All this sounds basically right to me, and, comports with my own (not yet published) personal ethics, modulo that (to speak in the language Scott is using here, which is not my usual language) we TOTALLY have implicit obligations to animals.
This was fascinating (and slightly horrifying). I'd love to read more accounts of the sociological-economic dynamics of "worlds" that I have little exposure to.
"Feminine norms" are at least partially rooted in female psychology, but they're also just an adaption to being on the more-in-demand side of a competitive market with non-fixed supply, that thrives on impulsivity.
The non-fixed supply and then impulsivity are both important to get feminine norms.
Landlords are on the more-in-demand side of their markets, but they respond to that by charging higher rents. That's not enough to create feminine norms.
It helps for building the habit if you make an unobtrusive but distinct gesture every time you notice it.
One common form of rationalization for me is what I call "telling stories", where I'm justifying a feeling or position I'm holding to some (often imagined, sometimes in-person) audience.
This feels notably different from simply explaining what/why I'm feeling or what I think.
In the GTF (if we get there), we'll regularly do mental operations that take thousands of symbols.
We'll think it is utterly bizarre and horrifying that the biological bootloader beings (us) could only only do mental operations on ~4 symbols at a time.
How many thoughts are we not able to think, because they would require consciously holding in mind the specific relationships between just _10_ concepts, where you can't do it by chunking because the way each concept relates to the others depends all the rest?
If there are ways for people to quietly opt out of the defaults, they don't have to rebel against those norms to create space for themselves to live lives that work for them.
I could totally imagine that poly works badly for most people society would be better off if it were generally socially discouraged.
But some people are obviously-to-me very dispoistionally poly—it actually does work better for them.
I consider myself to "do philosophy", though what I mean by that has very little to do with academic philosophy or the "great philosophers" who I agree are mostly bad (with a few exceptions), except as examples of how different one’s worldview can be from what I take for granted.
By "philosophy" I mean "reflecting on the abstractions we use to make sense of and act in the world."
Philosophy is the domain that involves reflecting _on_ abstractions, reasoning about whether and where a particular abstraction is correct or useful, or whether and where a different abstraction would be better, etc.