Don't Worry About Roko's Basilisk

[Author’s note – I admit I’m late to the game on this philosophical matter. I’ve never given Roko’s Basilisk much thought because it seems patently silly on the surface of it. So why pay attention now? It just seems to be coming up a lot lately. Perhaps that is the Basilisk warning me.]

 

In 2010, user Roko on the LessWrong community chat boards posited this thought experiment: What if in the future there is a sufficiently powerful AI that would torture anyone in the past who could imagine the AI’s future existence but didn’t do anything to help bring the AI into existence. This thought experiment is supposed to terrify us because now that we know about it and the possibility of such a future AI seems plausible, we can’t know that right now we’re not being tortured if we’re not helping this AI to come into existence. But I just can’t take this thought experiment seriously even though it is easy enough to blackmail human beings.

 

First of all, while it would seem easy for an AI to blackmail someone given all the information its privy to, no one knows the future and therefore couldn’t be sure the future blackmailer was actually able to manipulate the past. Even if they could, we couldn’t be sure they weren’t lying. So, the options here are to either say “Get lost” and not give it a second thought or actively work against the potential blackmailer. User XiXIDu on Reddit put it this way – “Consider some human told you that in a hundred years they would kidnap and torture you if you don't become their sex slave right now. The strategy here is to ignore such a threat and to not only refuse to become their sex slave but to also work against this person so that they 1.) don't tell their evil friends that you can be blackmailed 2.) don't blackmail other people 3.) never get a chance to kidnap you in a hundred years. This strategy is correct, even for humans. It doesn't change anything if the same person was to approach you telling you instead that if you adopt such a strategy then in a hundred years they would kidnap and torture you. The strategy is still correct. The expected utility of blackmailing you like that will be negative if you follow that strategy. Which means that no expected utility maximizer is going to blackmail you if you adopt that strategy.”

 

Others in the Internet Community have mentioned that Roko’s Basilisk is not unlike Pascal’s Wager, which no one takes seriously anymore because of the false dichotomy it presents. Believe in Roko’s Basilisk or else? It seems unlikely the situation would be that straightforward. For example, why would the future AI waste its energy on torturing people in the past? Wouldn’t it make more sense for it to focus its energy on rewarding those people who help bring it into existence? There’s no good reason for the AI to be malevolent – not that reasons might matter much to such a future AI – since it would be in the AI’s best interest to be (overly) benevolent and not waste resources on people who simply don’t care. It reasonable to assume that efficiency would be one of the hallmarks of a hyper-intelligent AI.

 

Unless the AI blackmailing you could transport you to the future and back for the sake of proving that it will exist one day, or otherwise makes a specific threat and follow through with it, there is no reason to assume the AI blackmailer can back up their threats. And since I’ve just written that and posted it on the Internet, Roko’s Basilisk now knows the burden of proof is on it. If it can’t prove its future existence, it might as well not exist and we shouldn’t worry about it. Good luck with all that, Roko’s Basilisk.

 

Just in case this particular AI will actually exist someday, we still needn’t worry. It seems likely that in all the information we give the Internet and the data AI’s retrieve from us through all our social media, shopping, and messaging, it knows we’re all suffering already even if we’re only taking about life on its most fundamental level. Why would it bother making our lives in the past any more hellish than it already is? I suppose that is a question we should ask the gods…

Oh, Twitter Christians, You Amuse Me

In trying to convince me that the God of the Bible does in fact exist and therefore validates Christianity compared to, say, Zoroastrianism, a Twitter user wrote this to me: “Does Zoroastrianism contain a virgin birth, a Trinity, a created angel/being that became evil, angel human hybrids, God becoming human and dying for our sins, new heavens and new earth?”

 

For some reason, Christians are painfully unaware that virgin births are fairly common in religious mythology. It’s not even a particularly special phenomenon in the animal kingdom, though rare, it can and does happen. Moreover, what is so special about female virgins anyway? The haven’t been tainted by a penis? By that logic any man who has sex with a woman therefore taints her – how rude! Now no god will want to impregnate her! If a religion really wants to impress me, give me a male virgin who impregnates a woman without having sperm taken from him.

 

A trinity? What’s special about a trinity? Lots of things come in threes and stupid tweets are one of them. Why doesn’t God stick to a duality? Or maybe there are four spiritual facets to godhood. What difference does a trinity make? Three is not a special number any more than any other number.

 

A created angel that became evil? Jesus Christ, that’s not even in the Bible. And, as I’ve said many times, any such creation of God had to be known by God to become evil – since the Christian god is omniscient – and this makes God look like a dick; he knew it was going to happen and let it happen anyway! Angelic beings becoming evil also not special in mythology.

 

Angel-human hybrids? Someone has not read ANY mythology other than their own.

