The First Annual Austen Erickson Intellectual Audit

Dear Friends,

I occasionally reflect that my blog resembles the noble tardigrade. A small creature, surprisingly adorable yet still slightly horrifying, and which has the ability to revive itself after many months (or even years) of apparent death.

Left: Adorable tummy-rubby floof; Right: NIGHTMARE SURPRISE

In honor of its current resurrection from cryptoblogosis, I'd like to try something which I've tossed around in my head for a few years: an intellectual audit of my belief system carried out with the assistance of you all - my brilliant friends with whom I frequently disagree about a variety of topics.

This is still an experimental process, and I hope to refine it considerably in future years, but the basic idea is to spend some dedicated time challenging my strongly held beliefs, and exploring deeper into areas in which I still have weak beliefs and/or sparse knowledge. This will necessarily be an incomplete audit (like most people I believe many things about many things), but I hope that it moves my beliefs closer to True (or rather, appropriately increases or decreases my confidence in them).

Below is a (somewhat haphazard) list of broad belief systems I approximately subscribe to, specific beliefs I hold, and some unanswered questions I haven't been able to find a sufficiently convincing answer to.

I'm looking for encompassing refutations or alternate belief systems I should consider, specific challenges or counter-examples, and any evidence one way or another that I may not be aware of. (NB: published evidence > expert opinion > personal opinion, consequentialist arguments preferable but not required - anything is welcome)

Importantly - I am NOT trying to start a debate! This is a (purely selfish) exercise in updating my own beliefs (though I will make every effort to give you my own thoughts if you run the same exercise).

I look forward to your thoughtful responses, safe in the knowledge that no one is ever unreasonable on the internet.

1. Libertarianism: What are some cases where more government might be better than less (or some better than none)?
2. Transhumanism: I want to learn more about this topic and would love any good primers (laudatory or critical) that people could recommend.
3. Many-Worlds: I admit that my belief is mostly based on the LW Quantum Physics Sequence, so I'd be eager to see similarly intuitive explanations of alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics.
4. Intermittent Fasting: I incorporate occasional (up to 24-hour) fasts into my diet. At the very least this seems to reduce my total caloric intake - is it likely to have other health benefits/risks?
5. Exchange-Traded Index Funds: Most of my long term saving goes into various low-fee ETFs. Can I realistically be doing better (given that I don't want to spend a lot of thought/energy on this)?
6. Existential Risk vs. Efficient Charity: I would like some advice on how I should be splitting my charitable donations between efficient charities (i.e. Against Malaria Foundation) that have concrete effects now, and non-profits that focus on existential risk (e.g. MIRI)
7. Nuclear Fission: Currently, its the safest, greenest, and most efficient form of electrical power generation that exists. Am I right?
8. What supplements should I be taking? (Nootropics, and for physical health)
9. What is the current state of cyronics in Australia? Is it worth signing up for with an international provider or best to wait until there is a local facility?
10. If I wanted to start teaching myself more about architecture, what are the best introductory texts?

A FINAL NOTE: I encourage all of you to perform your own intellectual audit! Make sure you link back to this post to help feed my insatiable ego (and let me know so I can share some knowledge your way!)

If policy X has outcome Y, should we support policy X?

 "If policy X has outcome Y, should you support X?" - I've personally been asked this question a number of times, and suspect it comes up commonly enough in political discussion that its worth evaluating in a more general sense.

Firstly, we have to recognize that the question is NOT "if policy X had ONLY outcome Y, would you support X?" That question boils down to "Is outcome Y desirable" (for example "If you could murder a carload of clowns and make our children healthy, except the clowns don't actually die and everything is rainbows, should we kill the clowns?") - to answer this question is to fall prey to a rhetorical trick, though most likely an innocent one on the part of the asker!

The question (fully formed) is "If policy X has desired outcome Y, and given that it will have other outcomes Z, should you support policy X?"

A possibly correct, but rhetorically futile and intellectually lazy answer is "No, non-aggression principle. Lets move on." If the person asking the question accepted NAP absolutely, they wouldn't bother asking. Whether or not you believe the NAP is absolute, you cannot persuade someone of that merely by restating it repeatedly.

A short and more diplomatic answer, but one that is similarly unpersuasive on its own, is "I don't know what Z would actually be, so I would rather side on the presumption of liberty until you can convince ME that the benefit Y is greater than the costs Z"

However, if you have some time to spare and would like to engage the question head-on, there is some deeper digging to be done before the full scope of the hypothetical can be made clear.

(1) Examine the antecedent/protasis: Is X a feasible recommendation?

(2) Examine the consequent/apodosis: Do we actually want Y?

(3) Examine the conditional: Could X actually conceivably cause Y?

(4) Evaluate the other outcomes: What comprises Z (including costs of executing Y)?

(5) Propose alternative solutions: Is X the most efficient way to accomplish Y?

Most well formed thought experiments of this nature will not fail on cases (1)-(3). Usually any discord here will come from a more fundamental disagreement.

It's important to remember that raising the cost or lowering the benefit of an activity will result in less of it, and the contrary will result in more of it. Most laws will achieve to some degree their specifically stated aims - it is the unintended consequences described in (4) that most often dismantle the justification for the policy.

