tag:worldbetter.svbtle.com,2014:/feedWorldBetter2016-04-22T10:33:33-07:00Joel Lehmanhttps://worldbetter.svbtle.comSvbtle.comtag:worldbetter.svbtle.com,2014:Post/communicating-climate-change-to-aliens2016-04-22T10:33:33-07:002016-04-22T10:33:33-07:00Communicating Climate Change Controversy to Space Aliens<p>If you were a space alien visiting Earth, global warming would seem a strangely inflammatory topic. That’s because the controversy doesn’t really make sense until you understand the curious particularities of human psychology. Otherwise you’d be confused as to why an issue that at its core is purely scientific (is human activity warming the earth?) would be so contentious.</p>
<p>At the bottom of it, there’s just some simple unfeeling truth: Either the world is or isn’t warming, and if it is, then there’s some concrete fraction of that warming which results from human activity (somewhere inbetween zero and one hundred percent). So we might expect the debate between climate change believers and sceptics to be <em>about science</em>.</p>
<p>But instead, there’s strong evidence that disagreement about global warming mainly highlights how poorly humans are at being self-aware – <em>how bad we are at noticing flaws and biases in our own patterns of thinking.</em></p>
<p><strong>Hey, before you tune out:</strong> Whether you’re a climate change believer or skeptic, I’m not going to interpret the evidence here. <em>My aim is just to lay out how strange the scenario is if you take the rational space alien’s perspective.</em></p>
<p>Of course, this might seem a strange thing to do, because, well, who cares what a space alien thinks? But on the other hand, it’s a useful device to try to get an impartial perspective on something that’s otherwise clouded by our emotions.</p>
<hr>
<h1 id="political-party-predicts-climate-change-belie_1">Political party predicts climate change beliefs <a class="head_anchor" href="#political-party-predicts-climate-change-belie_1">#</a>
</h1>
<p>One fact about humans: We’re bad at separating <strong>our desires</strong> for how we’d <strong>like</strong> the world to work from how <strong>factual evidence</strong> suggests it <strong>really works</strong>. </p>
<p>Case in point: Belief in human-caused warming is more strongly related to <em>political affiliation</em> than other more relevant factors, like one’s level of education (See the nice graph <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121004134731.htm">here</a>).</p>
<p>That’s strange – you’d think that the more science education you receive (regardless of your political beliefs), the better you’d be able to evaluate scientific evidence. That’s how things generally work – you receive training, and you improve. If that were true for climate change, there’d be a strong link between science education and either believing or disbelieving in climate change. But no, that’s not what we find. <em>Political affiliation</em> is much more predictive than <em>science education</em> when it comes to climate change. </p>
<p>Before we go further, let’s just acknowledge a sort of obvious fact: No matter how strongly one believes in the democratic party or the republican party, obviously one’s political beliefs cannot affect <em>reality</em>. No matter how ardently I want to protect the environment, or how much I love the free market, <em>these desires have no effect on whether or not the Earth is warming from human activity</em>. That’s just an independent fact about nature. </p>
<p>So when political beliefs are a strong predictor of scientific beliefs, something’s gone wrong. Basically this means that <strong>one side or the other (or both!) have let their political beliefs distort how they perceive reality.</strong></p>
<p>When political beliefs predict scientific ones it doesn’t directly tell us who the guilty party is – merely that human irrationality is afoot. <em>Something</em> is fishy: This disagreement <em>about science</em> isn’t connected to the ability to interpret <em>scientific evidence</em>. The important point is that this kind of disconnect is an interesting signal in itself.</p>
<hr>
<h1 id="motivated-reasoning_1">Motivated reasoning <a class="head_anchor" href="#motivated-reasoning_1">#</a>
</h1>
<p>In general, humans have trouble interpreting evidence objectively when it treads on some aspect of their identity. Whether or not you think George Bush lied about Iraq for the most part isn’t really about evidence, but probably about whether you voted for him in the first part. </p>
<p><strong>When an aspect of science treads on some aspect of politics, our rational thinking is in peril.</strong> In such cases, how we perceive scientific evidence is often deeply influenced by our existing <em>desires</em> about how we’d <em>like</em> the world to work. This is called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning">motivated reasoning</a>: When (often subconsciously) we engage our reasoning with a particular conclusion as a goal (often a conclusion that agrees with our current world-view).</p>
<p>What’s tricky about this, is that even if you’re aware that us humans tend to do this, still it’s very hard to observe the process in <em>your own</em> thinking. “Yeah, other people do that, but not me,” you might think (and I’ve thought this way, too). It’s a vicious cycle: <strong>Our own motivated reasoning will prevent us from seeing that we ourselves are <em>victims</em> of motivated reasoning.</strong></p>
<hr>
<h1 id="thought-traps_1">Thought traps <a class="head_anchor" href="#thought-traps_1">#</a>
</h1>
<p>These kinds of thought traps are really pernicious. We can’t progress towards truth, even if we want to, because our minds are too clouded by our preconceptions. I’m not claiming to be an exception – and neither should you, despite the (natural) resistance you might feel to considering that you’re vulnerable to thought traps. It’s just a fact: Humans often parse information <em>strategically</em> in a way that supports our pre-existing views. This is why debates about politics so rarely cause anyone to adjust their views.</p>
<p>The real take-home message is that, knowing that it’s natural human behavior to employ motivated reasoning, <em>we must be very critical of adopting beliefs that are comfortable</em> – beliefs that align with how we would want to see the world, anyways.</p>
<hr>
<h1 id="observing-delusion-in-action_1">Observing delusion in action <a class="head_anchor" href="#observing-delusion-in-action_1">#</a>
</h1>
<p>Sometimes you get observe this process first-hand. Try to pay attention the next time you’re arguing with someone, to the moment immediately after they say something that clashes with what you believe. In that moment, you might notice a brief surge of anger, and the immediate <em>felt</em> sensation that their claim is wrong, before you’ve even thought about why. And then, you go and search <em>for the reason it is wrong.</em> That is, you’ve decided it’s wrong based on a gut feeling, and are mainly just looking for an excuse to discount what the other person has said. </p>
<p><strong>You’re not looking for the truth, but to validate what you believe already.</strong></p>
<p>However, it’s much easier to observe this process in others than in oneself. So let’s take a step back and think about how motivated reasoning works in practice.</p>
<hr>
<h1 id="when-grand-narratives-and-science-clash_1">When grand narratives and science clash <a class="head_anchor" href="#when-grand-narratives-and-science-clash_1">#</a>
</h1>
<p>As a general narrative, liberals tend to value environment and ecology over economics, and are often wary of big corporations. So the idea of human-caused global warming fits nicely into their thinking: The planet needs protection from corporations, and governments should provide that protection. In other words, liberals might readily <em>want</em> to believe in human-caused climate change.</p>
<p>On the other hand, conservatives tend to have a mindset that the Earth is robust and we cannot damage it. They tend to deeply value the free market and hold government regulation as a measure of last resort. From this mindset, human-caused global warming would be inconvenient: It would suggest a possible need for greater regulation of corporations and emissions, which would interfere with the free market and create greater governmental bloat. </p>
<p>So in the absence of any convincing evidence, we might expect liberals to be more open to believing in climate change, while we might expect conservatives to be more critical.</p>
<hr>
<h1 id="truth-or-comfort_1">Truth or comfort? <a class="head_anchor" href="#truth-or-comfort_1">#</a>
</h1>
<p>The underlying problem is that on both sides of the political spectrum, people are thinking in muddled ways. In an ideal world, we would intensely scrutinize our thinking, and be self-aware enough to notice potential biases in our thinking. That is, we should think: <strong>Would it be convenient to believe X? If so, X deserves intense scrutiny.</strong> </p>
<p>So liberals might need to make sure that the world does in fact need defending from greenhouse gases – because such defense would well-fit the liberal narrative about how they believe the world works. Similarly, conservatives should be aware that there is a convenient temptation to discount climatology – it would well-fit the conservative narrative about how they believe the world works.</p>
<p>Unless we are very careful, we will unfairly favor ideas that are comfortable over those that are uncomfortable; and if what we really care about is the <em>truth</em>, which ultimately is much more important than just <em>feeling</em> right, our preference for comfortable ideas can easily lead us into delusion and overconfidence.</p>
<hr>