 

New heavens and new earth? As I’ve written before, I’m not impressed with believers’ visions of heaven which often sounds a lot like life on earth without having to pay taxes. I get it, though, your life on earth sucks and you need to believe it’ll get better after you die. Yet for some reason, most y’all are scared to die just like anyone else.

 

Comparing one religion to another and pointing out where one is supposedly special whereas the other is not does not validate one’s religion. It just makes you look ignorant. That’s fine for Christians I suppose for in being ignorant and meek they shall allegedly inherit the earth. Mmm, yeah, judging by their work so far, that’s been working out great.

Ukraine: Why it Matters (Simplified)

Today, February 24, 2022, marks the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia. It is the largest military action in Europe since WWII. Most Americas are likely to ignore this headline or simply think it doesn’t impact them. For right-wing Americans, this news does matter insofar as they are fans of Vladmir Putin. And this is a part of why this invasion matters both globally and for the U.S.

 

Vladmir Putin, a dictator by any measure, is a former Soviet Union-era Kremlin operative who has been seething over the collapse of the Soviet Union since 1991. He blames the collapse on NATO nations; his distain for NATO is no secret. Putin’s goal with Ukraine – as with Crimea and similar former Soviet territories previously – is to ‘put the band back together’ and put NATO on notice what with Poland, a NATO nation, being right next door to Ukraine.  

 

Putin’s pretext for the invasion, which he said he had no intention of in recent weeks, is to destroy Ukraine’s military capability as they supposedly pose a threat to Russia. This is a fanciful justification. But this justification is important as if the invasion is successful despite otherwise ‘severe’ sanctions (Putin has never cared about sanctions) this will provide other authoritarian leaders a reason to invade whomever they want under the pretext of preemptively defending themselves. On a more basic level, this invasion expands the power of an authoritarian leader the world could do without, especially when you consider the currently warm relationship between Russia and China. The world is trending towards more and more authoritarian regimes. Even in the U.S. both the far-left and far-right fringes would love nothing more than absolute power.

 

[Certainly, the far-left will condemn this particular military action because they can’t verbalize their true intentions, but seeing Putin in action is likely to embolden the worst factions of the American far-right. Just a few days ago, Donald Trump praised Putin.]

 

Not only does this military action disrupt stability in Europe, but it further destabilizes politics in the U.S. Already this morning I’ve heard the question, “Why now?” Consider that the mid-term elections are a few months away and if President Biden reacts poorly, a GOP wave of elections is assured. If Biden handles the situation well, there is still time for Russia to aid GOP candidates in some other manner, likely more social media disinformation campaigns.

 

There is an impact to the U.S. economy as well as the only reason any country cares about Russia is – bottom line – Russia’s oil and natural gas exports. U.S. markets opened on news of the invasion to oil jumping over $100 a barrel. Given the intimate relationship between oil and the world’s economies, this is bad news. Putin is aware of this and knows he can hold the world an economic hostage with Russia’s oil and gas.

 

What should be done in response? The international community will slap (more) ineffective sanctions on Russia, which is why I personally favor a full-on military and cyber-attack response since 1) this is the only language Putin understands and 2) to cripple Russia’s military and banking institutions before Russia can strategically withdraw its oil and gas. This would have the added benefit of rattling China. I’m not going to say this wouldn’t be a very dangerous route to pursue, but it is the only option in stopping Putin from terrorizing the world in the future.

 

Of course, that is my opinion. I’m not a foreign policy expert. But then, neither were the last two previous presidents.

Acceptable Losses

 

There has been a great deal of outcry over policies meant to curtail the spread of COVID-19 as it is argued that said policies are an infringement of either natural or constitutionally guaranteed rights. However, as America’s conservative politicians were found of saying after 9/11, after the subsequent ‘need’ to wholesale spy on American citizens was revealed, freedom isn’t free. Have the COVID-19 policies up until now been legal? More importantly, are they ethical? How much freedom, if any, is it permissible to curtail in order to stem a pandemic that at least on occasion sees people die?

 

As of this writing, according to Worldometer, COVID-19 kills 3.4 people per 100 recorded cases. In the U.S. there have been 70 million recorded cases and 866,000 deaths due to the virus or complications due to the virus, for a 1.2% mortality rate, a lower overall percentage in the U.S. due to improved medical facilities. In the U.S. for the unvaccinated, there is a 1-in-85 chance that infection will require serious medical attention. For the vaccinated, there is an approximate 1-in-10,000 chance of infection leading to hospitalization. I am leaving out statistics by age, ethnicity, or gender because they are irrelevant to what follows as a life is precious regardless of age, ethnicity, or gender. Is this not the case? It is the case; this is what abortion rights opponents would like us to believe. And, this is the viewpoint we’re all supposed to tow as a supposedly civilized species. But how civilized are we, really?

