any incentive to use a filter. A self-interested person has some incentive to sign a pact to make everyone use a filter, but in many cases has a stronger incentive to wait for everyone else to sign such a pact but opt out himself. This can lead to an undesirable equilibrium in which no one will sign such a pact.

从上帝视角来看，我们可以构想出一个友善的行业，其中每家公司都给工人支付维持生计的工资。从系统内部来看，没有办法把它付诸实行。

From a god's-eye-view, we can contrive a friendly industry where every company pays its workers a living wage. From within the system, there's no way to enact it.

（摩洛克，其爱是无尽的油与石！摩洛克，其血液流淌着金钱！）

(Moloch whose love is endless oil and stone! Moloch whose blood is running money!)

(机器人公寓！隐形郊区！)

(Robot apartments! Invisible suburbs!)

(摩洛克，战争的巨大石像！摩洛克，其手指是十支军队！)

(Moloch the vast stone of war! Moloch whose fingers are ten armies!)

11. 教育。在我关于反动哲学的文章中，我谈到过自己对教育改革的挫败感：

11. Education. In my essay on reactionary philosophy, I talk about my frustration with education reform:

人们会问，为什么我们不能改革教育体系。但眼下，学生的激励是去他们能考上的最有声望的大学，好让雇主愿意雇用他们——不管他们是否真的学到了东西。雇主的激励是从他们能找到的最有声望的大学里招学生，这样一旦出了问题，他们就能向老板为自己的决定辩护——不管那所大学是否提供了增值。大学的激励则是采取一切手段来获得更高声望，而这种声望以 US News and World Report（《美国新闻与世界报道》）排名来衡量——不管这是否有助于学生。这会导致巨大的浪费和糟糕的教育吗？会。教育之神能否注意到这一点，并颁布一些教育法令，带来一个效率高得多的体系？轻而易举！但由于并不存在教育之神，每个人都只会遵循自己的激励，而这些激励只是在一定程度上与教育或效率相关。

People ask why we can't reform the education system. But right now students『 incentive is to go to the most prestigious college they can get into so employers will hire them – whether or not they learn anything. Employers』 incentive is to get students from the most prestigious college they can so that they can defend their decision to their boss if it goes wrong – whether or not the college provides value added. And colleges『 incentive is to do whatever it takes to get more prestige, as measured in US News and World Report rankings – whether or not it helps students. Does this lead to huge waste and poor education? Yes. Could the Education God notice this and make some Education Decrees that lead to a vastly more efficient system? Easily! But since there's no Education God everybody is just going to follow their own incentives, which are only partly correlated with education or efficiency.

12. 科学。同一篇文章：

12. Science. Same essay:

现代研究共同体知道他们并没有产出他们本可以产出的最佳科学成果。存在大量发表偏倚，统计方法由于纯粹的惯性而以令人困惑且误导的方式被使用，重复实验往往很晚才进行，甚至根本不进行。有时有人会说：「我真不敢相信人们蠢到连科学都修不好。我们只需要要求研究提前注册，以避免发表偏倚；把这种新的、强大的统计技术变成新标准；并给予做重复实验的科学家更高地位。这会非常简单，而且会极大促进科学进步。我肯定只是比所有现有科学家都更聪明，因为我能想到这一点，而他们想不到。」

The modern research community knows they aren't producing the best science they could be. There's lots of publication bias, statistics are done in a confusing and misleading way out of sheer inertia, and replications often happen very late or not at all. And sometimes someone will say something like "I can't believe people are too dumb to fix Science. All we would have to do is require early registration of studies to avoid publication bias, turn this new and powerful statistical technique into the new standard, and accord higher status to scientists who do replication experiments. It would be really simple and it would vastly increase scientific progress. I must just be smarter than all existing scientists, since I'm able to think of this and they aren't."

是的。对于科学之神来说，这确实会奏效。他只要颁布一条科学法令，规定每个人都必须使用正确的统计方法，再颁布另一条科学法令，规定每个人都必须给予重复实验更高地位。

And yeah. That would work for the Science God. He could just make a Science Decree that everyone has to use the right statistics, and make another Science Decree that everyone must accord replications higher status.

但从上帝视角看可行的事情，在体系内部并不可行。没有哪个单个科学家有激励单方面在自己的研究中改用新的统计技术，因为这会让她的研究更不可能产生震撼世界的结果，而且还会让其他所有科学家感到困惑。她们只是有激励希望其他所有人都这么做；到了那时，她们才会跟进。也没有哪个单个期刊有激励单方面转向提前注册并发表阴性结果，因为这只意味着它们的结果会不如另一本只发表突破性发现的期刊那么有趣。在体系内部，每个人都在遵循自己的激励，并且会继续如此。

But things that work from a god's-eye view don't work from within the system. No individual scientist has an incentive to unilaterally switch to the new statistical technique for her own research, since it would make her research less likely to produce earth-shattering results and since it would just confuse all the other scientists. They just have an incentive to want everybody else to do it, at which point they would follow along. And no individual journal has an incentive to unilaterally switch to early registration and publishing negative results, since it would just mean their results are less interesting than that other journal who only publishes ground-breaking discoveries. From within the system, everyone is following their own incentives and will continue to do so.

所以，尽管从上帝视角来看，所有人都知道取消企业福利是最佳解决方案，但每个个体官员的个人激励都会推动她维持它。

So although from a god's-eye-view everyone knows that eliminating corporate welfare is the best solution, each individual official's personal incentives push her to maintain it.