<p>As a post-script, note that I’m purposefully not commenting on the actual science of climate change; my hope here is mostly to highlight human potential for self-delusion, and that it is clearly rearing its head when it comes to the issue of climate change.</p>
tag:worldbetter.svbtle.com,2014:Post/clear-thinking2016-01-12T13:14:54-08:002016-01-12T13:14:54-08:00Clear Thinking<p>If you had asked me a few years ago – “Are you a clear thinker?”, I’d have said yes. But I’d have been very wrong. It’s not that my thinking is completely pure now, but at least it’s improved.</p>
<p>At the time, many of my opinions were muddled. They were mindlessly adopted from others – mostly from people on my political “team.” I hadn’t thought deeply enough about the ideas themselves to really <em>own</em> them. It was enough for ideas to sound good on the surface, and for them to come from people I thought I was like, or wanted to be like. “Good” arguments were those that sounded cozy: They fit comfortably with what I already believed. </p>
<p>But I wasn’t thinking clearly, even though I was completely convinced that I was. It’s one of the worst catch-22’s: <strong>Unclear thinking prevents us from seeing how unclearly we think.</strong> The best defense is to always to maintain some distance from your beliefs, and to be wary of the trap of overconfidence. </p>
<p>For example: <strong>Are you really exactly 100% confident that climate change is an imminent danger (or not)?</strong> The point isn’t to comment on whether climate change is or isn’t dangerous, but to acknowledge the extreme complexity of the world. Think about how little each of us truly understands of that complexity – most of us rely heavily on whatever particular authorities we choose to put our confidence into. Maybe those authorities are right; but is it blindly certain that they are right? </p>
<p>Being absolutely 100% confident about any supremely complicated issue is likely a sign of unclear thinking. Absolute confidence means that there’s no evidence that could ever change your mind.</p>
<hr>
<p>The two key ingredients that helped me become more clear in my thinking were: (1) humbly admitting that my beliefs are always going to be flawed in some way, which led to (2) accepting that being proved wrong should be <em>embraced</em> rather than <em>avoided</em>.</p>
<p>The main idea is that if you want to become less deluded, then the right goal is to aim at becoming increasingly <em>less wrong over time</em>. To become less wrong we must <em>welcome</em> being shown we are wrong (a tall order!). But if we know we’re wrong, then we can discard or revise some misguided belief – all the better! <strong>Only for lawyers does it make sense to win an argument through clever but misleading arguments.</strong> A much wiser goal is to honestly dig at the real truth that underlies a disagreement.</p>
<p>The big challenge here is to be able to talk through a disagreement without becoming personally invested in what side is the right one.</p>
<hr>
<p>The ability to think clearly is among the most important abilities that a person can have. Because without it, you can have little confidence that your understanding of reality is getting more accurate; without it you’re likely to believe what is convenient – that’s human nature. </p>
<p>Reality is how it is, despite however we’d <em>like it</em> to work. And clear thinking is what enables us to change our beliefs over time to better align with reality.</p>
<p>What’s the problem with having a distorted view of reality? Well, if your understanding of the world is distorted, then your actions are unlikely to have the impact you think they will. </p>
<p>With muddled understanding, your actions aimed at bringing about your good intentions may unintentionally lead to causing harm. History is full of tragic examples of such outcomes. Everyone is the hero of their own story-line, even if they end up causing huge suffering to others. Hence the boring (but wise!) cliche that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”</p>
tag:worldbetter.svbtle.com,2014:Post/the-need-for-moral-enhancement2014-10-23T11:55:09-07:002014-10-23T11:55:09-07:00The Need for Moral Enhancement<p>To understand humanity’s problems, revisit our origins: We’re <a href="http://worldbetter.svbtle.com/apes-with-nukes">slightly-evolved apes</a>. In other words, <a href="http://worldbetter.svbtle.com/natural-evolution-is-slower-than-cultural-evolution">evolution works slowly</a> and our species remains burdened by biological baggage inherited from our caveman ancestors. The key insight is that <strong>our brains evolved in a much different kind of world than the one we find ourselves in now.</strong></p>
<p>This simple fact – that the modern world is so unlike the primitive world in which our brains evolved – is profound: It’s the cause of humanity’s most daunting problems (for example: as detailed below, it explains why there’s starvation in the face of food enough for all, our indifference to the risks of global warming, and our economies and incentive systems that are becoming increasingly disconnected from human well-being). </p>
<p>Like a wild tiger attending a church service, our intelligence and default behavior are simply poorly-suited to modernity. But unlike the jungle-cat, who did not invent churches, modernity <strong>is</strong> humanity’s own invention. Over human history, we’ve continually sculpted and transformed our culture and environment, stretching our flexible (but primitive) instincts and intelligence to a breaking point.</p>
<p>Our manipulations of nature and our societal structures (like economies and politics) have reshaped the world and our way of life. But when natural evolution crafted our brains, it had no way of anticipating the future. So while this human-invented modernity is (for many of us) less brutal, more luxurious, and overall more wonderous, there’s a problem: The slow and steady growth of human morality lags far behind the fast and accelerating growth of our technology. </p>
<p>The worry is that in the limit, if we don’t find a way for our morality to <em>catch up</em>, the results are likely terminal. For example, take the simple question: Are we morally responsible enough to wield atomic bombs? Given that as a result of nuclear weapons, we’ve come frighteningly close to the precipice of annihilating our species, the answer seems a definitive <strong>no</strong>. </p>
<p>So, what’s to be done? If the alternative is potential extinction, it seems straight-forward and critical that we focus scientific resources on developing and putting into practice more effective moral teaching; and also exploring more radical approaches to more directly repair our outdated morality, perhaps even through altering our biology and the <a href="http://worldbetter.svbtle.com/reinventing-humanity">human condition</a>.</p>
tag:worldbetter.svbtle.com,2014:Post/tyranny-of-supernormal-stimuli2014-08-27T15:12:20-07:002014-08-27T15:12:20-07:00The Tyranny of Supernormal Stimuli<p>In one habitual click I was surfing Facebook, my eyes automatically drawn to the happy red notification indicator. Another click revealed that a once-met acquaintance had posted a photo. Then a quick flicker of satisfaction as red returned to neutral grey. Already on the site, I scrolled to view updates and pictures from other marginal friends. The whole episode was pointless, but soon I’d lightly itch to repeat it.</p>
<p>What causes the irrational comfort from habitual visits to social media sites? Why do we feed our unproductive voyeuristic curiosity by sifting through the posts of people we barely know, whether on Facebook or Twitter or Instagram? The emptiness is clear – yet still we scroll and click. In sober moments it’s clear that our lives would improve by instead spending our time on things of meaning, like visiting or calling the ones we love. But most of us don’t uproot these silly habits. </p>
<p><em>How</em> and <em>why</em> do we become addicted to technologies that don’t serve us? For one thing, we’re immersed in them: Our mobile phones beep with notifications and texts and updates. But that’s not the whole story – how did we come to be immersed in them, and why have technologies offering trivial sorts of pleasures become so dominant in our lives, distracting us from the things that really matter? The truth is that they’ve been engineered to exploit our base desires; and that this exploitation is often subtle and beneath our awareness.</p>
<h2 id="manipulation_2">Manipulation <a class="head_anchor" href="#manipulation_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>We must be cautious of forces that undermine our highest ideals beneath our deliberate awareness. Often we don’t make a deliberate cognitive choice – a habit may be something we casually slip into over time. I never said, “Hey, I really want to throw away my valuable time reviewing inane tidbits of near-strangers lives,” – that would be insane. But over time, I still fell into that orbit. In other words, as it’s happening we’re not always aware that we’re being manipulated; or even if we realize that our behavior is changing, we might not even consider it as manipulation. It’s destructive exactly because we don’t see the trap even as we’re slipping into it. </p>
<p>While Facebook is a trivial example of this kind of subversive force – a website explicitly designed to steal our time – we’re surrounded by products, services, advertisements, cultural ideals, and political and economic systems that are designed to manipulate us. Now, it’d be one thing if all these systems had no effect on us. and it’s tempting to believe that we’re immune to them: “Sure, other goons fall for this stuff, but I can watch advertisements all day and not be affected.” </p>