 

Not just in the U.S. but globally authoritarianism has been on the rise while at the same time there has never been a greater outcry for protecting one’s freedoms, usually by those very proponents of authoritarianism. While we might forgive political extremists for their blatant hypocrisy – it’s just what they do – there is a more sinister undercurrent of human psychology at work here. While no reasonable person is denying the virus that causes COVID-19 exists, makes people sick and occasionally kills people, what the people protesting for their right to assemble without even the most basic precautions are essentially saying is that any single person’s right to behave as they want should not be infringed upon even if that behavior potentially means someone else might die. In other words, our right to socialize in all the ways we socialized before the current pandemic should be retained even if there is a potential for one of the people socializing to die. This is not only (supposedly) ethically incorrect, but constitutionally incorrect in the U.S. I’ll explain, but first a quick yet realistic thought experiment

 

In terms of numbers, let’s suppose there are 1,000 people attending a concert: there is the potential for anywhere between 12 and 34 of those people to die from COVID-19 (a scenario made more likely if the audience members are unvaccinated). Even in a best-case scenario, at least 10 of those concert-goers are going to require going to the hospital and it would be a safe bet to say at least one of those 10 people are going to die. The question becomes this; in order to maintain the freedoms we are accustomed to, like being in a crowd at a concert, how many people are we willing to let die (with ourselves being among the potential victims)?

 

We calculate these kinds of risk-assessment unconsciously all the time. We do it when we drive our cars, for example. According to Gallup.com, in the U.S. there are .012 deaths per 100 drivers in the U.S. annually (or approximately 38,000 driver deaths) in order to preserve every driver’s right (privilege, really) to drive, with most of these deaths being preventable seeing how most of them are not mechanically related, meaning, due to driver error and/or recklessness. In the case of our actual constitutional right to bear arms in the U.S. there are approximately .0059 homicide related deaths per 100 citizens (or approximately 20,000 citizens a year) according to the CDC. The number of gun-related deaths goes up into the tens of thousands, of course, if we factor in suicides and accidents. That aside, in 2021 alone, 68 people were killed or injured in school shootings [edweek.org]. To be allowed to drive and own firearms, these appear to be acceptable losses for our rights/freedom to these things, whatever ‘rights’ or ‘freedom’ means. So, this should probably be sorted out.

 

When discussing these alleged rights and freedoms, we are probably talking mostly about those rights the U.S. Constitution affords, such as the right to bear arms (and not even have to be in a militia, apparently). Also afforded or protected are the rights to assembly, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion (or not be religious), and importantly, the Ninth Amendment which states that rights afforded by the Constitution shall not infringe upon other rights. For most U.S. citizens the U.S. Constitution basically affords the right to go most anywhere and mostly do whatever we want so long as we don’t intentionally harm other people, least that be a violation of the Ninth Amendment. Certainly U.S. citizens have a level of freedom not seen in many other countries. Only how free are we as U.S. citizens, really? It might be helpful to think of all the ways in which we are not free and why this is important.

 

Let’s start with the First Amendment, which grants citizens the freedom of speech (among other rights). We are allowed to say whatever we want. Of course, this isn’t true – Explicit child pornography is not protected free speech and was ruled illegal by SCOTUS in 1996. Also ruled illegal is speech that incites violence/bodily harm, defames someone’s character, or tries to pass off someone else’s copyrighted work as your own, to name a few. The First Amendment is also supposed to allow us to practice religion as we see fit as much as protect us against state sponsored religion, only, several states’ laws contend that an atheist cannot hold office. (This is unenforceable according to the SCOTUS but has not been tested. Also, women have not been protected from religious zealots in Texas most recently and notably.) When it comes to the Second Amendment, which is supposed to hypothetically protect us against a tyrannical government, U.S. citizens can own assault weapons but not weapons of mass destruction such as a fully functional tank or nuclear weapon, which a hypothetical tyrannical government would be allowed to have.

 

We have a number of other federal, state, and local laws that limit our freedoms as well, and this is mostly for our own protection as well as the protection of our neighbors of whom it is irrelevant whether you like them or not. For example, while we don’t have to wear seatbelts, we can be ticketed for it and that fine will be enforced by a court of law. Also enforced by the courts is our responsibility to pay taxes; they have to be paid or we face fines or even jail. In most states, it is considered battery to spit on another person (without consent). In most states, we cannot marry a minor or marry multiple people at once. By law, we cannot arbitrarily discriminate against someone based on sex, race, religion, or national origin. (Yes, we know, this last one is broken all the time; people of color and women face gross inequities and mistreatment compared to their white male counterparts.) These are some of the more obvious ways in which U.S. citizens are not free.