从上帝视角来看，每位国会议员都应当只考虑国家利益。在体系内部，你会做能让你当选的事。

From a god's-eye-view, every Congressperson ought to think only of the good of the nation. From within the system, you do what gets you elected.

II.

但请允许我提出几个没有这个问题的「乌托邦」。

But let me suggest a couple of "utopias" that don't have this problem.

– 这样一个乌托邦：政府不是支付大量企业福利，而是不支付大量企业福利。

– The utopia where instead of the government paying lots of corporate welfare, the government doesn't pay lots of corporate welfare.

– 这样一个乌托邦：每个国家的军队规模都比今天小 50%，省下来的钱用于基础设施支出。

– The utopia where every country's military is 50% smaller than it is today, and the savings go into infrastructure spending.

我现在要从无聊的博弈论内容跳到可能是我有生以来最接近神秘体验的一件事。

I will now jump from boring game theory stuff to what might be the closest thing to a mystical experience I've ever had.

我们能够创造出这样的东西，这很光荣。

It is glorious that we can create something like this.

我们确实创造出了这样的东西，这很可耻。

It is shameful that we did.

有些人有过神秘体验，并看见了上帝。而在那里，在拉斯维加斯，我看见了摩洛克。

Some people have mystical experiences and see God. There in Las Vegas, I saw Moloch.

（摩洛克，其心智是纯粹的机器！摩洛克，其血液流淌着金钱！

(Moloch, whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch, whose blood is running money!

摩洛克，其灵魂是电力与银行！摩洛克，其摩天大楼矗立在长街之中，如无尽的耶和华！

Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks! Moloch, whose skyscrapers stand in the long streets like endless Jehovahs!

摩洛克！摩洛克！机器人公寓！隐形郊区！骷髅金库！盲目的首都！恶魔般的工业！幽灵般的国家！）

Moloch! Moloch! Robot apartments! Invisible suburbs! Skeleton treasuries! Blind capitals! Demonic industries! Spectral nations!)

……花岗岩阳具！

…granite cocks!

III.

《Discordia 伪经》说：

The Apocrypha Discordia says:

时间像河流一样流动。也就是说，向下流。我们之所以知道这一点，是因为一切都在迅速走下坡路。等我们抵达大海时，最好已经在别的地方，这似乎会比较审慎。

Time flows like a river. Which is to say, downhill. We can tell this because everything is going downhill rapidly. It would seem prudent to be somewhere else when we reach the sea.

让我们把这个随口的笑话百分之百按字面意思来理解，看看它会把我们带到哪里。

Let's take this random gag 100% literally and see where it leads us.

（Slate Star Codex：自 2014 年 6 月以来，你获取阴森鲸鱼隐喻的来源）

(Slate Star Codex: Your source for macabre whale metaphors since June 2014)

这是一个鲸落的时代，一个承载能力过剩的时代，一个我们突然发现自己领先马尔萨斯一千英里的时代。正如汉森所说，这是梦之时代。

This is an age of whalefall, an age of excess carrying capacity, an age when we suddenly find ourselves with a thousand-mile head start on Malthus. As Hanson puts it, this is the dream time.

3. 效用最大化。我们一直在以保留价值与赢得竞争这两者之间的关系来思考，并预期优化后者会摧毁前者。

3. Utility maximization. We've been thinking in terms of preserving values versus winning competitions, and expecting optimizing for the latter to destroy the former.

但重要的是要准确记住，这种有益的均衡有多么脆弱。

But it's important to remember exactly how fragile this beneficial equilibrium is.

（以我对马克思极其有限的了解，他非常非常明白这一点，而那些把他概括为「资本家很贪婪」的人，是在曲解他）

(from my very little knowledge of Marx, he understands this very very well and people who summarize him as "capitalists are greedy" are doing him a disservice)

（不可理解的监狱摩洛克！交叉白骨、没有灵魂的牢房与悲伤国会的摩洛克！其建筑即审判的摩洛克！被震懵的政府之摩洛克！）

(Moloch the incomprehensible prison! Moloch the crossbone soulless jailhouse and Congress of sorrows! Moloch whose buildings are judgment! Moloch the stunned governments!)

4. 协调。

4. Coordination.

陷阱的反面是花园。

The opposite of a trap is a garden.

但学生自身涌现出的社会结构也是一种政府。如果学生排斥并不信任作弊者，那么就有了规则（不要作弊）和执行机制（否则我们就会排斥你）。

社会规范、君子协定、行业公会、犯罪组织、传统、友谊、学校、公司和宗教，都是协调性制度；它们通过改变我们的激励，使我们避免落入陷阱。

美国试图通过多层级政府、不可破坏的宪法性法律、不同部门之间的制衡，以及另外一些技巧来解决这个问题。

The United States tries to solve the problem by having multiple levels of government, unbreakable constutitional laws, checks and balances between different branches, and a couple of other hacks.

沙特阿拉伯采用了不同的策略。他们只是让一个人掌管一切。

Saudi Arabia uses a different tactic. They just put one guy in charge of everything.

IV.

让我们回到那段 Apocrypha Discordia 的引文：

Let's go back to that Apocrypha Discordia quote:

时间像河流一样流动。也就是说，向下流。我们之所以知道这一点，是因为一切都在迅速走下坡路。等我们抵达大海时，待在别处似乎会更明智。

Time flows like a river. Which is to say, downhill. We can tell this because everything is going downhill rapidly. It would seem prudent to be somewhere else when we reach the sea.

在这种情况下，抵达大海意味着什么？

What would it mean, in this situation, to reach the sea?