<p>But there’s something that science has demonstrated time and time again: <strong>Our environment influences us (often without our knowledge) in subtle ways – even as we disbelieve that we are being influenced, or even as we are aware of the trickery itself.</strong></p>
<h2 id="supernormal-stimuli_2">Supernormal Stimuli <a class="head_anchor" href="#supernormal-stimuli_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>Think about it: How would <em>you</em> engineer something to manipulate human desire? More than a hypothetical, this is a concrete industry in the world. Every day there are people plotting how to change your mind; it’s big business to those in advertising, product development, food science, and almost any other consumer business. <strong>The lifeblood for most companies is the money of consumers, so almost any business benefits from the ability to influence consumers.</strong></p>
<p>It turns out that a good strategy is to graft onto <em>existing human needs</em>. And for good reason: Natural evolution has already programmed us to respond to this kind of <em>natural stimuli</em>, and exploiting those existing responses is much easier than inventing a new desire wholesale. </p>
<p>That’s why advertising strategies are like a walk through a biology textbook: Sex is important to survival of the human race – and that’s why <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_in_advertising">sex sells</a>. And at one time food was scarce for all humans: That’s why we desire energy-rich foods, those high in sugar and fat (even if we’re overweight, because back then it was never certain that food would remain plentiful!). So it’s no surprise that fast food is high in calories. And because understanding the world was important to how our ancestors survived, our bodies generate a <a href="http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/manic-nation-dr-peter-whybrow-says-were-addicted-stress-42695/">chemical bump</a> whenever we discover something new; but as a result, we’re becoming addicted to <em>trivial</em> sources of novelty (like facebook, reddit, and imgur). </p>
<p>Of course, all of these desires make sense in the context of our evolutionary past. Seeking out new information (no matter what kind) made sense when we were cavemen and no one was trying to <strong>invent fountains of trivial information solely to addict us</strong>. But that’s no longer the case: Because <a href="http://worldbetter.svbtle.com/natural-evolution-is-slower-than-cultural-evolution">natural evolution is a slow process</a> – much slower than our ability to invent <em>exaggerations</em> of natural signals, those <em>natural</em> signals are now no longer reliable. That is, our invented <em>exaggerations</em> and <em>perversions</em> of these natural signals hypnotize us even as they undermine us. These kinds of exaggerated signals are called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus">supernormal stimuli</a>, in contrast to the natural stimuli our bodies evolved in response to.</p>
<h2 id="awareness_2">Awareness <a class="head_anchor" href="#awareness_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>So what’s the point? Why should we care about supernormal stimuli? Well, the point is that there exists <strong>a business-driven machine that’s operating to influence us by creating exaggerated versions of things we as humans naturally respond to</strong>. It’s not that there’s this group of evil people trying to destroy us, it’s just that this business machine is driven by money, not by what’s in our best interests. <strong>Who is best served by the <a href="http://www.beautyredefined.net/photoshopping-altering-images-and-our-minds/">photoshopping</a> industry that exaggerates feminine beauty into an impossible extreme</strong>? Sure, it sells more magazines, but in the process, it alters our conception of beauty, spawning an epidemic of eating disorders and life-long struggles with body image. Who wins from junk food <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all">explicitly engineered to addict us</a>? Not me or you, that’s for sure. Some big food corporations win – at the expense of our health. But it’s not that business or capitalism is evil, it’s just that we as a culture aren’t enough aware of how we’re being manipulated; if we were, we’d <strong>vote with our wallets</strong>, and rebel against being treated as an ATM instead of a human being.</p>
<p>We are in the end, autonomous and in control of our own destiny, even as we are susceptible to manipulation. And so, being aware of the machinery designed to exploit our natural tendencies in search of our money, we can learn how to avoid those temptations. Or, perhaps we’ll find that it’s necessary to make laws or new economic incentives to better align the best interests of corporations with our own as human beings, especially where now they often conflict. Our economy should serve our interests as a society and as a people, not seek to undermine us. <strong>Humans are what are most important, after all</strong>: Profits may make the world turn round, but they’re at most an important tool, not a meaningful goal divorced from how their achievement affects us all.</p>
tag:worldbetter.svbtle.com,2014:Post/a-scientists-impact2014-06-20T08:56:48-07:002014-06-20T08:56:48-07:00A Scientist's Impact<p>The Wright Brothers. Thomas Edison. Albert Einstein. When inventors and scientists discover Great Things, we shower those individuals with praise and fame. But does this culture of rewarding <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-mover_advantage">first movers</a> make sense? Why is <em>who</em> discovers something really the key issue? Isn’t the effect to create a <em>gold rush</em> atmosphere where we advance technology at breakneck pace regardless of its human impacts? And isn’t ultimately what is most important not <em>who</em> discovers, but <em>how</em> the discovery or invention will affect the well-being and flourishing of humanity?</p>
<p>The usual argument is that we praise individual inventors because their genius changed the world: Their intellect took humanity a step further, by uncovering profound new understanding of the world. But when you start to look deeper, the logic becomes tangled. Without the Wright Brothers, would we never have flown? If a certain nameless caveman hadn’t invented the wheel – would we still be stuck in caveman ways?</p>
<p>No – sooner or later, someone else would have discovered the wheel, or powered flight. It seems clear that certain scientific discoveries are <em>inevitable</em>. In other words, the classical <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_theory_of_invention_and_scientific_development">heroic theory of invention</a> is too simple.</p>
<h2 id="multiple-discovery_2">Multiple Discovery <a class="head_anchor" href="#multiple-discovery_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery">Multiple discovery</a> is the (surprisingly frequent) situation where independent scientists discover the <em>same thing</em>, <em>independently</em>, at around the <em>same time</em>. It’s hard to view an inventor as a truly singular genius when several other people simultaneously make the same exact discovery. Calculus was discovered by Newton and Leibniz, at about the same time. And evolution through natural selection was independently discovered by both Darwin and Wallace. And there are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries">many more examples</a>.</p>
<p>The explanation for multiple discovery is <em>not</em> that there’s some <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious">paranormal energy</a> allowing ideas to flit from mind to mind through telepathy. No, the insight is that most discoveries and inventions build incrementally upon previous discoveries and inventions. You need an engine to build a car, you need a piston to build an engine, you need metallurgy techniques to make a metal piston. In other words, invention doesn’t happen in a vacuum, there’s a dependent order in which things are likely to be discovered.</p>
<p>Science and invention unfold over time. Each new scientific discovery makes possible things that were previously impossible. An electric motor makes little sense before electricity is discovered, just as computer software is impossible without a computer. But, given the discovery of electricity, the invention of the electric motor may be inevitable.</p>
<p>The point is that the <em>true</em> impact of a scientist who discovers something new is <em>not</em> that the thing would not otherwise have been discovered. That is, if the Wright Brothers hadn’t created an airplane, some other inventor would have eventually. So the hero worship of individual scientists <em>just for discovering something new</em> makes science into a race, where we award ribbons for getting someplace new first.</p>
<p>This dressing-down of individual scientists isn’t mean-spirited, but is done to bring attention to the broader picture: If most discoveries are inevitable, then what impact does an individual scientist have? What factors in scientific discovery actually change the history of the world? It turns out that the most important impact may be the relative <em>order</em> in which discoveries are made.</p>
<h2 id="history-and-path-dependence_2">History and Path Dependence <a class="head_anchor" href="#history-and-path-dependence_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>How society unfolds is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence">path dependent</a>; that is, past events influence the future. For example, imagine how differently World War II might have ended if German scientists had invented nuclear weapons before their surrender – or if medical technology had enabled Abe Lincoln’s wounds to be treated successfully, preventing the success of his assassination.</p>