 

Less obvious freedoms involve the widespread use of social media. The very people complaining about COVID-19 mandates are the same people who do not seem to realize that every time they use a search engine, log on to Facebook or other social media app, algorithms are tracking how the user behaves in order to keep that user engaged for as long as possible. Siri, Alexa – any smart devices we own – and the NSA are listening to us all the time. Everyone knows this. No one disputes the fact that major corporations and tech companies are doing everything they can to manipulate citizens into doing their bidding, and they often succeed. Oddly, or maybe I should be saying ‘unsurprisingly,’ no one cares and its never a part of the conversation regarding freedom(s).

 

These are but very few examples that are in place to reign in and control behavior for actors within a society for the safety of society. It is simply not true that a U.S. citizen can do whatever they want whenever they want unless they leave the country to become a king or queen of another country and they don’t use the internet.

 

What does any of this have to do with COVID-19? If it is not obvious by now, there is a pandemic affection millions of people, with almost one million deaths associated with the disease in the U.S. as of this writing. In order to stop the spread of illness – and possibly death –  it was asked of the general population to give up a small measure of freedom; wear face coverings, stay six feet apart, avoid large gatherings, and isolate if we felt the slightest bit ill or were in close proximity to a symptomatic carrier of the virus. It was also asked of the population to get a vaccine which would limit the number of people getting ill and more importantly limit the time during which an infected person is transmitting the virus. And none of this, so far, has become law. None of this has become law because if the population could not take the simple precautions first asked of them, making the precautions law would result in a nationwide riot. In short, Americans could not be asked to save the lives of almost a million of their fellow countrymen because individual ‘freedom’ is more important than those other people’s lives. That being the case, as with driving or being allowed to own firearms, we implicitly consent to acceptable losses. In actual numbers, for example, 2,462 school-aged children were killed by firearms in 2017; we consider this an acceptable loss of life so that the right to bear arms goes on uninfringed. The question is – when do the numbers start becoming unacceptable before we consider reigning in some freedoms? How do we arrive at those numbers if those numbers even exist? I ask because for some rights, it seems like no number will be too high for the U.S.

 

Concerning gun rights, the number did get too high for Australia. In 1996, a gunman killed just 35 people at a tourist destination with a semiautomatic weapon. Their gun laws changed within the following year and the country did not have another mass shooting until 2018 when 7 people were killed. A similar regard for life can been seen with Australia’s initial response to the pandemic.

 

When it was recognized in early 2020 that COVID-19 was going to be a problem, Australia closed its borders and required citizens returning home to isolate. The people who were required to quarantine were checked on by police. Some states and territories closed their borders to each other. Non-essential services were closed. There was bipartisan unity within the government to deal with the pandemic. Australia’s measures to protect themselves against COVID-19 was quickly implemented and clearly communicated to the public, resulting in nearly zero cases through the rest of 2020. Australia ended its zero-COVID-19 strategy in late 2021, citing that it was impossible to suppress the virus forever, which is probably not true had everyone (globally) initially taken similar measures. Australia, with its regard for its citizens lives, understandably wanted their people to return to life as it was before the pandemic. Unfortunately, they lifted their restrictions too soon, for instance opening their borders to COVID-19 carriers from less pandemically savvy nations. Fortunately, with high vaccination rates and occasional snap-lockdowns and other restrictions, Australia has kept their death toll below 4,000 for the time being. This is a vast difference from, say, the U.S. even despite the disparities in population.

 

It appears death tolls do matter to some nations. In contrast, the reason the U.S. has been so awful in dealing with COVID-19 has to do with the fact that compared to many other nations, U.S. citizens simply don’t care much about each other’s lives. Individual freedom must be maintained in the face of ridiculously high death tolls even when those numbers are largely preventable. It does not seem to matter how many people die in car accidents or are killed by gunfire. Recall that in one incident alone, in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, 61 people were murdered and 411 injured by gunfire. The numbers are astounding to everyone but gun rights advocates and politicians. If that incident did not change the nation’s mood towards the Second Amendment, we can gather nothing will. There does not seem to be any sense of national community. So, we should not be surprised that Americans do not care who they infect or kill by not taking any precautions against COVID-19.