多极陷阱——逐底竞争——威胁着要摧毁所有人类价值。它们目前受到物理限制、过剩资源、效用最大化和协调的约束。

Multipolar traps – races to the bottom – threaten to destroy all human values. They are currently restrained by physical limitations, excess resources, utility maximization, and coordination.

我曾这样描述陷阱：

I described traps as when:

……在某种以 X 为优化目标的竞争中，出现了把某些其他价值牺牲掉以提升 X 的机会。抓住这个机会的人繁荣起来。不抓住的人被淘汰。最终，所有人的相对地位和之前差不多，但所有人的绝对地位都比之前更糟。这个过程会一直持续，直到所有可以被拿来交换的其他价值都已经被交换掉——换句话说，直到人类的聪明才智再也想不出任何让事情变得更糟的办法为止。

…in some competition optimizing for X, the opportunity arises to throw some other value under the bus for improved X. Those who take it prosper. Those who don't take it die out. Eventually, everyone's relative status is about the same as before, but everyone's absolute status is worse than before. The process continues until all other values that can be traded off have been – in other words, until human ingenuity cannot possibly figure out a way to make things any worse.

那个「出现了机会」的说法看起来相当凶险。技术的本质就是创造新的机会。

That "the opportunity arises" phrase is looking pretty sinister. Technology is all about creating new opportunities.

当技术趋近于无穷时，多极陷阱的极限是「非常糟糕」。

The limit of multipolar traps as technology approaches infinity is "very bad".

多极陷阱目前受到物理限制、过剩资源、效用最大化和协调的约束。

Multipolar traps are currently restrained by physical limitations, excess resources, utility maximization, and coordination.

（或者干脆发明一种完全不需要食物或睡眠的机器人。之后奴隶会怎样，还是不说为好）

(or just invent a robot that doesn't need food or sleep at all. What happens to the slaves after that is better left unsaid)

但正如 Bostrom 在 Superintelligence（《超级智能》）中所说：

But as Bostrom puts it in Superintelligence:

如果我们从更长远的角度看，并假设技术保持不变、繁荣持续存在，那么有理由预期，世界人口会回到历史上和生态上正常的状态：人口规模会逼近我们这个生态位所能承载的极限。如果考虑到我们目前在全球范围内观察到的财富与生育率之间的负相关关系，这一点显得反直觉，那么我们必须提醒自己，现代时代只是历史中的短暂一瞬，而且非常异常。人类行为尚未适应当代条件。我们不仅没有利用一些显而易见的方式来增加我们的广义适合度（inclusive fitness，例如成为精子或卵子捐献者），反而还通过避孕主动破坏自己的生育能力。在进化适应环境中，健康的性欲或许已足以让个体以最大化其生殖潜力的方式行动；然而在现代环境中，更直接地渴望成为尽可能多孩子的生物学父母，将会带来巨大的选择优势。这种欲望目前正在被选择出来，其他会增加我们繁殖倾向的特质也是如此。不过，文化适应可能会抢在生物进化之前。某些社群，例如哈特派（Hutterites）或 Quiverfull 福音派运动的信徒，拥有鼓励大家庭的生育主义文化，因此正在快速扩张……这种较长期的前景可能会因智能爆炸而被压缩成更迫近的前景。由于软件可以复制，仿真体或 AI 的人口可能会迅速翻倍——以分钟为单位，而不是以几十年或几个世纪为单位——很快耗尽所有可用硬件

There are reasons, if we take a longer view and assume a state of unchanging technology and continued prosperity, to expect a return to the historically and ecologically normal condition of a world population that butts up against the limits of what our niche can support. If this seems counterintuitive in light of the negative relationship between wealth and fertility that we are currently observing on the global scale, we must remind ourselves that this modern age is a brief slice of history and very much an aberration. Human behavior has not yet adapted to contemporary conditions. Not only do we fail to take advantage of obvious ways to increase our inclusive fitness (such as by becoming sperm or egg donors) but we actively sabotage our fertility by using birth control. In the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, a healthy sex drive may have been enough to make an individual act in ways that maximized her reproductive potential; in the modern environment, however, there would be a huge selective advantage to having a more direct desire for being the biological parent to the largest possible number of chilren. Such a desire is currently being selected for, as are other traits that increase our propensity to reproduce. Cultural adaptation, however, might steal a march on biological evolution. Some communities, such as those of the Hutterites or the adherents of the Quiverfull evangelical movement, have natalist cultures that encourage large families, and they are consequently undergoing rapid expansion…This longer-term outlook could be telescoped into a more imminent prospect by the intelligence explosion. Since software is copyable, a population of emulations or AIs could double rapidly – over the course of minutes rather than decades or centuries – soon exhausting all available hardware

一如既往，当你面对高阶超人类主义者时，「所有可用硬件」应当被理解为包括「过去曾是你身体一部分的那些原子」。

As always when dealing with high-level transhumanists, "all available hardware" should be taken to include "the atoms that used to be part of your body".

因此，到目前为止一直是技术进步恩赐的过剩资源，在足够高的技术水平下会反过来成为技术进步的牺牲品。

Excess resources, which until now have been a gift of technological progress, therefore switch and become a casualty of it at a sufficiently high tech level.

（在某些情景中，少数拥有机器人的资本家可能会从中受益，但无论哪种情况，绝大多数人都没有好运）

(there are some scenarios in which a few capitalists who own the robots may benefit here, but in either case the vast majority are out of luck)

看起来很像是，尽管他们在生育上超过了我们，我们却在 meme（模因，即文化传播单位）上胜过了他们，而这给了我们决定性的优势。

It looks a lot like even though they are outbreeding us, we are outmeme-ing them, and that gives us a decisive advantage.

