I recently had a conversation with Sofia where we realized that we had radically different models of how/why the world was “bad/inadequate”. Usually, I find myself disagreeing with people on the grounds of “conflict vs. mistake theory” (I’m more of a mistake-theorist), but we were both somewhat on the “mistake” side!

Here were our central theses:

  • Sofia: The world is bad because of negative feedback loops that satisfy short-term needs over long-term betterment. One could try improving the world by outcompeting these processes/memes with positive equivalents (e.g., Bluesky vs. X), what I called “strategy stealing from the social media egregore.”
  • Ryan: The world is bad because people are in a state of deficiency and trauma; if they weren’t, they would make better choices. One should try improving the world by empowering people with resources and info and they will naturally make better choices (e.g., electing better leaders, boycotting bad companies, spending more on long-term security), what I called “mass self-actualization via Kuznets curve-climbing.”

In some ways these seem similar, but there are some differences. Here is my summary of Sofia’s thesis:

  1. The world is bad largely because of negative feedback loops that satisfy short-term needs over long-term betterment (e.g., addictive social media, fast fashion, environmentally unsustainable practises).
  2. The negative feedback loops are self-sustaining; they won’t fix themselves without dedicated effort.
  3. It’s possible to leverage the mechanisms that give the negative feedback loops power for positive ends.
  4. You probably can’t eliminate the negative feedback loops and create a good society without leveraging these mechanisms; idealists will get outcompeted.
  5. “Playing the meta” and beating the negative feedback loops “at their own game” is a relatively neglected strategy, particularly in Effective Altruism.