No Avail | Some Needs Are Hateful @No_Avail | Uploaded March 2023 | Updated October 2024, 1 hour ago.
Animals who can talk.
Timeline:
00:00-00:40 Low-effort Petersonian polemic, even by trad standards.
00:40-10:28 Outdoorsy rant against what I just subjected you to, and much more. I lash out at Peterson; decoupling anti-natalism from noise and setting up what’s to come.
10:28-14:58 Why biology and rationality are always at odds, and why this is a problem for Peterson and his devotees.
14:58-22:40 Freedom from sociality.
I gloss how such a turn would undoubtedly (or at minimum plausibly) bolster many of the cherished values and primary aims held by i.e. self-avowed free speech absolutists.
22:40-25:00 Drawbacks to audios. Related to this; reasons to question the (in all likelihood) incurious minds of people who find it easy to edit for hours uninterruptedly, sometimes even for days, who are thereby ones ordinary viewers hear from the most because they upload more despite knowing less. Them knowing less isn’t necessarily a reflection of their poorer minds, but merely for being pressed on time. Compare to people who know more because they (know it is prudent to) contribute little to nothing outwardly, or whose penchant to upload and contribute outwardly is outmatched by their scattershot curiosity, who thereby grow more inwardly by choosing not to repress said curiosity, and thus not being pressed on time.
25:00-27:42 On “New Man” hype: Decoupling theoretical vs. practical components of my bio-skepticism. Bioenhancement for me is a largely, though not completely, theoretical project and discourse. There are people doing practical work surrounding it, but in small numbers and none of them are affiliated with lobbying groups (as far as I know). Hence the narrow political Overton Window has no business dictating anything to them or to me. The unpopularity of these views becomes a problem only when advocates aim to impact public policy, or arguably when they petition for public funding.
Aside: I realize that AI discourse is surging rapidly right now, but that’s too infused with dry argumentation about the nature of computation, minds, and brains, all of which should (and easily can) be decoupled from the largely theoretical discourse on bio-skepticism vs. bio-conservatism.
27:42-31:08 On neglected dimensions of ideological fanaticism, immoderateness, moderateness, etc.
31:08-39:50 Natalist Gulag.
39:50-49:32 Muh Ancestry as tacit Standpoint Epistemology.
Watching this back, what’s covered here may be the sneakiest, most easy-to-miss courting of standpoint theory, despite being fairly common. Nothing I’ve read in the SE canon connects SE to how an agent’s emotional investment in their ancestors, when it looms large, can prove as distortive (i.e. to impartiality) as the regular facets of group identity and relativity that SE-minded philosophers focus on.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_theory
49:32-56:52 Why there is racial tension.
Hint: It’s only rarely structural.
56:52-1:00:03 Speechwriters, symbolic responsibility, David Frum, and Iraqi blood.
1:00:03-1:03:42 Sufficiently good lives are possible and this doesn’t discredit the procreative asymmetry. Repeat after me: Anti-frustrationism is not necessary.
1:03:42-1:07:18 Gulag revisited: Conscience and NINOs.
1:07:18-1:12:30 Reluctant vs. enthusiastic itch-scratchers: Implications for philosophical discourse.
1:12:30-1:23:50 Meaning and mobsters.
Or:
Mobbed by meaning.
1:23:50-1:38:29 X-Risk histrionics.
Or:
Drool marks the spot: Why Toby Ord’s (and longtermist EAs in general) push to X-risk mitigation unavoidably leads to a giant existential Ponzi scheme.
*
Bad Jordie full: youtube.com/watch?v=e7ytLpO7mj0&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson
Existential puss: youtube.com/post/UgyV_vxlRi0vRBepo6x4AaABCQ
Challenges to bioconservatism: youtube.com/channel/UCpEhWWl68-3I5t7wNYNyiRg/community?lb=UgkxQw51bU6sqsG5k7ysAlg10tTh7grkOYgB
Less hypothetically, for those interested: youtube.com/@scfu/videos
Podcast with Hanson covering findings from his book The Elephant in the Brain: youtu.be/oxAEJbyPgdQ
Relevant as it's just one of many works cementing the conflictual realities between aspirational rationality and our social nature. The author only disappoints by never posing the types of button and button-like scenarios that I pose here, and by not being condemnatory to those who'd cling to what they're used to, simply because it's familiar.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_in_the_Brain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886923000752#s0050
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289623000156#s0125
webofwealth.org/2019/11/the-moral-modalities-framework-an-introduction
researchgate.net/publication/351577986_What_Is_Antinatalism_Definition_History_and_Categories
Animals who can talk.