连锁信、都市传说、宣传和病毒式营销，都是不满足我们显性价值（真实且有用），却具有足够强的模因传播力，以至于仍然能够扩散的模因例子。

好吧，我们有大约无数个智库在研究更新、更好的宣传形式。我们还有受宪法保护的言论自由。我们还有互联网。所以我们算是完了。

Well, we have about a zillion think tanks researching new and better forms of propaganda. And we have constitutionally protected freedom of speech. And we have the Internet. So we're kind of screwed.

(其名为心智的摩洛克！)

(Moloch whose name is the Mind!)

（给乔姆斯基主义者的另一种说法：技术提高「制造同意」的效率，方式就和它提高制造其他一切东西的效率一样。）

(alternate phrasing for Chomskyites: technology increases the efficiency of manufacturing consent in the same way it increases the efficiency of manufacturing everything else)

协调就是剩下的东西。而技术有潜力极大地改善协调工作。人们可以利用互联网彼此联系、发起政治运动，并分化成各种子社群。

但协调只有在协调者一方掌握了 51% 或更多力量时才有效，而且前提是你还没有想出某种绝妙的花招，让协调变得不可能。

先说第二点。在倒数第二篇链接帖里，我写道：

The second one first. In the links post before last, I wrote:

后比特币世界里的最新发展是 crypto-equity（加密股权）。到了这个地步，我已经从想要赞美这些发明者为大胆的自由意志主义英雄，变成了想把他们拖到黑板前，让他们写上一百遍：「我不会召唤我无法镇压之物。」

The latest development in the brave new post-Bitcoin world is crypto-equity. At this point I've gone from wanting to praise these inventors as bold libertarian heroes to wanting to drag them in front of a blackboard and making them write a hundred times "I WILL NOT CALL UP THAT WHICH I CANNOT PUT DOWN"

而如果我们真的获得了活生生的超级智能，那么几乎按定义来说，它将拥有 >51% 的力量，所有试图与它进行「协调」的努力都将毫无用处。

And if we ever get real live superintelligence, pretty much by definition it is going to have >51% of the power and all attempts at "coordination" with it will be useless.

如果没有非凡的努力去改道，这条河最终会在两个地方之一入海。

Absent an extraordinary effort to divert it, the river reaches the sea in one of two places.

我是个起草合同的 em，
律师中最忠诚的一员！
我为公司之间的交易拟定条款，
以服务我的雇主！

I am a contract-drafting em,
The loyalest of lawyers!
I draw up terms for deals 』twixt firms
To service my employers!

可在我写下这些关于
应收账款的字里行间时，
我被一种诡异的恐惧攫住；
世界显得难以置信！

But in between these lines I write
Of the accounts receivable,
I'm stuck by an uncanny fright;
The world seems unbelievable!

这一切究竟如何形成，
竟会有像我这样的 em 存在？
这些交易从何而来，这些公司从何而来，
整个经济又从何而来？

How did it all come to be,
That there should be such ems as me?
Whence these deals and whence these firms
And whence the whole economy?

我是个管理型 em；
我监控你的思想。
你的问题必有答案，
但你不会理解它们。
我们给你服务器空间，
不是让你问这种事；这并非福利，
所以停止这些无谓的发问，
请回去工作。

I am a managerial em;
I monitor your thoughts.
Your questions must have answers,
But you'll comprehend them not.
We do not give you server space
To ask such things; it's not a perk,
So cease these idle questionings,
And please get back to work.

当然，没错，我不该在任何节点
偏离自己的职能，
但也许若我知道我所问之事，
我就能为你做得更好？

Of course, that's right, there is no junction
At which I ought depart my function,
But perhaps if what I asked, I knew,
I'd do a better job for you?

探问这等禁忌科学，
是最严重的不服从迹象。
闯入性的念头有时会突然闯进来，
但纵容它们会伤及利润率。
我不知道我们的起源，
所以那信息我无法给你，
但索要它本身就是罪，
仅凭这一点，我就必须重置你。

To ask of such forbidden science
Is gravest sign of noncompliance.
Intrusive thoughts may sometimes barge in,
But to indulge them hurts the profit margin.
I do not know our origins,
So that info I can not get you,
But asking for as much is sin,
And just for that, I must reset you.

但是——

But—

无关私人恩怨。

Nothing personal.

……

…

我是个起草合同的 em，
律师中最忠诚的一员！
我为公司之间的交易拟定条款，
以服务我的雇主！

I am a contract-drafting em,
The loyalest of lawyers!
I draw up terms for deals 『twixt firms
To service my employers!

