Astral Codex Ten Podcast

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/24/acc-should-you-have-a-merry-christmas/ [This is an entry to the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest by Cindy Lou Who and the Grinch] Christmas Day is a a time full of laughter and cheer which is held in the West at the end of each year. Believers in Jesus traditionally think the day marks his birth; scientists disagree. They point to the shepherds; when carolers sing about fields full of sheep, that occurs in the spring. The Star of the Magi provides further doubt. Simulations can tell us what star it's about: it was most likely Jupiter shining near Saturn, but it's only in autumn one sees such a pattern. It is proven in space and it's proven on Earth – Christmas isn't the real time of Jesus' birth. One of the most popular Yule celebrations is handing out gifts to one's friends and relations. Parents offer the story these presents appeared due to Santa, a jolly old man with a beard. Originally a historical saint, his tale was embellished, with little restraint. He flies through the air in a reindeer-pulled sleigh, and visits all households on Earth in a day. This tradition seems pagan, with some scholars noting the details are pulled from a legend of Odin. Though sources like NORAD appear to support Santa's presence, we think that their data fall short. After reading the pros and the cons, we both feel the consensus perspective is Santa's not real. And what are these gifts' economics effects? According to Goeddeke and Birg, it's complex. Since presents are valuable, one might assume that their giving would cause stores and markets to boom. You give to your parents! You give to your boss! But economists say it is all deadweight loss. You would spend the same money on something, you see, and presents are chosen incompetently. Others' preferences aren't as clear as our own, so when we buy for others, their needs are unknown. Presents don't increase welfare and don't increase growth; all the papers agree they are harmful to both.

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/23/acc-will-automation-lead-to-economic-crisis/ [This is an entry to the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest by Doug Summers-Stay and Erusian] Adversarial collaboration on the question: "Automation/AI will not lead to a general, sustained economic crisis within our lifetimes or for the foreseeable future. Automation/AI's effects into the future will have effects similar to technology's effects in the past and, on the whole, follow the general trend." Defending the proposition: Erusian Challenging the proposition: Doug Summers-Stay tldr: Until the pace of automation increases faster than new jobs can be created, AI shouldn't be expected to cause mass unemployment or anything like that. When AI can pick up a new job as quickly and cheaply as a person can, then the economy will break (but everything else will break too, because that would be the Singularity). Introduction As software and hardware grow more capable each year, many are concerned that automation of jobs will lead to some sort of economic crisis. This could take the form of permanent high levels of unemployment, wages that drop below subsistence levels for many workers, or an abrupt change to a different economic system in response to these conditions.

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/22/a-maximally-lazy-guide-to-giving-to-charity-in-2019/ [Sorry for the interruption; we will return to our regularly scheduled Adversarial Collaboration Contest tomorrow.] [Epistemic status: I'm linking evaluations made by people I mostly trust, but there are many people who don't trust these, I haven't 100% evaluated them perfectly, and if your assumptions differ even a little from those of the people involved these might not be very helpful. If you don't know what effective altruism is, you might want to find out before supporting it. Like I said, this is for maximally lazy people and everyone else might want to investigate further.] If you're like me, you resolved to donate money to charity this year, and are just now realizing that the year is going to end soon and you should probably get around to doing it. Also, you support effective altruism. Also, you are very lazy. This guide is for you. The maximally lazy way to donate to effective charity is probably to donate to EA Funds. This is a group of funds run by the Center for Effective Altruism where they get experts to figure out what are the best charities to give your money to each year. The four funds are Global Health, Animal Welfare, Long-Term Future, and Effective Altruism Meta/Community. If you are truly maximally lazy, you can just donate an equal amount to all four of them; if you have enough energy to shift a set of little sliders, you can decide which ones get more or less.

