We Are Not Saved

There are lots of ways things could go poorly in the future without going catastrophically bad. In this episode I take a recent article by Tyler Cowen where he speaks on this idea and I expand on some of the ideas he mentions in addition to adding one of my own.

A review of the book Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup by John Carreyrou. I discuss how the many failsafes against this sort of fraud were circumvented by Holmes and her accomplices, and how this parallels my own experience in the start up world. 

Slate recently published an article arguing we should not worry about porn. This episode is, in part, an answer to that question, and in it I argue that the unparalleled access to "sex-films", is so unprecedented that taking a firm stand that we shouldn't worry, is unwarranted given the data we have available. I argue that past moral panics have correctly predicted what will happen, but predicted it happening sooner and more dramatically than it actually did, which causes people to undervalue the points they made.

Rather than covering one big talk I decided to cover several: 1- Some impressions of the Sunstone Symposium I was just at. 2- I discuss irreconcilable value differences, and whether they're a problem. 3- The Putin-Trump summit and whether it increased or decreased the chance of nuclear war.

Nietzsche claimed that "God is dead", and predicted that as this became apparent the world would descend into nihilism. But what if there are god-like extraterrestrials out there? Or what if we can create our own gods using AI? How does that change his prediction of nihilism? The question seems to depend on whether there is some universal system of morality. If not, I argue, the consequences will be every bit as bad as Nietzsche predicted.

The coming fight over who will replace Anthony Kennedy has once again brought up the subject of whether all values should determined at the highest level possible. People are worried that if Kennedy is replaced that Roe v Wade will be overturned. But of course what isn't emphasized is that this will just move the issue back to the states. Are we sure that this and other issues really have to be all the same across the entire nation? Or that doing it this way has not made things worse? I'm not...

I introduce the idea of "The Mistake of Dramatic Timing" which affects most of the thinking about Fermi's Paradox. I review a particularly egregious example of it in the Bobiverse series. I then go on to discuss my issues with a recent paper which claimed to "Dissolve Fermi's Paradox".

It's the 100th Episode! Okay don't get too excited, mostly I'm using this to question why I even do this. Hubris! And whether I should change anything going forward. (Probably, but nothing big.) The upshot is I think I have at least 100 more in me so I'll be here for awhile.

In a recent detailed critique, Phil Torres lays out all the ways in which Pinker's chapter on existential risks from Enlightenment Now, gets the discipline of existential risks entirely wrong. As this one of my areas of interest I examine Torres' arguments, but also I add a religious aspect to the entire thing which Torres intentionally avoids. In the end it's apparent that Pinker made repeated errors in the chapter, and that Torres despite being in a much better position could also probably learn something from looking at religion.

I start off by telling of an amazing crime involving pizza delivery. From there I wonder about the incidence of crime in general, and whether there's any relationship to homelessness.  My own impression is that homelessness is increasing, this doesn't appear to correlate to an increase in crime, nor does it correlate to an improving economy. Why is that? Why has homelessness not declined significantly during this most recent economic expansion?