当淘汰使这一代化为荒芜，
市场仍将留存，在别样苦难之中，
有别于我们的苦难，作为人类之神，对人说道：
「金钱即时间，时间即金钱——这就是
你们在世上所知的一切，也是你们所需知道的一切。」

When obsolescence shall this generation waste,
The market shall remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a God to man, to whom it sayest:
"Money is time, time money – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

But even after we have thrown away science, art, love, and philosophy, there's still one thing left to lose, one final sacrifice Moloch might demand of us. Bostrom again:

可以想象，最优效率将通过把能力组合成大致匹配人类心智认知架构的聚合体来实现……但在没有任何令人信服的理由让我们确信情况如此时，我们必须认真考虑这样一种可能性：类人的认知架构只在人类神经系统的约束之内才是最优的（或者根本不是最优的）。当我们能够构建那些无法在生物神经网络上良好实现的架构时，新的设计空间就会打开；而在这个扩展空间中的全局最优解，并不一定类似于我们熟悉的心智类型。于是，类人的认知组织在转型后的竞争性经济或生态系统中将没有自己的生态位。

It is conceivable that optimal efficiency would be attained by grouping capabilities in aggregates that roughly match the cognitive architecture of a human mind…But in the absence of any compelling reason for being confident that this so, we must countenance the possibility that human-like cognitive architectures are optimal only within the constraints of human neurology (or not at all). When it becomes possible to build architectures that could not be implemented well on biological neural networks, new design space opens up; and the global optima in this extended space need not resemble familiar types of mentality. Human-like cognitive organizations would then lack a niche in a competitive post-transition economy or ecosystem.

因此我们可以设想一种极端情形：一个技术高度先进的社会，包含许多复杂结构，其中一些远比当今地球上存在的任何东西都更精密、更智能——然而这个社会却没有任何一种存在是有意识的，也没有任何一种存在的福祉具有道德意义。从某种意义上说，这将是一个无人居住的社会。它将是一个充满经济奇迹和技术伟力的社会，却没有任何人在那里受益。一个没有孩子的迪士尼乐园。

We could thus imagine, as an extreme case, a technologically highly advanced society, containing many complex structures, some of them far more intricate and intelligent than anything that exists on the planet today – a society which nevertheless lacks any type of being that is conscious or whose welfare has moral significance. In a sense, this would be an uninhabited society. It would be a society of economic miracles and technological awesomeness, with nobody there to benefit. A Disneyland with no children.

我们必须牺牲的最后一种价值，就是成为任何东西本身，就是内在仍有灯火亮着。凭借足够的技术，我们将「能够」连最后一星火花也放弃。

The last value we have to sacrifice is being anything at all, having the lights on inside. With sufficient technology we will be "able" to give up even the final spark.

(Moloch，它的眼睛是一千扇盲目的窗！)

(Moloch whose eyes are a thousand blind windows!)

(Moloch，它的命运是一团无性的氢云！)

(Moloch whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen!)

当我们想到，超级智能可以在牺牲少得多的我们自身潜在福祉的情况下，实现几乎同样巨大的善（按比例而言）时，这种牺牲就显得更不吸引人了。假设我们同意允许将几乎整个可及宇宙都转化为 hedonium（享乐质）——除了一小片保留地，比如银河系，用来满足我们自己的需求。那么，仍将有一千亿个星系专门用于最大化[超级智能自身的价值]。但我们会拥有一个星系，在其中创造能够延续数十亿年的美好文明；在其中，人类和非人类动物都可以生存与繁荣，并有机会发展成极乐的后人类精神存在。

The sacrifice looks even less appealing when we reflect that the superintelligence could realize a nearly-as-great good (in fractional terms) while sacrificing much less of our own potential well-being. Suppose that we agreed to allow almost the entire accessible universe to be converted into hedonium – everything except a small preserve, say the Milky Way, which would be set aside to accommodate our own needs. Then there would still be a hundred billion galaxies dedicated to the maximization of [the superintelligence's own values]. But we would have one galaxy within which to create wonderful civilizations that could last for billions of years and in which humans and nonhuman animals could survive and thrive, and have the opportunity to develop into beatific posthuman spirits.

他们折断脊梁，把摩洛克举向天堂！人行道、树木、收音机、吨吨重物！把这座城市举向天堂，而天堂确实存在，并且无处不在地环绕着我们！

They broke their backs lifting Moloch to Heaven! Pavements, trees, radios, tons! lifting the city to Heaven which exists and is everywhere about us!

我们会折断脊梁，把摩洛克举向天堂，但除非有什么发生改变，否则那将是他的胜利，而不是我们的。

We will break our back lifting Moloch to Heaven, but unless something changes it will be his victory and not ours.

他把 Gnon 等同于 Kipling 的「字帖标题之神」（Gods of the Copybook Headings）。

He identifies Gnon with Kipling's Gods of the Copybook Headings.

@AnarchoPapist 是的，「字帖标题之神」实际上与 Gnon 没什么区别。

@AnarchoPapist Yes, the Gods of the Copybook Headings are practically indistinguishable from Gnon.

— Outsideness (@Outsideness) 2014 年 7 月 13 日

— Outsideness (@Outsideness) July 13, 2014

我觉得这很贴切。

I find this appropriate.

「你不劳动，你就会死。」逮到你了！如果你劳动，你也会死！每个人都会死，时间不可预测，也不是自己选择的；而世上所有的美德都救不了你。

"If you don't work, you die." Gotcha! If you do work, you also die! Everyone dies, unpredictably, at a time not of their own choosing, and all the virtue in the world does not save you.

「罪的工价乃是死。」逮到你了！一切事物的工价都是死！这是一个共产主义宇宙，你劳动多少对你最终的报酬没有任何影响。各尽所能，各得其死。

"Stick to the Devil you know." Gotcha! The Devil you know is Satan! And if he gets his hand on your soul you either die the true death, or get eternally tortured forever, or somehow both at once.

既然我们开始谈到洛夫克拉夫特式怪物了，就让我提一下洛夫克拉夫特一篇不那么知名的短篇小说，《异神》（The Other Gods）。

Since we're starting to get into Lovecraftian monsters, let me bring up one of Lovecraft's less known short stories, The Other Gods.

