Glad you enjoyed it!
great point re: friends and epistemics. Also makes me think of people who get rich and famous (cough cough SBF cough cough) and become surrounded by yes-men and yes-women instead of friends who can call them out on their bullshit.
"It's a bit harder to see how it's tractable. "
Yeah that's the hard one, did the best I could here but obviously most of my suggestions are not super practical/realistic.
what don't you understand, seems pretty clear to me
This sounds great to me but I'm not the author, I just run the journal. We'd love to have you share your review of the article - "To register, please email email@example.com with your name, title (can be anything/optional), institution (same as title), and link (personal website, twitter, or linkedin is fine) for your listing on the gardeners page. From there, it's pretty self-explanatory - I will add you to the mailing list and send you an email that includes the manuscript, our publication criteria, and a simple review form for recording votes/comments."
"To register, please email firstname.lastname@example.org with your name, title (can be anything/optional), institution (same as title), and link (personal website, twitter, or linkedin is fine) for your listing on the gardeners page. From there, it's pretty self-explanatory - I will add you to the mailing list and send you an email that includes the manuscript, our publication criteria, and a simple review form for recording votes/comments."
I would say that reading the whole piece would clear up these issues - the second half (III and IV) is very different than the first and it might be hard to understand the whole thrust the argument without getting to the end.
I don't disagree with all of your points here regarding summaries and communicative efficiency. I think my argument is that other values necessarily get sacrificed in the name of efficiency and clarity - aesthetic value, persuasive efficacy, diversity of style/tone. Insisting that every article aims for clarity/efficiency is going to standardize articles in a way that affects the author's creativity and the mindset of the reader. There is nothing wrong with your preference for articles to conform to the "EA forum norms" - this is a style that is good for quick intake of information - but there are other goals that one can have in writing and reading. I would say my goal in this article is persuasive and inspirational, and as such there is (I hope) an artistic quality that is probably not found in many articles on here. Adding a summary, in my opinion, would detract from these goals/qualities. For example, as I said the second half of the article is very different than the first - a reader who knows what is coming to some degree might not feel the same emotions (and might not be inspired/persuaded) as they would if going in cold. While summaries might convince some people to read on, they also might stop some people from reading who would just plunge in otherwise. I would argue that the people who would be dissuaded from reading this article because of its summary are probably the people that need to read it the most, so in this sense of a summary is kind of self-defeating.
A summary is also good if you want the largest number of people to read your article, but there is no reason why this must be your goal as an author and it is not mine here. I would rather fewer people read the essay and actually think about it then more people read it but just skim.
Thanks for your comments! I never really had to make this argument before but I've had this feeling for some time. I can't say I'm super familiar with the EA forum and the typical writing styles/formats, curious what you or others think about it.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think I will add one - not because the article can't be summarized but because adding a summary is kind of antithetical to the whole thrust of the essay. In part, I am arguing that excessive emphasis on legibility and efficiency in science is killing creativity. If the lack of a summary means that less people will read it then so be it :)
I think you are definitely right about the oversimplification of the future, but I guess the point here is that we oversimplify in a somewhat predictable way.
I know one sports story set in the future, available online check it out.
17776 (also known as What Football Will Look Like in the Future) is a serialized speculative fiction multimedia narrative by Jon Bois, published online through SB Nation. Set in the distant future in which all humans have become immortal and infertile, the series follows three sentient space probes that watch humanity play an evolved form of American football in which games can be played for millennia over distances of thousands of miles.
There are definitely aspects of modern sports which are not great, but I am of the opinion that they are basically inescapable and on balance are a good thing. I would argue that any specific short-term costs (like allocation of police) is offset by economic, health, and social benefits, some of which may not be very easy to quantify (e.g. father-son bonding over a favorite team). The modern incarnation of sport is still incredibly young; there is probably considerable room for us to optimize their effect on society. As I point out, the problem is that people who think about the future are biased towards thinking of grand projects with very high-minded goals and not things like sports.
Try Bumble BFF :)