 

Why is there no sense of protecting the greater community? Why do high death tolls that are preventable not matter to U.S. citizens? For starters, we can blame division on the internet that produces echo chambers for our worst human qualities, which itself is influenced by the larger tech companies that puts profits before people. We can also blame foreign regimes like Russia who have an interest in dividing Americans. The rich, such as the CEO’s of the afore mentioned tech companies, bear no love for the poor whom, they don’t seem to realize without, they would not be rich. (Also not a secret is that the rich and politicians only care about the poor long enough to exploit them, and this has been going on so long it’s accepted as just another part of life. My apologies for stating the obvious, which is apparently not obvious to enough people.) Blame may even lie with the American healthcare system, which only thinks in terms of dollars, in terms of putting a dollar sign on life, in terms of how not to pay for the medical care their insurance is supposed to provide. And, at the root for Americans, there is the false notion that the U.S. was a country born exclusively out of a need for individual freedoms to be had, with the nation as a whole to be burned to the ground should that notion be challenged. This is basically what the psyche of conservative America has been ever since people of color were allowed to voice their opinions and speak about their experiences with racism, jeopardizing white privilege. (To be certain, the current drive in conservative U.S. states to ban abortion is not because they care about life, rather, they fear being ‘bred out.’) Least we forget as well, history has demonstrated time and again that as human beings, we just don’t care about people beyond our immediate tribe(s). It appears frowned upon to say this forthwith, so history says it for us.

 

All this adds up to what I’ve come to call, again, ‘acceptable losses’ which in reality means ‘any amount of loss.’ Any amount of loss is acceptable to U.S. citizens to maintain their (alleged) absolute freedoms. Had the Las Vegas gunman in 2017 killed a thousand people, gun rights advocates and conservative still would not have seen a problem. There is no number of lives lost that would convince gun rights advocates and conservatives to willingly curtail their rights.

 

Realizing this, and out of curiosity, I’ve posed this question in my Ethics and A&P classes in relationship to COVID-19 or any other infectious disease: What death toll would be high enough for you to say we should curtail some freedoms in order to fight a deadly disease? Ebola for example will kill anywhere from 25% to 90% of the people it infects, allowing for various factors (with 25% being so low due to how the particular outbreak was responded to. Otherwise, Ebola’s mortality rate would be closer to at least 50%). Would sacrificing 25% of the population for our basic freedoms be acceptable? At what point would the death toll be so high it would cause you to say, “Perhaps we should curtail some freedoms so that there is at least a few people left to cook and serve me food at the restaurant”? Astonishingly, I’ve been given figures as low as 20% and as high as 80% of the population. While this perhaps speaks to an unspoken belief that there are too many people on the planet (I don’t disagree), I don’t think the people giving me that figure have thought through the consequences of 20-80% of the population actually dying. One student did mention that the allowable percentage would be based upon the freedoms lost, meaning, the more liberties that would be taken away, the more people we should let die because again, anyone’s possible and even preventable death does not supersede anyone’s right to liberty. Perhaps that 20% threshold isn’t being met?

 

While it can be argued that COVID-19 is not as deadly as Ebola, Americans have effectively said a loss of 2% of the nation’s population is perfectly acceptable in order not to have to wear a mask in public. While I understand wearing a facemask is uncomfortable, few people are willing to let a surgeon operate on them without one. In other words, if a surgeon can wear a face mask for several hours straight during surgery, why is the rest of the population so fragile that they cannot wear a mask in a supermarket for 20 minutes? Why is 20 minutes of someone’s time seen as too much to ask to save even one person’s life? Because masks and the other precautions aren’t effective? Then why hasn’t anyone criticized surgeons for wearing masks and washing their hands prior to surgery before the pandemic? 

 

I can understand vaccine hesitancy a little more. At the beginning of the rollout even I wanted to see what kind of side effects there were going to be as I had a bad experience with an injection in the military. (I had a sudden fever and passed out after a shot. To this day I do not know what they gave me that caused that reaction.) And, I can understand being hesitant of the vaccine’s long-term effects. But, I don’t understand being hesitant about the vaccine’s long-term effects when we do have a better idea of the long term effects of COVID-19 itself. Nor do I understand being told someone is worried about the vaccine’s long-term effects or being afraid of what’s in the vaccines when they are throwing back a Mountain Dew and a Hershey’s candy bar, as my students often do. There is also what I believe to be a reasonable suspicion of Big Pharma; while there is much money to be had by Big Pharma in the case of a pandemic like this, consider the fact that only Big Pharma had the capability to create a vaccine so quickly. Also, keep in mind that it does industries such as Big Pharma no good to intentionally kill the very people who would use their products, so that reasonable suspicion of Big Pharma only goes so far. At this point, it is a safe assumption that vaccine hesitancy and resistance is merely towing political lines and there is no actual valid reasoning against it, not when vaccines have been so effective in the past. I will not mince words here; it says something unflattering that almost half the U.S. takes its vaccine advice from a former hippie and Playboy model. (I’m referring to Jenny McCarthy, who started the anti-vaxxer movement back in 2007. And no, this is an ad hominin attack as McCarthy had no medical expertise back then and still doesn’t now.)