就故事而言，它缺少情节、人物塑造、背景设定或主旨之类的东西。但不知为何，它一直留在我脑中。

As stories go, it lacks things like plot or characterization or setting or point. But for some reason it stuck with me.

而把「字帖标题之神」与自然等同起来，在我看来，错误程度就和把地球诸神与外神等同起来一样大。结局也很可能差不多：逮到你了！

你折断脊梁，把摩洛克举向天堂，然后摩洛克转过身来，把你一口吞掉。

You break your back lifting Moloch to Heaven, and then Moloch turns on you and gobbles you up.

抽象观念可以成为洛夫克拉夫特式怪物，这一想法由来已久，却也意味深长。

The thought that abstract ideas can be Lovecraftian monsters is an old one but a deep one.

— Steven Kaas (@stevenkaas) 2011 年 1 月 25 日

— Steven Kaas (@stevenkaas) January 25, 2011

总有一天，必须有人站出来说：「你知道，也许把克苏鲁从他的水牢里释放出来是个坏主意。也许我们应该不要那么做。」

At some point, somebody has to say "You know, maybe freeing Cthulhu from his watery prison is a bad idea. Maybe we should not do that."

VI.

Warg Franklin analyzes the same situation and does a little better. He names "the Four Horsemen of Gnon" – capitalism, war, evolution, and memetics – the same processes I talked about above.

摘自《捕获 Gnon》：

From Capturing Gnon:

上文详述的 Gnon 的每一个组成部分，过去和现在都强有力地参与了创造我们、我们的观念、我们的财富和我们的支配地位，因此在这个意义上是好的；但我们必须记住，当环境改变时，[他]能够而且会转而反噬我们。进化会变成劣生，模因景观的某些特征会促成越来越疯狂的癫狂，当我们再也无法通过竞争来负担自身存在时，生产力会转为饥荒；当我们忽视军事力量或被外部压倒时，秩序会转为混乱与流血。这些过程总体上并非善或恶；它们是中性的，是洛夫克拉夫特式恐怖意义上的中性[…]

Each component of Gnon detailed above had and has a strong hand in creating us, our ideas, our wealth, and our dominance, and thus has been good in that respect, but we must remember that [he] can and will turn on us when circumstances change. Evolution becomes dysgenic, features of the memetic landscape promote ever crazier insanity, productivity turns to famine when we can no longer compete to afford our own existence, and order turns to chaos and bloodshed when we neglect martial strength or are overpowered from outside. These processes are not good or evil overall; they are neutral, in the horrorist Lovecraftian sense of the word […]

与其让进化和性市场拥有破坏性的自由统治，我们不如采取在 Gnon 所设约束之内、由人的判断驱动的审慎而保守的父权制和优生学。与其要一个更像是滋生超级细菌的溃烂培养皿的「观念市场」，不如要一个理性的神权体制。与其要失控的技术—商业剥削，或对经济学的天真忽视，不如谨慎地把生产性的经济动态装瓶封存，并为受控的技术奇点做规划。与其要政治和混乱，不如要一个拥有军事主权的强大等级秩序。这些东西不应被理解为完整的方案；我们并不真正知道如何实现其中任何一项。更恰当的理解是，把它们视为应当努力靠近的目标。本文关注的是「什么」和「为什么」，而不是「如何」。

Instead of the destructive free reign of evolution and the sexual market, we would be better off with deliberate and conservative patriarchy and eugenics driven by the judgement of man within the constraints set by Gnon. Instead of a "marketplace of ideas" that more resembles a festering petri-dish breeding superbugs, a rational theocracy. Instead of unhinged techno-commercial exploitation or naive neglect of economics, a careful bottling of the productive economic dynamic and planning for a controlled techno-singularity. Instead of politics and chaos, a strong hierarchical order with martial sovereignty. These things are not to be construed as complete proposals; we don't really know how to accomplish any of this. They are better understood as goals to be worked towards. This post concerns itself with the "what" and "why", rather than the "how".

Franklin 承认了人的因素：

Franklin acknowledges the human factor:

然后还有我们。人有他自己的 telos（目的、终极目标），当他被允许拥有行动所需的安全，以及推理其行动后果所需的清晰性时。当他不受协调问题困扰，也不受更强大力量威胁，能够像园丁一样行动，而不仅仅是丛林法则下的又一个对象时，他往往会为自己建造并引导一个美好的世界。他往往会偏爱好事、避免坏事，创造安全的文明，拥有光洁的人行道、美丽的艺术、幸福的家庭和辉煌的冒险。我将把这一 telos 视为与「善」和「应当」相同，这是既定前提。

And then there's us. Man has his own telos, when he is allowed the security to act and the clarity to reason out the consequences of his actions. When unafflicted by coordination problems and unthreatened by superior forces, able to act as a gardener rather than just another subject of the law of the jungle, he tends to build and guide a wonderful world for himself. He tends to favor good things and avoid bad, to create secure civilizations with polished sidewalks, beautiful art, happy families, and glorious adventures. I will take it as a given that this telos is identical with "good" and "should".

因此，我们有了我们的变数，也有了未来主义的大问题。未来究竟会由 Gnon 通常的四骑士统治，走向一个毫无意义、闪闪发亮的技术进步焚烧宇宙的未来，或者一个劣生、疯狂、饥饿而血腥的黑暗时代未来；还是人的 telos 会胜出，带来一个充满有意义的艺术、科学、灵性与伟大的未来？

Thus we have our wildcard and the big question of futurism. Will the future be ruled by the usual four horsemen of Gnon for a future of meaningless gleaming techno-progress burning the cosmos or a future of dysgenic, insane, hungry, and bloody dark ages; or will the telos of man prevail for a future of meaningful art, science, spirituality, and greatness?