<p>In other words, the <em>timing</em> of discoveries may be what most alters history. So a scientist’s impact on the world may more result from her choice of <em>field</em> and <em>focus</em>. Think of it this way: Right now we have many more scientists working on developing advanced weapons technology instead of how to feed those who are starving. Thus we might expect weapons to become increasingly sophisticated, while progress in combating starvation to be relatively slower. As data scientist Jeffrey Hammerbacher <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_17/b4225060960537.htm">once said</a>: “The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks.”</p>
<p>The overarching idea is that while many discoveries are inevitable, there is likely wide <em>variance</em> in when such inevitable discoveries <em>could</em> be discovered. Thus as a society we can influence our own history by strategically allocating our research resources. An interesting question is how are such resources currently allocated, and what are the possible outcomes of the status quo?</p>
<h2 id="how-markets-and-governments-focus-research_2">How Markets and Governments Focus Research <a class="head_anchor" href="#how-markets-and-governments-focus-research_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>The free-market economy has been enormously successful in driving innovation. The basic idea is that entrepreneurs and scientists can capitalize on their innovations by crafting them into products or services that they can sell to others. However, it’s not all gravy: Not everything <em>Important</em> is <em>Profitable</em>. More problematically, there’s no promise that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand">invisible hand</a> resulting from our our collective profit maximization has foresight and wisdom enough to avoid global crises or <a href="http://worldbetter.svbtle.com/questioning-technology">existential risk</a>.</p>
<p>In other words, blind faith in capitalism is likely not a solution to all our problems; worse, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism">consumerism</a> it breeds seemingly trades the larger philosophical intricacies of life for the distractions of reality TV, <a href="http://www.clickhole.com/">clickbait</a>, and an endless fire-hose of mobile apps. A danger of capitalism is that it incentivizes us to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus">exploit our own psychological weaknesses</a> to the detriment of all.</p>
<p>Governments also fund research, some of which does aim for humanitarian causes. However, governmental research too often supports business or military interests. For example, 50% of <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42410.pdf">2013 federal R&D dollars</a> went to the department of defense, and Canada’s research agenda is increasingly set by <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/research-councils-makeover-leaves-industry-setting-the-agenda/article11745246/">business interests</a>.</p>
<p>The allocation of business and governmental research likely reflects areas in which we will see most future progress: Military developments and profitable technologies. Yet as weapons and technologies get more powerful, their possible destructiveness increases. For example, while nuclear power and genetic engineering can benefit society, the flip side is that nuclear weapons create the dark possibility of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction">mutual assured destruction</a>, and biological technologies also enable creating new terrible biological weapons. </p>
<h2 id="the-technology-of-morality_2">The Technology of Morality <a class="head_anchor" href="#the-technology-of-morality_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>Thus an important question is: Are we morally responsible enough to handle the responsibility such technologies place in our hands? The commercial rush to develop new profitable technologies, and the governmental rush to develop new weaponizable techonologies ignores this question – or blindly attributes wisdom to “the market” or self-interested (and often short-sighted) governments. Yet failing to address this key issue could be society’s downfall: If we do not learn how to responsible shoulder the moral responsibility of increasingly powerful technologies, it may only be a matter of time before a moment of moral weakness unleashes destruction on the globe. Indeed, there have already been a number of near-nuclear wars.</p>
<p>While we may not be able (or want) to slow down technological development, perhaps we can reallocate resources to investigate technologies for <a href="http://philosophynow.org/issues/91/Moral_Enhancement">enhancing our morality</a>. The idea is that we are basically <a href="http://worldbetter.svbtle.com/apes-with-nukes">slightly-evolved apes</a>, and that our morality, while slowly improving over time, has not kept pace with technological growth. Perhaps it is essential to divert focus from creating new weapons or simply profitable technologies, to seriously examine biological modifications to our morality.</p>
<h2 id="conclusion_2">Conclusion <a class="head_anchor" href="#conclusion_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>Our current path of technological development is dominated, not by individual genius scientists or the interests of humanity writ large, but by a rushed effort aligned with the agendas of business and governments. As a result, the more fundamental question of human well-being and flourishing is pushed to the periphery.</p>
<p>For us as a species to handle responsibly increasingly powerful technology (i.e. not destroy ourselves), it may become critically important to allocate more resources to research pathways that appear promising for augmenting our own morality (whether through better moral education or technologies that modify our own psychology). While changing our morality may at first seem like <a href="http://worldbetter.svbtle.com/reinventing-humanity">“playing god,”</a> the idea is to bring within reach attaining the virtues of moral paragons, which appears nearly impossible for almost all of us. Ultimately, we all strive to be better people, and our future may critically depend upon us reaching that goal.</p>
tag:worldbetter.svbtle.com,2014:Post/reinventing-humanity2014-06-06T09:09:51-07:002014-06-06T09:09:51-07:00Reinventing Humanity<p>Though written hundreds of years ago, we can still empathize with the tragic heroes of works such as Hamlet and Anna Karenina. Despite their age, the classics aren’t so different from modern tragedies like Breaking Bad. In fact, they all illustrate common human flaws that often precipitate our downfall, such as pride, hunger for power, jealousy, and greed. These flaws are part of our cultural and genetic heritage. They’re part of what it means to be human.</p>
<p>Now, imagine that scientists develop treatments to remedy these flaws. It seems likely that as technology develops, and as our understanding of our brains increases, such remedies will become possible. For example, imagine a pill is formulated that modifies a person’s brain chemistry to increase their rationality or capacity for empathy, or reduce their predisposition towards hatred or greed. Would you take that kind of pill? </p>
<p>More imaginatively, what if a pill could make you attracted, not to physical beauty or fitness, but to exceptional intelligence or morality? What if a surgery changed your motivational system such that you received the pleasure equivalent to an orgasm after selflessly helping another human being?</p>
<h2 id="questioning-humanity_2">Questioning Humanity <a class="head_anchor" href="#questioning-humanity_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>Such thought experiments can be uncomfortable to think about, because at heart they <em>question the human condition</em>. Because we are human, and the human condition is all we know (having soaked in it our entire lives), we often just <em>accept it</em> or <em>romanticize it</em>: We assume that our natural condition is beyond change, or that it’s inherently good or beautiful. So when someone suggests that through technology we might in someway alter fundamentally what it means to be human, it’s discomforting: The reflex is often to dismiss such a possibility as <em>unnatural</em>.</p>
<p>As understandable as such a reflex is, blindly appealing to nature is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature">logical fallacy</a>. It’s little different from opposing vaccines as immoral because they interfere with the <em>natural</em> process of infection. While tinkering with the human condition is not something to be taken lightly, it’s at least broadening to think about how our biology might be improved. Indeed, such thinking can also help us to see our species more objectively: It can help us to see more clearly the inherent pointlessness in many of the strange struggles that compose our lives.</p>
<h2 id="the-strangeness-of-selfcontrol_2">The Strangeness of Self-Control <a class="head_anchor" href="#the-strangeness-of-selfcontrol_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>One such strange struggle that is imposed on us by our biology, is that we effectively often must <em>battle ourselves</em> to put our intentions into effect. For example, on the first of January I may set out to lose weight by avoiding eating fatty foods, and yet, my high-level intentions are easily overridden by momentary impulses for cheeseburgers or dessert. This is why people struggle with diets, why <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_resolution#Success_rate">88% of new year’s resolutions fail</a>, and why you’re right to be skeptical of your friend’s claim that <em>this time</em>, he will finally succeed in quitting smoking cold turkey. </p>