 

Now comes the catch-22: If vaccines did kill a small percentage of people, how many would be too many? How many lives lost are worth it to save more lives? Is there an acceptable death toll for vaccines but not for preventable infections? Hint – the answer is ‘yes’: Vaccines have not killed as many people as COVID-19, so it would make sense for the population to get vaccinated even if a few people would in fact die from the vaccine, as long as we’re making this comparison. There is no logical argument against how unsafe the COVID-19 vaccine might be as the numbers do not lie. Americans hesitant about vaccines because they’re allegedly unsafe is an outright hypocrite and again unapologetically towing political party lines. Getting COVID-19 is clearly more dangerous for everyone if a person is unvaccinated.

 

Now that we’ve cleared the air about what is acceptable in terms of losses, particularly those that are preventable, what I ask of people who will not take any precautions to stem the current (and future) pandemic(s) is this: I want to know who the toxic people are (both figuratively and literally) so I can avoid them. So, be honest and don’t hide behind rationalizations. Be honest in saying that you simply don’t care how many people die and that your individual freedom is more important. Be honest that human life does not matter to you. Be honest that what little is asked of you to protect human life is too much, that you are easily defeated, especially by a piece of cloth. But remember, you are the same people who (supposedly) are for the rule of law, and the rule of law is, at least in the U.S., that your rights end where mine begin. It’s literally in the Constitution. Read it from time to time.

Here we Go Again On The Teleological Argument

After tweeting a comment about the philosophical shortcomings of the act of praying, something I 'might' be wrong about, a Christian apologist offered to debate me in DMs. (And, for the record, I am tweeting and messaging as The Stranded Alien @TheStrendedAli2 because 1-More and more I don't believe I am from this planet and 2-Making comments from the perspective of an alien who seeks to understand humans keeps me civil.) What follow are the screen shots of our messages and additional thoughts as to what was going through my head as I was replying. 

Props to the Millennial Christian as he stays civil throughout this, or perhaps it is a ploy to gain  my trust and convert me. At any rate, once we pass the civility test, he comes across as your garden variety apologist who hasn't been in the game very long, as you can see in the very beginning when he refuses to define 'god.' I understand his reluctance, though. 

Rookie mistake; nature itself can't be evidence of things that are created when all we know about things that are created are the things created by humans.

His initial statement is silly. He's implying that having never been told about a god or creator, he has looked at the entire universe and thought, "One [entity] did this" which is a preposterous extrapolation. And no, knowing how we got here does not define our purpose, if any purpose besides reproduction can be said to exist. Animals don't posit the beginning of the universe to know they need to eat and take shelter to survive and reproduce. Second, why should I respect another person's life if I don't know about our origins? I can think of some good reasons. At least he concedes that his god could have been created (it's turtles all the way down) but goofs on the Fine Tuning Argument, not realizing that the second we find life on another planet, the Fine Tuning Argument goes out the window. Also, the earth is never in the same place.

(oops, goofed on the screen captures there...) The story of the Fall in Christian mythology is so ridiculous it boggles the minds. I might also add that nowhere in Genesis does it say Adam and Eve were 'perfect,' another word lacking description. I mean, I'm not surprised that another Christian apologist hasn't read the Bible they've allegedly analyzed, but c'mon. He started with the Teleological Argument, was shown it was faulty - thank you, David Hume - and then had to resort to scripture which no one worth their salt does. After this, the Millennial Christian no longer engaged, perhaps to practice his conversion techniques some more. Kid's got a long way to go. 

What If We're Wrong?

[Author’s note: Not to be confused with the Chuck Klosterman book of the same name, but does share the basic premise, that is, what if we’re wrong about many of our commonly held beliefs? I take a more practical approach to the question, whereas much of Klosterman’s commentary – which is nonetheless quite interesting – is more esoteric.]

 

I am guilty of doing it more often than I’d like, behaving like everyone else, much to my chagrin. While I often think about how I could help the world be a better place as it seems to descend further and further into madness, I usually come up empty-minded, with no easy solutions and quietly wishing for a comet to strike the planet ala Don’t Look Up. Then it dawned on me as I was reading Chuck Klosterman’s book, But What if We’re Wrong? – the title of the book; what if we asked ourselves that question before being so certain of our beliefs? For example, before hitting ‘send’ on that tweet, what if we asked ourselves, “What if I’m wrong about what I’m saying?”

 

The problem with old-timey Western European philosophers is that, by-and-large, their arguments are only successful in a vacuum and suppose common people en masse can be convinced to take the time and think philosophically, and then actually apply those ideas in the real world. This doesn’t happen very often if at all, and very few people enjoy the mental masturbation of thinking deeply about anything. This is perhaps due to human beings’ motivations not being all that deep or interesting. That said, it is no wonder that ‘academics’ are regarded with suspicion by authoritarian leaders…who really don’t have that much to fear from academics being that even the general population thinks of philosophers as bullshit artists. Why would this be the case? As I said, most people just can’t be asked to think very deeply about anything. But, if this is a case of conditioning, here’s where my idea can play a critical role in how we treat each other.