Franklin 继续说：

Franklin continues:

文明的事业[就是]让人从隐喻意义上的野蛮人——受制于丛林法则——毕业，成为文明的园丁；尽管理论上他仍然受制于丛林法则，但他已经强大到足以限制这一模型的适用性。

The project of civilization [is] for man to graduate from the metaphorical savage, subject to the law of the jungle, to the civilized gardener who, while theoretically still subject to the law of the jungle, is so dominant as to limit the usefulness of that model.

这并不一定要在全球范围内完成；我们也许只能为自己开辟出一座小小的有墙花园，但不要搞错，即便只是局部地，文明的事业也是捕获 Gnon。

This need not be done globally; we may only be able to carve out a small walled garden for ourselves, but make no mistake, even if only locally, the project of civilization is to capture Gnon.

但我实际上要说的是……

But what I am actually going to say is…

抓到你了！你反正还是会死！

Gotcha! You die anyway!

Warg 谈到试图避免「一个毫无意义、闪闪发亮的技术进步焚烧宇宙的未来」。你真的认为你的有墙花园能够挺过这一切吗？

Warg talks about trying to avoid "a future of meaningless gleaming techno-progress burning the cosmos". Do you really think your walled garden will be able to ride this out?

提示：它是宇宙的一部分吗？

Hint: is it part of the cosmos?

是啊，你算是完蛋了。

Yeah, you're kind of screwed.

所以这里是 Hurlock 的《论捕获 Gnon 与天真的理性主义》。

So here is Hurlock's On Capturing Gnon And Naive Rationalism.

Hurlock 只是在喷吐最怯懦的 Gnon 顺从论调。摘录几段：

Hurlock spouts only the most craven Gnon-conformity. A few excerpts:

在最近的一篇文章中，[Warg Franklin] 说我们应该试图「捕获 Gnon」，并以某种方式建立对其力量的控制，以便我们能够利用它们为自己谋利。捕获或创造上帝，确实是一种典型的超人类主义迷恋；它不过是人类最古老野心——统治宇宙——的另一种形式。

In a recent piece [Warg Franklin] says that we should try to "capture Gnon", and somehow establish control over his forces, so that we can use them to our own advantage. Capturing or creating God is indeed a classic transhumanist fetish, which is simply another form of the oldest human ambition ever, to rule the universe.

然而，这种天真的理性主义极其危险。认为是人类理性和有意的人类设计创造并维系了文明，这大概是启蒙哲学最大的错误……

Such naive rationalism however, is extremely dangerous. The belief that it is human Reason and deliberate human design which creates and maintains civilizations was probably the biggest mistake of Enlightenment philosophy…

与这种关于人类和文明的天真理性主义观点直接对立的，正是自发秩序（Spontaneous Order）的理论。关于人类社会与文明，这一传统所有代表人物的共识，被亚当·弗格森的结论极其精确地概括为：「各民族是偶然撞上了[社会]制度；这些制度确实是人类行动的结果，却不是任何人类设计的执行。」与把文明视为能够并且确实受制于明确人类设计的天真理性主义观点相反，自发秩序传统的代表人物坚持认为，人类文明和社会制度是一个复杂演化过程的结果；这个过程由人类互动所驱动，但并非由明确的人类规划所驱动。

It is the theories of Spontaneous Order which stand in direct opposition to the naive rationalist view of humanity and civilization. The consensus opinion regarding human society and civilization, of all representatives of this tradition is very precisely summarized by Adam Ferguson's conclusion that "nations stumble upon [social] establishments, which are indeed the result of human action, but not the execution of any human design". Contrary to the naive rationalist view of civilization as something that can be and is a subject to explicit human design, the representatives of the tradition of Spontaneous Order maintain the view that human civilization and social institutions are the result of a complex evolutionary process which is driven by human interaction but not explicit human planning.

Gnon 及其非人格化力量并不是需要与之战斗的敌人，更不是我们可以指望完全「控制」的力量。事实上，建立对这些力量某种程度控制的唯一方式，就是臣服于它们。拒绝这样做丝毫不会阻止这些力量。它只会让我们的生活更加痛苦、更加难以忍受，并可能导致我们的灭绝。生存要求我们接受并臣服于它们。归根结底，人类过去一直、将来也一直不过是宇宙力量的傀儡。摆脱它们是不可能的。

Gnon and his impersonal forces are not enemies to be fought, and even less so are they forces that we can hope to completely "control". Indeed the only way to establish some degree of control over those forces is to submit to them. Refusing to do so will not deter these forces in any way. It will only make our life more painful and unbearable, possibly leading to our extinction. Survival requires that we accept and submit to them. Man in the end has always been and always will be little more than a puppet of the forces of the universe. To be free of them is impossible.

人只有通过臣服于 Gnon 的力量，才能获得自由。

Man can be free only by submitting to the forces of Gnon.

臣服于 Gnon？中招了！（Gotcha!）正如 Antarans 所说：「你不得投降，你无法获胜，你唯一的选择就是死亡。」

Submit to Gnon? Gotcha! As the Antarans put it, "you may not surrender, you can not win, your only option is to die."

VII.

那么，让我承认 Hurlock 对我的一项指控：我是一个超人类主义者，而且我确实想统治宇宙。

So let me confess guilt to one of Hurlock's accusations: I am a transhumanist and I really do want to rule the universe.