<p>The ability to run out of self-control causes violence, like crimes of passion, and other sufferings as well, like cheating on your wife despite your best intentions by giving in to your immediate bodily impulses. In many ways, our lack of sufficient self-control degrades us from our ideal selves. Who at core really <em>wants</em> to be somewhat enslaved by lower desires when they conflict with our high-minded rational goals? Sure, I could be writing that essay, exercising my creativity and attempting to craft something of meaning – but there’s another episode of The League that’s calling my name. I don’t really want to give in, but more often than I’d like to, I do.</p>
<p>When you look objectively at the <em>need for self-control</em> for achieving our goals, it’s bizarre; why, if I really want to do something, like write for an hour before I go to sleep, is it so hard for me to actually follow through? Why should my brain not carry out my rational intentions? Wouldn’t we be more effective human beings if we could more easily <em>keep the promises we make to ourselves</em>? And it’s not just me – as a society we recognize this problem and desire greater self-discipline, as evidenced by the numerous self-help books on the topic. <strong>We realize that we can’t effectively control our own bodies</strong> – isn’t that crazy? It’s an idiosyncratic limitation of our own brains.</p>
<p>So, as scientists begin to better understand the chemistry of self-control, realistic treatments to increase self-control may become feasible. Imagine there was a pill that dramatically increased self-control – wouldn’t that be a significant improvement to the human condition? Wouldn’t it reduce violence and allow us as a species to aspire towards higher motivations? Sure, it would alter the human condition, but it would be an alteration intended to move us closer to the ideal of what is most `“human” about us – our ability to trump our primitive instincts.</p>
<h2 id="the-strangeness-of-falling-in-love_2">The Strangeness of Falling in Love <a class="head_anchor" href="#the-strangeness-of-falling-in-love_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>Maybe moderately increasing self-control is a no-brainer – it’s fairly self-evident that humanity would be improved by it, and we’re not giving up much in return. So let’s examine something more <em>central</em> to the human condition, something that’s irrationally elevated by our culture: romantic love.</p>
<p>There’s something mysterious and romantic about the unpredictability of who you’ll find yourself falling in love with. But to fall in love with someone generally requires you be physically attracted to them first. While there’s no formula to attraction, there’s often a particular body type or personality type we find ourselves drawn to. To boil it down to a stereotype: men may often be attracted to women’s breasts, certain curves, and the appearance of youth; and women may often be attracted to physical strength, confidence, and power. These characteristics were once indicators of fertility or ability to survive, and so it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that we’d find such features <em>attractive</em>: In caveman days, a physically strong man might better provide for a family.</p>
<p>Yet, because <a href="https://svbtle.com/natural-evolution-is-slower-than-cultural-evolution/edit">natural evolution is slower than cultural evolution</a>, physical strength or breast size no longer meaningfully correlate with our ability to survive or our capacity to reproduce. Indeed, the work we do is largely intellectual instead of physical, and modern science facilitates nutrition and safe delivery of babies irrespective of breast or hip size.</p>
<p>The insanity is that in effect it’s as if both genders are conducting job interviews using meaningless criteria when seeking mates. It’s like hiring a street sweeper based on how well he can play the bongos. Indeed, how many of us have met someone we get along famously with, but attraction is mysteriously missing? Wouldn’t it be nice if romantic attraction was based not on outdated evolutionary signals, but on the characteristics that made us good and decent human beings; perhaps intelligence, morality, and empathy?</p>
<p>There are many other bizarrities about romantic love that we take for granted, like its general exclusiveness, its ability to render us temporarily insane, or that it exists at all, but the main point is that it’s possible to reimagine romantic love into a kinder, more sensical beast. Of course, the initial gut reaction to altering romantic love might be one of pure disgust – it’s an omnipresent cultural staple; and yet, logically, we shouldn’t put romantic love on a pedestal unless we can argue dispassionately for why it belongs there. At the same time, science appears much further from making this kind of reimagining a reality than with self-control, so the debate will likely remain purely hypothetical for a long while.</p>
<h2 id="conclusion_2">Conclusion <a class="head_anchor" href="#conclusion_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>The human condition is a strange thing when you look at it objectively; we are far from perfect creatures, and our imperfections cause a huge magnitude of needless suffering and complication. We’re entering an age where it may become possible to augment our biology to enhance our morality or even change our motivational systems. And while such tinkering of course requires utmost caution, the benefits to humanity could be enormous. </p>
<p>Overall, we should be careful to avoid overly romanticizing our species’ condition, which is not well-engineered for the age we find ourselves in. Instead, its design was haphazardly crafted by the slow process of natural evolution, and as our culture and our technology have accelerated, our biological condition has become outdated and mismatched for the modern world we’ve quickly invented over the past century.</p>
tag:worldbetter.svbtle.com,2014:Post/natural-evolution-is-slower-than-cultural-evolution2014-05-09T10:35:38-07:002014-05-09T10:35:38-07:00Natural Evolution is Slower Than Cultural Evolution<p>I’ve argued <a href="http://worldbetter.svbtle.com/apes-with-nukes">elsewhere</a> that the human brain no longer is well adapted to the modern world that we’ve invented – a world vastly different than the one in which natural evolution crafted our brains. The reason that our physical brains lag behind is that our <em>culture</em> evolves faster than our <em>genes</em>: Natural evolution is a slower process than cultural evolution. </p>
<p>By cultural evolution, I mean the changes in our ideas, our technology, our inventions, and our society as a whole. This kind of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics">evolution</a> can proceed relatively quickly, because ideas can emerge over short periods of time (minutes, months, days, or years) and be transferred between people easily. Think about how remarkable it is that in the span of only a few years, our culture has seen the first black president and an increasing acceptance of homosexual marriage – two important steps in our moral development, and at the same time amazing cell phone and internet technology have significantly changed how we live our lives.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the genetics of our species change at a much slower rate. So slowly, in fact, that there are likely few physical differences between our brains and those of our 50,000 year old behaviorally-similar <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans#Modern_human_behavior">ancestors</a>. There just hasn’t been enough time – evolution often acts over hundreds of thousands of years, and many of the most striking changes in our culture have happened in the last century or two. So, the result is that our brain and our bodies have outdated features that no longer make sense in the modern world.</p>
<p>A striking example is the obesity epidemic in many first-world countries. What is its cause? Our taste for high-caloric food combined with modern lifestyles without manual labor. Despite appearances and pundits, the underlying issue <em>isn’t</em> lack of self-control or laziness – it’s a fundamental disconnect between modern life and the desires of our cave-man body. In other words, fatty sugary foods <em>need not</em> taste good – it is not a fact of nature, but a fact of our own biology. Our bodies evolved in a time when food was hard to come by and rigorous physical activity was unavoidable, so it made sense to stockpile energy and to desire energy-rich foods. Because these desires makes zero sense in first-world countries, we have to do strange things: We must apply self-control to diet and unnaturally limit our dessert portions, and try to trick our bodies into producing more muscle by going to exertion simulators (also called gyms).</p>
<p>There are many other examples as well – like women’s attraction to physically strong men, or men’s attraction to waist to hip ratios that might at one time have indicated fertility. But in a modern world where physical strength is largely irrelevant, and science allows nearly all women the ability to bear children successfully, this conception of attraction makes little sense. It’s not a fact of nature, but just how our brains evolved, because in our evolutionary past, those signs were potent predictors of how promising a mate was. But it’s hard for us to imagine being attracted to things other than those we’re attracted to.</p>