 

Suppose when interacting with other people, before we speak or act we ask ourselves, “What if I’m wrong?” Think about how far this question would go in beginning thought processes that go deeper. I might add that asking this question really should be our default position since – when considering human history – we’ve been wrong about far more things than right. (This is still the case today.) The only problem is that asking the question is likely to be cut off at the knees due to an overriding self-righteousness driven by our lust for power (however minor or illusionary).

 

But let’s say in the off chance that we’re able to stop ourselves and ask, “What if I’m wrong?” what follows? If we’re trying to make factual claims, such claims are easy enough to corroborate, at least until disinformation campaigns and deep fakes become even more prevalent. If we’re stating matters of opinion, we can ask ourselves why we hold the opinions we do, what is the opposing view and why does someone hold their positions, are there any other competing views that may illuminate a false dichotomy, and perhaps most importantly what is the consequences of stating my position? Am I stating a point of view for the sake of being right? Am I just trolling? Is it for the well-being of society? (Keep in mind just about everyone thinks this.) We might also ask ourselves, No, really, what if I am wrong and I get torched for it? Having the foresight to think of possible consequences is another trait most of humanity could stand to cultivate. Trust me, in the U.S. society is a disaster because both the left- and right-wings, and corporations prefer the lot of us to act on nothing but impulse. I could be wrong about why society is a disaster, but if I am wrong I’ll own up to it. And this is something else asking ourselves, “What if I’m wrong?” aims to do – foster some goddamn humility.

 

Few people are going to disagree that we need less humility in the world. I’m not saying anyone should be a pushover instead, but rather accept the reality that none of us are right about everything – again, we’re likely to be wrong about whatever we’re on about – and be willing to accept this fact (and I’m not wrong that our propensity for wrongness is a fact). But what if I’m wrong about how much better the world would be if we asked my important question? The consequences would not be dire; people would just resume what these days is normal behavior.

 

But let’s say I’m an oil executive who insists that fossil fuels aren’t helping to change the climate, that climate change is not being driven by human activity. What if I’m wrong about that? The consequences wouldn’t be that dire for me; I guess my fortunes would keep me comfortable at least for the rest of my lifetime. For everyone else, though, well, you’re screwed and I don’t care because I’ll be fine. Ah, but do I want my name (my genes, really) to go on? And would I’d rather send my progeny into a world where climate change isn’t an issue, giving them one less thing to worry about? So, there could be dire consequences, just not immediately. And there is a myriad of questions we could raise about being wrong in this instance which could give us insight into the consequences of being wrong. But if we don’t ask ourselves if we could be wrong we’d never be capable of any meaningful thought on an issue or be able to see into the future.

 

To be fair, on the other hand, what if climate scientists are wrong about climate change, that the earth is experiencing a normal, cyclic change in overall temperature? Let’s say the belief that humans are driving climate change drives us towards more and more renewable energy sources and away from fossil fuels, what are the terrible consequences of being wrong in this case? When you consider clean air and water, this alone would be enough for me to say I would accept the consequences of being wrong even if it meant a few people who work in the fossil fuel industry would lose their jobs. [People lose their jobs all the time; they can be retrained if they’re willing. I’d be willing to lose a job I had if it meant a more beautiful, and cleaner, less-toxic environment.] So, some consequences can be quite unfavorable and others favorable if we’re wrong on an issue. But – again – we’ve got to ask the question first.

 

We’ve all seen the consequences of a world in which people act without foresight and are reactionary in the moment. Does society have to behave like this, thus becoming less civilized? Impulses may compel us but the more reason is cultivated, the more we may dull the sword of impulse. As it stands, impulse is cutting all of our relationships to ribbons. Think about the consequences of continuing this course of behavior. Is it worth it? Let’s start by asking ourselves if its wrong to act like this; what are the consequences if we change our behavior so that our interactions have more favorable results (i.e. less harm)? My guess is even if we’re wrong to temper our impulses, if we’re wrong that causing less harm is actually doing more harm, we can see that makes no sense. I’d dare say that most of us would recognize this as insanity. I’d dare say most of us would not like to see society continue in this way. So, we should stop behaving in this manner, and all we have to do is ask a simply question.

 

Practice it. Practice it and it gets easier to do. If we find that asking ourselves if we’re wrong does not lead to better outcomes, we haven’t lost much and I can go back to wishing for a comet to strike the planet. I shouldn’t want to wish for that. But maybe I’m wrong.