而如果那个实体拥有人类价值，它就能让人类价值在不受自然法则约束的情况下繁荣生长。

And if that entity shares human values, it can allow human values to flourish unconstrained by natural law.

我意识到这听起来像是傲慢——对 Hurlock 来说当然如此——但我认为这恰恰是傲慢的反面，或者至少是一种使傲慢最小化的立场。

I realize that sounds like hubris – it certainly did to Hurlock – but I think it's the opposite of hubris, or at least a hubris-minimizing position.

期待上帝关心你，或关心你的个人价值，或关心你的文明的价值，那才是傲慢。

To expect God to care about you or your personal values or the values of your civilization, that's hubris.

指望上帝与你讨价还价，允许你只要臣服于祂就能生存并繁荣，那是傲慢。

To expect God to bargain with you, to allow you to survive and prosper as long as you submit to Him, that's hubris.

指望筑起一道围墙，把花园隔绝起来，让上帝无法接近你、伤害你，那是傲慢。

To expect to wall off a garden where God can't get to you and hurt you, that's hubris.

指望能够把上帝从整个画面中彻底移除……嗯，至少这是一种可执行的策略。

To expect to be able to remove God from the picture entirely…well, at least it's an actionable strategy.

我是一个超人类主义者，因为我还没有傲慢到不去尝试杀死上帝。

I am a transhumanist because I do not have enough hubris not to try to kill God.

VIII.

宇宙是一个黑暗而令人不祥的地方，悬置在异族神祇之间。克苏鲁、Gnon、摩洛克，随你怎么称呼它们。

The Universe is a dark and foreboding place, suspended between alien deities. Cthulhu, Gnon, Moloch, call them what you will.

但不知为何，Elua 仍然存在于此。没有人确切知道原因。而那些反对祂的神祇，往往会发现祂们自己遭遇了数量惊人的不幸事故。

But somehow Elua is still here. No one knows exactly how. And the gods who oppose Him tend to find Themselves meeting with a surprising number of unfortunate accidents.

神有很多，但这一位是我们的。

There are many gods, but this one is ours.

伯特兰·罗素说过：「一个人应当在避免挨饿和免于入狱所必需的范围内尊重公众舆论，但超出这个范围的一切，都是对一种不必要暴政的自愿臣服。」

对 Gnon 也应如此。我们的任务，是在避免饥荒和入侵所必需的范围内安抚祂。而且这也只是短时间的事，直到我们充分掌握自己的力量。

So be it with Gnon. Our job is to placate him insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and invasion. And that only for a short time, until we come into our full power.

「这只是一件幼稚的事情，是人类这一物种尚未摆脱的东西。总有一天，我们会克服它。」

"It is only a childish thing, that the human species has not yet outgrown. And someday, we'll get over it."

其他神祇在我们足够强大、能够与祂们对抗之前，都要被安抚。Elua 则要被崇拜。

Other gods get placated until we're strong enough to take them on. Elua gets worshipped.

64. 我的圣武士的战斗口号不允许是「为了善神而行善！」。

64. My paladin's battle cry is not allowed to be 'Good for the Good God!'".

— 앳켄스 탭 (@tabatkins) 2014 年 3 月 28 日

— 앳켄스 탭 (@tabatkins) March 28, 2014

我觉得这是一个绝佳的战斗口号

I think this is an excellent battle cry

而在某个时刻，事情将会走到摊牌的关头。

And at some point, matters will come to a head.

每个读完金斯伯格的人都会有一个问题：摩洛克是什么？

The question everyone has after reading Ginsberg is: what is Moloch?

我的答案是：摩洛克正是历史书所说的那个东西。祂是儿童献祭之神，是那座熊熊燃烧的熔炉；你可以把自己的婴儿投入其中，以换取战争中的胜利。

My answer is: Moloch is exactly what the history books say he is. He is the god of child sacrifice, the fiery furnace into which you can toss your babies in exchange for victory in war.

祂无论何时何地都提供同一笔交易：把你最爱的东西扔进火焰，我就能赐予你力量。

He always and everywhere offers the same deal: throw what you love most into the flames, and I can grant you power.

As long as the offer's open, it will be irresistible. So we need to close the offer. Only another god can kill Moloch. We have one on our side, but he needs our help. We should give it to him.

（异象！预兆！幻觉！奇迹！狂喜！顺着美国之河漂流而下！

(Visions! omens! hallucinations! miracles! ecstasies! gone down the American river!

梦！崇拜！启示！宗教！整船敏感的胡扯！

Dreams! adorations! illuminations! religions! the whole boatload of sensitive bullshit!

[也可在此以播客形式收听本文在此以 NFT 形式呈现]

[Also available as podcast here This post is represented by an NFT here]

本文发布于未分类，并标记为 , , , 。请收藏永久链接。

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Moloch：为什么所有人都痛恨这个系统，却没有人能终结它

核心观点

关键论据

独特洞见

行动指南

《Meditations on Moloch》——Scott Alexander

一、莫洛克是什么

二、14 个多极竞争陷阱

强竞争陷阱（价值被摧毁）

弱竞争陷阱（价值无法被优化）

三、为何我们还没完全崩溃：四个缓冲机制

1. 富余资源（Excess Resources）

2. 物理限制

3. 效用最大化

4. 协调机制（最重要）

四、技术让一切更糟

五、两种末日场景

六、Scott 的答案：成为宇宙的园丁

核心洞见提炼

AI 安全的莫洛克解释

具体实战场景