Timeline:
00:00-00:40 Low-effort Petersonian polemic, even by trad standards.
00:40-10:28 Outdoorsy rant against what I just subjected you to, and much more. I lash out at Peterson; decoupling anti-natalism from noise and setting up what’s to come.
10:28-14:58 Why biology and rationality are always at odds, and why this is a problem for Peterson and his devotees.
14:58-22:40 Freedom from sociality.
I gloss how such a turn would undoubtedly (or at minimum plausibly) bolster many of the cherished values and primary aims held by i.e. self-avowed free speech absolutists.
22:40-25:00 Drawbacks to audios. Related to this; reasons to question the (in all likelihood) incurious minds of people who find it easy to edit for hours uninterruptedly, sometimes even for days, who are thereby ones ordinary viewers hear from the most because they upload more despite knowing less. Them knowing less isn’t necessarily a reflection of their poorer minds, but merely for being pressed on time. Compare to people who know more because they (know it is prudent to) contribute little to nothing outwardly, or whose penchant to upload and contribute outwardly is outmatched by their scattershot curiosity, who thereby grow more inwardly by choosing not to repress said curiosity, and thus not being pressed on time.
25:00-27:42 On “New Man” hype: Decoupling theoretical vs. practical components of my bio-skepticism. Bioenhancement for me is a largely, though not completely, theoretical project and discourse. There are people doing practical work surrounding it, but in small numbers and none of them are affiliated with lobbying groups (as far as I know). Hence the narrow political Overton Window has no business dictating anything to them or to me. The unpopularity of these views becomes a problem only when advocates aim to impact public policy, or arguably when they petition for public funding.
Aside: I realize that AI discourse is surging rapidly right now, but that’s too infused with dry argumentation about the nature of computation, minds, and brains, all of which should (and easily can) be decoupled from the largely theoretical discourse on bio-skepticism vs. bio-conservatism.
27:42-31:08 On neglected dimensions of ideological fanaticism, immoderateness, moderateness, etc.
31:08-39:50 Natalist Gulag.
39:50-49:32 Muh Ancestry as tacit Standpoint Epistemology.
Watching this back, what’s covered here may be the sneakiest, most easy-to-miss courting of standpoint theory, despite being fairly common. Nothing I’ve read in the SE canon connects SE to how an agent’s emotional investment in their ancestors, when it looms large, can prove as distortive (i.e. to impartiality) as the regular facets of group identity and relativity that SE-minded philosophers focus on.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_theory
49:32-56:52 Why there is racial tension.
Hint: It’s only rarely structural.
56:52-1:00:03 Speechwriters, symbolic responsibility, David Frum, and Iraqi blood.
1:00:03-1:03:42 Sufficiently good lives are possible and this doesn’t discredit the procreative asymmetry. Repeat after me: Anti-frustrationism is not necessary.
1:03:42-1:07:18 Gulag revisited: Conscience and NINOs.
1:07:18-1:12:30 Reluctant vs. enthusiastic itch-scratchers: Implications for philosophical discourse.
1:12:30-1:23:50 Meaning and mobsters.
Or:
Mobbed by meaning.
1:23:50-1:38:29 X-Risk histrionics.
Or:
Drool marks the spot: Why Toby Ord’s (and longtermist EAs in general) push to X-risk mitigation unavoidably leads to a giant existential Ponzi scheme.
*
Bad Jordie full: youtube.com/watch?v=e7ytLpO7mj0&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson
Existential puss: youtube.com/post/UgyV_vxlRi0vRBepo6x4AaABCQ
Challenges to bioconservatism: youtube.com/channel/UCpEhWWl68-3I5t7wNYNyiRg/community?lb=UgkxQw51bU6sqsG5k7ysAlg10tTh7grkOYgB
Less hypothetically, for those interested: youtube.com/@scfu/videos
Podcast with Hanson covering findings from his book The Elephant in the Brain: youtu.be/oxAEJbyPgdQ
Relevant as it's just one of many works cementing the conflictual realities between aspirational rationality and our social nature. The author only disappoints by never posing the types of button and button-like scenarios that I pose here, and by not being condemnatory to those who'd cling to what they're used to, simply because it's familiar.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_in_the_Brain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886923000752#s0050
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289623000156#s0125
webofwealth.org/2019/11/the-moral-modalities-framework-an-introduction
researchgate.net/publication/351577986_What_Is_Antinatalism_Definition_History_and_Categories