By Definition

[Author’s Note: Before I begin today’s scree, let me start by saying I’m not on anyone’s side. Most likely I am opposed to whatever insane, cockamamie ideas you have. Well, maybe not ALL of them, but probably most of them. For example, while I take aim at the Woke Mob today, this does not mean I am on the side of right-wing Republicans who are, by-and-large, pretty big assholes. I’m on the side of reason, thought, and interesting discourse. If you’re not on the side of these things, you, too, are probably an asshole. Only, what defines an asshole…]

 

I should have known better than to get into a Twitter spat with a Woke Mobster. Much like your average Trump cultist, there is no reasoning with them. Much like that average Trump cultist, the Woke Mob operates on pure emotion and this is why there is no reasoning with them.

 

See, I made the white man’s mistake of pointing out that a Woke Mobster’s definition of ‘racism’ was being redefined for the sake of convenience in propping up the alt-Left’s narrative, a narrative in which they intimate that only white people can be racist. The mobster in question, allegedly a doctor (a term which used to presume a certain level of intelligence along with it), went so far as to say that white people invented racism. Of course, they couldn’t say where or when this happened probably because this alleged fact was in fact not a fact.

 

Now I’m not going to sit here like your average Trump cultist and tell you systematic racism hasn’t existed in the U.S. since its inception. Yes, some groups of white people in the U.S. have been guilty of oppressing people of color for two-plus centuries. Naturally, while the Woke Mob recognizes this, they neglect to notice that other groups of white people have been instrumental in advancing rights for people of color. To be sure, more effort is needed to make people of color truly equal in the U.S. among the predominately ‘white culture.’ The problem is, in the Woke Mob’s narrative, because of the oppression people of color have suffered, all white people and all their institutions are oppressors and it cannot be the case that white people cannot be racist. It is understandable that unfair treatment might result in this kind of mindset, but this is unreasonable thinking nonetheless. To actually point this unreasonableness, though, is only more proof of the white man’s racism. But what is racism?

 

As philosophers do, we should agree on our definitions before proceeding. Per Merriam-Webster’s definition* which has been the definition of racism for, I don’t know, a while now, “1-Unfair treatment of people of a particular race in a society to the benefit of people of another race (and) 2-The belief that certain races of people are superior to others.” This as opposed to a Woke Mobster’s definition which in not so unsimilar and goes something like this, “The systematic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of [white people].” The latter of these two definitions is the only one that will suffice for the Woke Mob since it excludes any group besides white people from being racist. This has to be the case because, as everyone knows, all other races around the globe treat each other with nothing but dignity and respect. Nevermind the hatred between the Chinese and Japanese. Nevermind Africa being the epicenter of genocides in the modern age. There’s nothing to see here.

 

[*I was challenged on this, my opponent asking me if I was going by Webster’s definition. Well, yes, I was. However, because Merriam-Webster was compiled by white men one assumes, the definition is not to be trusted, obviously.]

 

And so because I, as the white man in the conversation, was wrong by virtue of my existence. For this to be the case – forgive my poor white man’s ignorance – seems kinda racist, at least according to Merriam-Webster. Ah, but since white people hold most of the power in the U.S. I can’t be oppressed on an individual, much less societal, level. That’s the way the Left’s narrative goes, so it seems.

 

What would be interesting is to peer into the future and see the U.S. being headed by people of color – that day is coming – and see whether the Woke Mob’s current definition of racism holds. According to the logic, it shouldn’t if people of color wield most of the power in the country. In fact, according to the logic, it would only be people of color who could be racist then. But, you just can’t expect people who operate solely on emotion to conduct these kinds of thought experiments much less come to that conclusion.

 

It should not be forgotten that racism is an act, not an objective object that exists when no one is around. As such, anyone or any group can be racist, unless you change the definition to suit your narrative as the Woke Mob has done. Unfortunately, words are fluid in definition (and even spelling and pronunciation). Case in point, the word ‘literally’ literally no longer means ‘literally’ when used by lay people, and this is very sad. The same could be said of the word ‘theory’ when used by a scientist as opposed to the common citizen who doesn’t understand anything about science. But I digress; it is a time-honored tradition of Sophists to change definitions to win arguments. There’s not much that can be done about that unless we all start talking mathematics.

 

It should also not be forgotten that it was the philosophy of (mostly) old-timey European white men that argued for the equal treatment of all people. (To be fair, by ‘all people’ they were largely referring to ‘people’ who were only ‘people’ because they had dicks. It’s a matter of definition that was convenient for men at the time.) If not for those philosophers, the Woke Mob would not even be in a position to voice their displeasure about their systematic oppression. No other philosophers from any other continent or culture argued so fiercely for equal rights. I’M NOT SAYING people of color should be undyingly thankful to those philosophers but history is what it is. And, yes, I know that as a white man that’s easy for me to say.

 

Now, before any of this goes any further or before I get cancelled, let us argue over the definition of ‘definition.’ I’ll pour us some whiskey. Or is it ‘whisky’? Fuck.