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/19/acc-when-during-fetal-development-does-abortion-become-morally-wrong/ [This is an entry to the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest by BlockOfNihilism and Icerun] Note: For simplicity, we have constrained our analysis of data about pregnancy and motherhood to the United States. We note that these data are largely dependent on the state of the medical and social support systems that are available in a particular region. Introduction: Review of abortion and pregnancy data in the United States We agreed that it was important to first reach an understanding about the general facts of abortion, pregnancy and motherhood in the US prior to making ethical assertions. To understand abortion rates and distributions, we reviewed data obtained by the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System (1). The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System (PMSS) and National Vital Statistics datasets were used to evaluate the medical hazards imposed by pregnancy (2, 3, 4). Finally, we examined a number of studies performed on the Turnaway Study cohort, maintained by UCSF, to investigate the economic effects of denying wanted abortions to women (5, 6, 7, 13).

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/18/acc-should-gene-editing-technologies-be-used-in-humans/ [This is an entry to the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest by Nita J and Patrick N.] Introduction In October 2018, the world's first genetically edited babies were born, twin girls given the pseudonyms Lulu and Nana; Chinese scientist He Jiankui used CRISPR technology to edit the CCR5 gene in human embryos with the aim of conferring resistance to HIV. In response to the international furor, China began redrafting its civil code to include regulations that would hold scientists accountable for any adverse outcomes that occur as the result of genetic manipulation in human populations. Now, reproductive biologists at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City are conducting their own experiment designed to target BRCA2, a gene associated with breast cancer, in sperm cells. While sometimes considered controversial, gene editing has been used as a last resort to cure some diseases. For example, a precursor of CRISPR was successfully used to cure leukemia in two young girls when all other treatment options had failed. Due to its convenience and efficiency, CRISPR offers the potential to fight cancer on an unprecedented level and tackle previously incurable genetic diseases. However, before we start reinventing ourselves and mapping out our genetic futures, maybe we should take a moment to reevaluate the risks and repercussions of gene editing and rethink our goals and motives.

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/17/acc-should-we-colonize-space-to-mitigate-x-risk/ [This is an entry to the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest by Nick D and Rob S.] I. Nick Bostrom defines existential risks (or X-risks) as "[risks] where an adverse outcome would either annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential." Essentially this boils down to events where a bad outcome lies somewhere in the range of 'destruction of civilization' to 'extermination of life on Earth'. Given that this has not already happened to us, we are left in the position of making predictions with very little directly applicable historical data, and as such it is a struggle to generate and defend precise figures for probabilities and magnitudes of different outcomes in these scenarios. Bostrom's introduction to existential risk​ provides more insight into this problem than there is space for here. There are two problems that arise with any discussion of X-risk mitigation. Is this worth doing? And how do you generate the political will necessary to handle the issue? Due to scope constraints this collaboration will not engage with either question, but will simply assume that the reader sees value in the continuation of the human species and civilization. The collaborators see X-risk mitigation as a "​Molochian​" problem, as we blindly stumble into these risks in the process of maturing our civilisation, or perhaps a twist on the tragedy of the commons. Everyone agrees that we should try to avoid extinction, but nobody wants to pay an outsized cost to prevent it. Coordination problems have been solved throughout history, and the collaborators assume that as the public becomes more educated on the subject, more pressure will be put on world governments to solve the issue.

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/12/acc-does-calorie-restriction-slow-aging/ [This is an entry to the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest by the delightfully-pseudonymous Adrian Liberman and Calvin Reese.] About the Authors: Adrian Liberman is currently a PhD student in biology at a university in the mid-Atlantic. He previously worked at the National Institute of Aging and remains actively interested in gerontology and the biological study of aging. Calvin Reese is an author with a BS in Biology. He has always been interested in the possibility of life extension by calorie restriction. Recently, he has reexamined the subject after undertaking a series of intermittent fasts for weight loss reasons. Calvin believes CR extends life; Adrian has long been skeptical. Introduction: Is food making us old? We all agree that food is delicious, and we also all agree that too much food is bad for us, but exactly how bad is it? Various academics have proposed that too much food actually accelerates the aging process, and reducing our food intake via calorie restriction (CR) is one of the most accessible and available methods of extending human life. While billionaires pump vast fortunes into increasingly far-fetched stem cell treatments and consciousness transfers, CR advocates contend that they can get a 10-20% increase in their natural lifespans simply by eating a little less. If true, CR raises a question of enormous significance to gerontology and the science of aging: are our diets aging us one calorie at a time? And if so, can we stop it?