<p>The important point is that we often take for granted that <em>the way we experience things</em> is both <em>the only possibility</em> and <em>inherently good or right</em>. Of course this isn’t the case – with different biology I could find carrots more delicious than bacon, or a woman’s personality and intellect entirely driving attraction instead of superficial appearance. The lesson is that there are features of our biology that simply don’t make sense in the modern world, and that through seeing those features clearly we can broaden our understanding of ourselves and of reality.</p>
tag:worldbetter.svbtle.com,2014:Post/questioning-technology2014-04-26T11:09:23-07:002014-04-26T11:09:23-07:00Technology as a Bear Trap<blockquote class="short">
<p>“But lo! Men have become the tools of their tools.” </p>
<p>-Thoreau</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>TLDR:</strong> Once technology gifted an unready civilization the ability to destroy itself via the push of a button, it bankrupted the wisdom of unfettered technological development for its own sake – yet we still barrel ahead.</p>
<h2 id="why-question-technology_2">Why Question Technology? <a class="head_anchor" href="#why-question-technology_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>This post aims to call into question whether technology as a whole has well-served humanity so far. Now, of course advancing technology has brought numerous practical benefits to our lives, which might seem to place the good of technology beyond question. However, because technology so fundamentally shapes and reshapes our world, we should still regularly question whether the benefits of technology really do outweigh the costs. </p>
<p>Even if after such questioning we conclude that, yes, on the whole, technology has made our lives better, it is still important to pause and ask the question. And we should likewise question <em>all</em> of the other powerful drivers of our culture – our politics, our economic system, our institutions; we should make sure that they each are still serving our best interests. For although it might be difficult, we as a society can reshape any of these powerful drivers if we so desire. We created them, after all. But for now, let us stick more narrowly to questioning only technology.</p>
<h2 id="the-many-benefits_2">The Many Benefits <a class="head_anchor" href="#the-many-benefits_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>First of all, we can consider the many ways that technology has improved the human condition. Fatal diseases have been rendered curable, trans-continental travel has become safe and efficient, near-instantaneous global communication is now ubiquitous, and many laborious tasks are now entirely automated. Clearly, technology has made our lives less brutish: It has facilitated a more organized civilization where violent deaths have on the whole tended to decrease, and quality of life has generally increased.</p>
<p>If so far technology has mostly helped to increase the quality of our lives, a case for the perils of advancing technologies might seem implausible. But this point of view neglects the possibility that technology could yield <em>benefits</em> while it develops, but still be <em>ruinous</em> in the end. It’s like a bread-crumb trail that leads to a bear trap.</p>
<h2 id="progress-traps_2">Progress Traps <a class="head_anchor" href="#progress-traps_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>But how could technological development be similar to a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_trap">trap</a>? A straight-forward argument is that because nuclear weapons are a product of technology, and that they may well cause the annihilation of the human species, that the sum total of the many boons of technology so far <em>pale</em> in comparison to this destructive potential. That is, if unfettered technological development ultimately leads to humanity’s destruction, then the niceties it brought along the way were just a sweet frosting covering the underlying poison. </p>
<p>An all-out nuclear war would devastate the planet and potentially drive the human race extinct: Our massive future potential to resolve global conflict, to go beyond the Earth, to explore the universe, to discover the fundamental laws governing our world – it would all be wiped out. In this way, although technology has improved our lives, the ultimate effect so far has been to put an incredible power in our hands that we are not yet ready to wield. In fact, we’ve already come close the brink of nuclear war <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III#Cold_War">several times</a>.</p>
<p>The lesson isn’t that technology is evil; or even that technological development is evil. The more subtle insight is that we’re basically <a href="https://worldbetter.svbtle.com/apes-with-nukes">slightly-evolved apes</a> with an inborn morality unsuited to modern times; and it although we have had great moral teachers, on the whole our morality evolves slowly, and requires us to overpower our outdated brains: Brains that are much better adapted to the cave-man environment they evolved to best serve (and not the bold new modern world we’ve invented at a pace much exceeding natural evolution).</p>
<p>The overriding problem is that our technological development has outpaced the development of our morality. The result is an accumulation of technological power that we’re unfit to wield.</p>
<h2 id="still-we-barrel-ahead_2">Still, We Barrel Ahead <a class="head_anchor" href="#still-we-barrel-ahead_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>It’s not news to point out the fact that as a species we’re not responsible enough to be entrusted with the terrible power of nuclear weapons. So why then, after making such a mistake in extending our power far beyond our moral capabilities do we continue to rush on head-first in developing new technologies, <em>with even greater destructive power</em>? After inventing the nuclear fission bomb that the US dropped on Hiroshima, was it really necessary to create a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba">weapon</a> 1,500 times more powerful? Shouldn’t the lesson be that we should be much more careful and deliberate in how we encourage technological progress?</p>
<p>The answer, through invoking the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle">precautionary principle</a>, is a definitive yes. We as a species, by being Earthbound, and having developed the capacity to destroy ourselves, without the wisdom to avoid doing so, are in a particularly precarious spot in our development. There is a non-trivial chance that we could extinct our species in the near future. But the danger of self-extinction is lessened if we survive long enough to either: 1) enhance our morality enough to handle the <em>responsibility</em> of the power we’ve accumulated through technology; or 2) colonize our moon or other planets, such that the <em>eggs</em> of humanity are not all in one planetary <em>basket</em>.</p>
<p>So if our goal as a species is to realize our great potential – imagine a world of plenty, without starvation or violence – then perhaps we should focus technological development (as much as that is even possible) on two fronts: <a href="http://philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1177">Developing our morality</a>, and developing our capabilities for exploring space. </p>
<h2 id="can-technology-save-us-from-itself_2">Can Technology Save Us From Itself? <a class="head_anchor" href="#can-technology-save-us-from-itself_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>Perhaps if we had more wisdom earlier, we would have adopted new technologies <a href="http://www2.etown.edu/amishstudies/Technology.asp"><em>only slowly and deliberately</em></a>. That way, we might have better understood their effects before deploying them on a massive scale. Unfortunately, in our brash rush to discover, we’ve unleashed the power to destroy ourselves, and that power is now vested in many self-interested nations that <em>may not be beyond exercising that incredible power.</em> </p>
<p>So because we cannot place pandora back int he box, ironically, it may be that technology now is our best hope of saving ourselves – <em>from our own technology</em>. But what I’m suggesting is not the same unfettered technological development that got us into this mess in the first place – development driven by capitalism or government self-interest. </p>
<h2 id="technological-development-driven-by-raw-capit_2">Technological Development Driven By Raw Capitalism <a class="head_anchor" href="#technological-development-driven-by-raw-capit_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>Technological development driven by capitalism tends towards doing <em>anything</em> that can be done – whether or not it <em>should</em> be done. That is, capitalism rewards the commercial applications of a technology without asking the tough questions, like whether society can safely wield that technology or not? For example, biotech companies may develop tools that allow easy genetic engineering, which on one hand could facilitate curing genetic disorders; on the other hand, the same tools might also enable a misguided person to craft (and possibly unleash) a civilization-ending biological weapon. </p>
<p>Yet, market pressure will drive a company to develop those tools <em>anyways</em> – because there is money to be made; the benefits are reaped by the company (they create a new profitable product), while the risks are borne by civilization as a whole (an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality">externality</a>, a well-known problem with capitalism). </p>