However, even if Z evidently outweighs Y, there is a natural impulse of well-meaning people that "we must do something!" - which is where (5) comes in. Rather than just explaining why a policy will fail, suggest a way in which the voluntary cooperation of free individuals can succeed!

Faith & Progress

I had a double free period, some delicious Brighton High School lunch (complete with the standard rice & gravy) and 1000 words of rough draft to write for the Cornell Club of Rochester Essay Competition.

To be fair, my English teacher had assigned us the task with plenty of notice, but important tasks like being awkward around girls and playing Halo 2 got in the way. My first draft ended up only being 650 words, but I was able to fluff it up in time for submission and ended up winning an Honorable Mention - my greatest and only literary accolade.

I'm currently working my way through a recording of The Illiad, so it seemed appropriate to revive the essay starting with a quote from The Odyssey. As with all my work from the archives, I make no claim to factual accuracy or quality of content. Its written quite naively from a period when I honestly believed that everyone subscribed to some form of rational, objective philosophy, and merely disagreed on the details. The strange alternatives of subjectivism and nihilism had simply not occurred to me as things that people would seriously believe.

However, I can see early glimmers of my current philosophical deism in the text, and an unstated notion of 'God as axiom'. It would be a fun concept to revisit today!

"Without gods, men are nothing"

-Homer, The Odyssey

Since the beginning of human existence, we have searched for ways to describe and explain the world around us. When something was inexplicable, we attributed it to some sort of divine force, whether it be angry spirits, a pantheon of deities, or a single omnipotent God. Even today, there are some things that science simply cannot explain, perhaps things that never will be explained. The idea of a higher power has contributed immensely to the fields of science and the arts, whether indirectly or directly. Also, faith has been a decisive factor in determining global politics and shaping the world as it is today. Without a belief in something - an idea, a philosophy, or a deity - humanity would remain stagnant and progress in almost all areas would be halted.

In ancient times, the advent of civilization was marked with further development of religions. In many classical and pre-classical societies, priests or religious leaders served also as the teachers, keepers of knowledge, scientists, and political rulers. For example, the Pharoah of Egypt was said to have descended from the gods. The people's faith in his divinity [and lots and lots of slave labour] inspired them to create such wonders as the Pyramids of Giza, and all of the archaeological artifacts that were buried within. Later, the split between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Byzantine led to the separation of the Roman Empire and eventually the creation of the Byzantine civilization. This split had extremely far reaching consequences, providing the cultural basis of both European and Russian society. In addition, the Catholic Church was virtually the only Roman institution to survive the Dark Ages, bringing the wealth of knowledge from Greco-Roman civilization through intact.

Religious fervor also had a hand in the creation and destruction of some of the greatest empires the world has known. The spread of Islam across Asia and northern Africa saw the creation of one of the largest nations of all time. In the same way, a schism in the Islamic faith, concerning the rightful successor to Mohammad, caused the vast territory it controlled to fragment into dozens of new countries, which in turn gave rise to their own cultures and empires. All across history, the spread of religions is virtually inextricable from cultural diffusion, in many cases with the arrival of missionaries or travelling monks becoming a prelude to increased trade or conquest. The arrival of Buddhism form China to Japan and the surrounding regions led to the rise or combination of the various writing systems present in the area, not to mention the intermingling of cultures.

Contrary to popular belief [this is almost certainly not popular belief], which states that faith and science are entirely opposite and irreconcilable, the two are more times than not proponents of one another. During the European Renaissance, although the Church did try to hinder certain advances with which they disagreed, the majority of scientists and mathematicians were actually seeking better ways to understand and explain their God. In their view, they had been granted intelligence and conscience by a higher force and to let this gift go to waste was irresponsible. They used the power of observation and reason to discover more about the world around them. Even today, much of science is fueled by a desire to discover the reasons why things exist, and laws to govern how they exist. Ultimately, this is what God has always been, a universal force. Scientific progress is not only motivated, but in fact governed by faith, a strong belief that something is pushing the universe forward in a defined (or random) pattern. Even those who firmly believe that God is a myth created by man are driven by this very same myth when they seek to disprove it.

If science and politics were heavily influenced by religion, or lack thereof, art was born of it. The earliest cave paintings were symbolic of early faith, and all of the earliest stories and myths attempted to explain the creation and nature of the world, or celebrating ritual hunts and harvests. Throughout the ages, some of the greatest artistic and literary works were created in an expression of the divine, or an interpretation or allegory of a religious story or parable. The best selling book of all time is the Bible; it has been translated into dozens of languages and published in virtually every country. The greatest architectural feats, the most recognizable sculptures, almost every fictional story; all have been touched by religion.

It makes sense that culture would have been affected most by the presence of religious ideals. Ancient law codes were inspired by and in turn inspired many of the moral guidelines present in religious texts. In every region, country, state, and household the ways of life present are dictated by faith. It could be as simple as a pre dinner prayer or as complex as a ritualized worship ceremony. Whatever the case, religion affects us on all levels of life.

Although it goes by many names - God, karma, nature, and science - the belief that the universe is governed by some set of unbreakable regulations or a divine force is a common factor uniting all of humanity. Without belief, the fields of art, science, politics, culture, and life itself would be empty. Without faith, the world we know today would not exist. Without gods, men are nothing.