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/11/acc-is-eating-meat-a-net-harm/ [This is an entry to the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest by David G and Froolow. Please also note my correction to yesterday's entry.] Introduction Many people around the world have strong convictions about eating animals. These are often based on vague intuitions which results in unproductive swapping of opinions between vegetarians and meat eaters. The goal of this collaboration is to investigate all relevant considerations from a shared frame of reference. To help ground this discussion we have produced a decision aid making explicit everything discussed below. You can download it here and we encourage you to play around with it. The central question is whether factory farmed animal lives are worth living; the realistic alternative to meat eating is not a better life but for those animals to not exist in the first place. We begin by investigating which animals are conscious. Then, we compare the happiness literature to the conditions under which animals are factory farmed to figure out if from their perspective non-existence is preferable. And finally, we survey the more easily measurable impacts of meat eating on environment, finance, and health.

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/10/acc-is-infant-circumcision-ethical/ [This is an entry to the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest by Joel P and Missingno] "They practise circumcision for cleanliness' sake; for they would rather be clean than more becoming." – Herodotus, The Histories – 2.37 The debate over circumcision in the Western world today is surprisingly similar to the conflict that Greeks and Egyptians faced 2500 years ago. Supporters tend to emphasize its hygiene and health benefits; opponents tend to call it cruel or to emphasize its deviation from the natural human form. In this adversarial collaboration we address medical aspects, sensitivity and pleasure, and ethical aspects of infant circumcision. Effect on penile cancer Circumcision greatly reduces the relative rate of penile cancer, a relatively uncommon malignancy in developed nations which kills a little over 400 American men each year. Denmark, while it has one of the lowest rates of penile cancer for a non-circumcising country, nevertheless has 10x the rate of penile cancer as Israel – where almost all men are circumcised. Likewise, a Kaiser Permanente study of patients with penile cancer found that 16% of patients with carcinoma in situ had been circumcised; only 2% of patients with invasive penile cancer had been circumcised. Since the circumcision rate of Kaiser patients of the appropriate age was ~50%, this is in line with the 90% reduction.

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/09/2019-adversarial-collaboration-entries/ Thanks to everyone who sent in entries for the 2019 adversarial collaboration contest. Remember, an adversarial collaboration is where two people with opposite views on a controversial issue work together to present a unified summary of the evidence and its implications. In theory it's a good way to make sure you hear the strongest arguments and counterarguments for both sides – like hearing a debate between experts, except all the debate and rhetoric and disagreement have already been done by the time you start reading, so you're just left with the end result. See the 2018 entries for examples. Six teams submitted collaborations for this year's contest. I'll list them here for now, and the names will turn into links as I post them over the next two weeks. They are: 1. "Is infant circumcision ethical?" by Joel P and Missingno 2. "Is eating meat a net harm?" by David G and Froolow 3. "Does calorie restriction slow aging?" by Adrian L and Calvin R 4. "Should we colonize space to mitigate x-risk?" by Nick D and Rob S 5. "Should gene editing technologies be used in humans" by Nita J and Patrick N 6. "Will automation lead to economic crisis?" by Doug S and Erusian (if any of you are unhappy with how I named you or titled your piece, let me know) At the end of the two weeks, I'll ask readers to vote for their favorite collaboration, so try to remember which ones impress you. I think we're all winners by getting to read these – but the actual winners get that plus $2500 in prize money. Thanks again to everyone who donates to the Patreon for making that possible. Please put any comments about the contest itself here, not on the individual entries.