<h2 id="technological-development-driven-by-selfservi_2">Technological Development Driven By Self-Serving Government <a class="head_anchor" href="#technological-development-driven-by-selfservi_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>The other main driver for technological development, are governments. While governments support basic research, they are also largely driven explicitly towards weaponization of technology. And clearly, developing better weapons hardly seems like a solution to the problem of having more powerful weapons than we can currently handle.</p>
<p>So in the end, the current inertia of technological development is worrisome: It is driven by capitalism to do anything and everything without asking if it will ultimately benefit humanity, and it is often driven by governments to develop increasingly powerful weapons.</p>
<h2 id="what-to-do_2">What To Do? <a class="head_anchor" href="#what-to-do_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>I don’t have all the answers to these troubling problems, although future posts will explore possible solutions. However, it seems like the first step is awareness. If we as a society become aware that technological development requires heavy responsibility, and is not a beneficent panacea, than perhaps we can begin an important conversation about being more thoughtful, deliberate, and realistic about how technological development can be focused for our species’ benefit (instead of for the short-sighted benefit of profits or governmental defense).</p>
<p>For further reading, I recommend:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Unfit-Future-Enhancement-Uehiro-Practical/dp/019965364X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398711539&sr=8-1&keywords=unfit+for+the+future">Unfit for the Future</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Technopoly-Surrender-Culture-Technology-Vintage-ebook/dp/B004ZZJBW4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398711562&sr=8-1&keywords=technopoly">Technopoly</a></li>
</ul>
tag:worldbetter.svbtle.com,2014:Post/the-meaning-of-life-and-work-in-the-age-of-ai2014-04-03T19:55:35-07:002014-04-03T19:55:35-07:00The Meaning of Life and Work in the Age of AI<p>There’s a deep-seated belief in our culture that work is inherently good.</p>
<p>Not just any work: but the kind of work that one gets paid for. On the whole, as a practical culture we tend not to idolize the starving artist, but the man who can pull himself up by his bootstraps from poverty into business. Should we respect the office worker more than we do the poet? Perhaps, because we can be more sure that the office worker is doing something of value <em>because</em> his employer pays him a living wage. While the poor poet might be working equally hard, the economy assigns little value to his work. And so we might too – what <em>is</em> the value in the poet’s output?</p>
<h2 id="attitudes-towards-the-unemployed_2">Attitudes Towards the Unemployed <a class="head_anchor" href="#attitudes-towards-the-unemployed_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>Because we prize this kind of paid work so highly in our culture, those without paying jobs are often considered lazy, stupid, or incapable. Social systems like welfare or unemployment benefits, that allow the jobless to subsist, worry some of us, because they can be exploited, effectively rewarding laziness. And this violates our sense of justice, which is why the concept of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen">welfare queen</a> can evoke such rage. Why should some work hard, while others live in leisure through <em>cheating the system</em>?</p>
<p>Still, we understand because of a mental or physical handicap, not all might capable of finding paying jobs in the market. So – what should happen to them, should they starve to death? No, thankfully there is a social consensus that handicapped people whom cannot find employment should be eligible for government support. But beyond these unavoidable cases, many believe that everyone who can work should have a job (or two!) – even if the jobs that society is willing to offer a worker are not fulfilling or interesting.</p>
<p>These attitudes might make sense when nearly everyone is employable, when decent jobs require only average intelligence. But what happens as technology begins increasingly to automate jobs, and the <em>requirements</em> for being <em>employable</em> rise? That is, what happens when to get any job you need to be of <em>above average intelligence</em>?</p>
<h2 id="technology-and-automation_2">Technology and Automation <a class="head_anchor" href="#technology-and-automation_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>Technology keeps improving. An increasing share of jobs can be automated through computers and robotics. It isn’t crazy to think that in the not-so-distant future, computer programs (and robots driven by such programs) may be able to do most things that we can – <em>but more quickly, and cheaper</em>. </p>
<p>In the past, technology has largely acted as a new tool that enables people to become increasingly productive. For example, the computer spreadsheet automates many calculations that once were done by hand, freeing up people to work on more strategic issues. However, we’re reaching a point where technology is actively <em>displacing</em> human workers, instead of merely empowering them to become more productive. That is, we’re getting to the point where computers and robotics may make an increasing proportion of the population <em>unemployable</em>.</p>
<p>Even if you disagree with me, imagine that this automation comes to pass. Should those people rendered completely obsolete by technology be doomed to starve or live in poverty? No, of course not; it is not their fault that computers have become so powerful. It would be a tragedy if we got so caught up in our own created tools (computers) that we allowed them to create suffering on a large scale (mass poverty or starvation, and loss of diginity, for those displaced). We would have to somehow come up with social systems to help those displaced by technology.</p>
<h2 id="the-meaning-of-paid-work_2">The Meaning of Paid Work <a class="head_anchor" href="#the-meaning-of-paid-work_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>The scenario where technology displaces most human workers leads to questions about the inherent value or meaning of paid work. If there comes to pass a time when computers can do most of our jobs better than us, then that should be a <em>win</em> for society. That is, it should free us from drudge work, and allow us as a society more leisure and time to reflect on the important issues of life!</p>
<p>Isn’t that the dream of automation, anyways? If robots and computers do most of the work, it should leave less for us to do, giving us more time to relax, enjoy our family and friends, and contemplate what life is really about. It might enable trimming the work week down from 40 hours to 15. </p>
<p>Then perhaps as a society we would have more time to become more informed and better understand the critical issues we are facing as a civilization. We realize that there is an increasing problem in politics in some countries (namely the US), in that the system seems increasingly dysfunctional. Few are happy with the way that our country is being run, and problems range from the steady flow of corrupting money into politics, the increasing divisiveness of political issues, and the increasing focus on mere image and soundbites rather than real solutions to complex problems. </p>
<p>Maybe one reason these issues persist is that we as citizens are entirely focused on the immediate struggles of surviving and making a living; we don’t have time to think deeply about the larger problems facing our society and our species.</p>
<h2 id="retooling-the-economy_2">Retooling the Economy <a class="head_anchor" href="#retooling-the-economy_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>While it’s clear to see the benefits of having more leisure time, there’s a problem. Our current economy is not designed to facilitate more leisure, or to handle those that are no longer employable due to the march of technology. That is, although having everyone in the population work 40 hours a week is not strictly necessary for the world to function, generally we all still do. Why? To be honest, I’m not exactly sure – part of it is that companies paying salaries don’t have any incentives to cut hours, and part might be convention. </p>
<p>But the issue will come to a head when more and more people become displaced from jobs by technology, because we just don’t have social systems in place currently to deal with a substantial portion of the population being unemployed. Some tweaks to our economy will likely be needed. One possibility is the idea of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income">basic income</a>, where everyone in a country receives a wage for <em>doing nothing</em>. </p>
<p>It seems a little crazy, but in the situation where companies are making lots of money without employing many people, our consumer system will fall apart, because <em>who</em> will be doing the consuming? That is, with most of the population in poverty, who would buy anything? So – in the case where automation has taken over, it may be best to just pay people for doing nothing; or for doing volunteer work, or for some other pro-social behavior that doesn’t have direct economic value (like writing poetry!).</p>
<h2 id="the-strange-future_2">The Strange Future <a class="head_anchor" href="#the-strange-future_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>So, if your meaning in life derives from being employed by someone to work 40 hours a week, the future may undermine your self worth. If, however, you think living life is about more than just paid work, then with any luck the future will be bright! There may be more time for all of us to be creative, to better understand the world and what it means to be alive, and to become better people and a better civilization. No doubt it will be a strange time, if computers displace most of us in our current jobs, but it may be the push we need as a species to come to terms with what is really important in life.</p>
