Avoiding Negative Externalities—a theory with specific examples—Part 1

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6Zz8HSw5YwmRdxwHL/avoiding-negative-externalities-a-theory-with-specific

Ye who listen with credulity to the whispers of fancy, and pursue with eagerness the phantoms of hope; who expect that age will perform the promises of youth, and that the deficiencies of the present day will be supplied by the morrow; attend to the history of Rasselas, Prince of Abyssinia negative externalities.

Comment

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6Zz8HSw5YwmRdxwHL/avoiding-negative-externalities-a-theory-with-specific?commentId=dAy83PFzGKiRLcLe9

Great post; I will be following along! I appreciate both the lucidity of your explanation and the Johnsonian prose which is something I only ever dream of producing myself. In your opinion, what are some negative externalities that are NOT widely agreed upon? I would offer industrial-scale meat production and consumption and maybe excess incarceration (especially along the lines of drug criminalization).

Comment

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6Zz8HSw5YwmRdxwHL/avoiding-negative-externalities-a-theory-with-specific?commentId=JDNqz7AabAMS6kjvZ

I appreciate the support Sean. It’s not too difficult to write in lucid prose if it’s a subject near and dear to the heart and you allow a few hours of undivided attention, or at least that’s what I’ve found to be the case. The list of those effects not widely agreed could include all effects below the measurement capacities of our instruments, those limited to a certain subset of people, to a certain timeframe, or those that occur very briefly. I imagine the possible list is boundless in length.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6Zz8HSw5YwmRdxwHL/avoiding-negative-externalities-a-theory-with-specific?commentId=HS2TnRg4m85tFvDSb

Decline in biodiversity Or the opposite, allowing certain species to overpopulate Why one species overpopulating is bad is because there is a decrease in biodiversity (more biomass in more monotonic makeup) Was the first supposed to point to needless extinctions? Even there it might help to understand that if there is a balance of extinctions and speciation biodiversity can stay level. I also thought that the "external" in "negative externalities" was that it was impacting parties to directly involved. So in that sense a "negative internality" would be if I hunt you down, I get to eat and fill my belly and you get to die and suffer pain. And when we make agrements they sometimes bind us in a bad way, it should be positive on the whole but there are individual parts that are not in the enthusitic interest of the party that it effects. With this "external to considerations" scope even "Unknown unknowns" would be externalities.

Comment

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6Zz8HSw5YwmRdxwHL/avoiding-negative-externalities-a-theory-with-specific?commentId=xkJ66eNYYSD8bK6WZ

I go by the standard OED definition of biodiversity biodiversity /​ ˌbʌɪə(ʊ)dʌɪˈvəːsɪti /​ ▸ noun [ mass noun ] the variety of plant and animal life in the world or in a particular habitat, a high level of which is usually considered to be important and desirable . It was supposed to point to a decline in the variety of plant and animal life in the world or in a particular habitat, particularly those which are usually considered to be important and desirable .