tag:worldbetter.svbtle.com,2014:Post/apes-with-nukes2014-03-25T20:53:03-07:002014-03-25T20:53:03-07:00Apes with Nukes<p>TLDR: Although we aspire to be much more, at heart humans are slightly-evolved apes with brains and morality unsuited to handle the massive responsibility of the technology we’ve created. By using our brains to create a complex society, we’ve made our own brains obsolete, and it is crucial that we seek to modernize them.</p>
<p>We don’t often stop moving long enough to think about the biggest, heaviest things. Life. Death. Humanity. Sometimes we’re lucky enough to realize that our seemingly urgent day-to-day concerns are tiny specks in the larger context of life. But it’s surprisingly difficult to resisting being consumed by life’s trivialities.</p>
<p>So, for a moment, just stop. Take a breath and notice the present moment. A illuminating (if somewhat morbid) quote from Jon Kabat-Zinn is the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The funny thing about stopping is that as soon as you do it, here you are. Things get simpler. In some ways, it’s as if you died and the world continued on. If you did die, all your responsibilities and obligations would immediately evaporate. Their residue would somehow get worked out without you. No one else can take over your unique agenda. It would die or peter out with you just as it has for everyone else who has ever died. So you don’t need to worry about it in any absolute way.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The point is to reflect for just a moment on our unimportance relative to the workings of the vast world around us, which can be surprisingly freeing. There are many billion of us humans on this planet, after all. So while you and I are each unique in many ways, our ultimate impact on this planet is likely to be relatively small. There exist forces larger than us as single individuals that tend to shape the world, like large unions of humans such as countries or companies, or powerful ideas like democracy or capitalism. </p>
<h2 id="thinking-about-humanity39s-situation_2">Thinking about Humanity’s Situation <a class="head_anchor" href="#thinking-about-humanity39s-situation_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>This line of thought leads us to consider things larger than ourselves, our friends, our family, and even our own country. For a moment let’s consider humanity as a whole. As a species, is our situation promising? What is the current state of humanity?</p>
<p>Admittedly, it’s a pretty broad concept to summarize in a paragraph. Our situation as a species encompasses everything about us: Our technologies, our politics, our well-being, and how we treat each other. We can observe many good trends affecting humanity, like our increasing ability to cure diseases, and advances in technology that allow more people to live in increasing luxury. Furthermore, overall a smaller percentage of people are dying violent deaths over time. Yet there are some troubling trends as well. </p>
<p>For example, despite having enough food to feed the world, many still die of starvation. Isn’t that strange? What an awful way to die – what a terrible meaningless death many face. What’s worse, the same wondrous technologies that enable us to travel to space or generate plentiful energy from plutonium, they also enable weapons of unparalleled destruction. The invention of atomic weapons has recently granted us the nightmarish ability to entirely destroy our own planet. This is a heavy, heavy, responsibility for us humans to bear, one that few would say we are in fact <em>ready</em> to bear.</p>
<h2 id="natural-evolution-is-slow_2">Natural Evolution is Slow <a class="head_anchor" href="#natural-evolution-is-slow_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>So – the question is, why, if we’ve uncovered so much knowledge and wisdom as a species – why, if we have the potential to live harmoniously in a world where technology could provide plenty for all – why, then, are we as humans still in basic conflict with one another, and in danger of extinguishing ourselves? We still fight wars, cruelly pitting our young against each other in mortal combat. We still develop increasingly extreme weapons. We still are short-sighted, greedy, vengeful, and hungry for power.</p>
<p>Interestingly, it turns out that a large amount of strife in the world can be explained by a single simple insight: <strong>The world that humans have created is much different from the one in which our species evolved</strong>. In effect, by using our brains to create a complex society, <em>we’ve made our own brains obsolete</em>. </p>
<p>The crux is that the pace of natural evolution is much slower than the pace of human society evolves. Natural evolution acts over many, many generations – tens of thousands or even millions of years. Yet we are changing our world at an accelerating pace. For example, who can predict what technologies await even our own children? As a result of evolution’s slowness, our brains have become increasingly poorly-fit to the world they must navigate within.</p>
<p>In other words, our brains are not much different from those of our caveman ancestors. Yet clearly the caveman world was <strong>much</strong> different than the world we currently live in. The end result is that in essence, <strong>we are apes with nukes</strong>. Imgar Persson and Julian Savulescu put it this way. in their book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Unfit-Future-Enhancement-Uehiro-Practical/dp/019965364X">Unfit for the Future</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For most of the 150,000 years or so that the human species has existed, human beings have lived in comparatively small and close-knit societies, with a primitive technology that allowed them to affect only their most immediate environment. So, their psychology and morality are likely to be adapted to make them fit to live in these conditions. But by science and technology humans have radically changed their living conditions, while their moral psychology has presumably remained fundamentally the same (on an evolutionary time-scale), especially in the last centuries.</p>
<p>The human population on Earth has increased a thousand times since the agricultural revolution, so most humans now live in societies with millions of people, with an advanced scientific technology that enables them to exercise an influence that extends all over the world and far into the future. We shall argue that human beings are not by nature equipped with a moral psychology that empowers them to cope with the moral problems these new conditions of life create.</p>
</blockquote><h2 id="the-modern-world-vs-outdated-brains_2">The Modern World Vs. Outdated Brains <a class="head_anchor" href="#the-modern-world-vs-outdated-brains_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>In other words, our brains are just not well-equipped to deal with modern society. We aren’t good at long-term thinking, or at delaying gratification, or at thinking about the massive numbers of people outside our own country. Our morality evolves at a slower pace than our technology: We have atomic bombs, but not the moral responsibility to ensure that we, or some rogue terrorist group, will not wreak terrible destruction with them. As Einstein said: “It has become exceedingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.”</p>
<p>Still, all is not lost. The first step towards fixing a societal problem is often to become aware as a society that there is in fact a problem. We as a species can learn and acknowledge the limitations of our caveman brain. We can become aware of those situations in which our caveman brain falls short. And with that awareness, we can apply deliberate effort in such situations to make better decisions. As a trivial example, I know through experience that if I go out and drink two beers, I won’t get any writing done later that night. So, although it goes against my natural desire, if I need to get writing done, most often I’ll deliberately turn down the kind bartender’s offer to refill my beverage. </p>
<p>But perhaps this sort of stop-gap solution isn’t enough. There may not be enough willpower in the world to reign in our mal-adapted brains. Indeed, many great moral teachers have come and gone, and our moral progress as a society remains glacial compared to our technological progress. We may need to take more drastic steps. Perhaps our technology, the same that grants us powers we have difficulty wielding morally, might somehow even save us: <em>Could technology be exploited to improve our morality</em>? Can we enhance our own morality through medication, or modification to our genetic code or our brain? This of course, is dangerous, because we are talking about tinkering with what makes us human; and yet, it’s clear that some aspects of humanity are destructive and outdated.</p>
<p>In the end, I don’t have any miracle solutions on offer. What I do know is that it’s important for us as a species to seriously consider our future from time to time. It’s important for us to understand not only the boons of technological progress, but also the potential trap: More powerful technology just means we can manipulate the world more forcefully, whether or not we are responsible enough to handle that additional force. Already, our morality is lagging behind our technology. It’s time to examine carefully if catching up could be essential to our continuing existence as a species.</p>