@TheDag's banner p

TheDag

Per Aspera ad Astra

3 followers   follows 12 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:04:17 UTC

				

User ID: 616

TheDag

Per Aspera ad Astra

3 followers   follows 12 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:04:17 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 616

lol, I mean sorry, but picturing someone despondent because their internet post didn't make it out of the oven fast enough is just embarrassing.

Rude as hell. Have you ever actually worked on an effort-post and contributed a seriously valuable top level comment here? It takes a lot of work to do it well.

You come in here, lurk and benefit off of people that put in time and effort to provide you intellectual stimulation and entertainment, then mock them for doing so. Not a good look.

Because democrats want to incentivize illegal immigration, for some reason.

The real answer is that immigration is one of the hottest CW issues and has been for decades, so nothing gets done and the byzantine system that grew out of bureaucracy is entrenched as hell.

(1) Convince people to abandon existing driving infrastructure.

Extremely simple, just increase taxes on cars to capture their externalities.

(2) Figure out how to contain the high costs of projects in the US.

This is the hardest one, but is not limited to transit. If we solve this one we solve a ton of our other problems. I'm convinced that the lack of pay/prestige in public service is the issue - we should have less jobs that are much more highly paid.

(3) Improve the strength of our institutions and management

Not sure how this is related?

(4) Move forward transit spending to update all outdated systems.

Even with current systems, if people use public transit it's massively beneficial and efficient compared to cars.

in terms of reveled preference I do think it's quite possible American really do prefer car-centric neighborhoods. And those that do rightfully bear (at least part) of the cost of the preference.

People also like smoking cigarettes, and we took that away too. Seatbelts etc etc.

I'd argue that car owners bear very little of the cost of the preference, as it hits the urban poor who can't afford a good car the hardest. You get into a poverty trap where you can't afford a good car, have to spend money on repairs constantly, lose jobs, and generally have a bad life.

Whenever I read well detailed articles like this - first off, I appreciate the effort you've put into it. It's clear you care a lot about the issues, and the problems of science as a whole.

Honestly though, I can't help but walk away from a post like this with the idea that Science(TM) is in an awful spot. Or really, I'm nowhere near convinced that Science as it's thought of by everyday people has anywhere near a good grasp on the truth. Whether that's truth in an 'objective' sense via empirical means, or Truth in a more spiritual sense.

@coffee_enjoyer and others on this site have discussed this often, but the fact is that the current model of rationality and Science in the modern world is missing a gigantic part of the world itself - failing on it's own merits of predicting what happens. Unfortunately modern science seems to have doubled down on the Cartesian view that human belief, understanding, and action cannot possibly impact the world. Sure we have sciences like psychology and other 'scientific fields' that attempt to quantify these things, but these fields have been a laughingstock among hard scientists since their inception, and now are increasingly a joke to the everyday person.

All in all I suspect that the time for Reason and Science as the premier arbiters of Truth in our world is coming to a close. In some ways it's a shame, because I think those that are drawn to forums like this are genuine truth seekers. However if you make Reason the ultimate judge of what's real and what isn't, I don't think you actually arrive at truth. It seems to me that you arrive at whatever is convenient to the politics of the time, since Reason can be used to justify practically anything well depending on your starting priors.

As Martin Luther has said:

Reason is the devil's whore. Throw dung on her and make her ugly.

I want to end by emphasizing here that I don't think reason and science are unilaterally bad. They can be extremely useful and beneficial. But reason is an excellent servant, and a terrible master.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Christianity is at least as unbacked by evidence and reason as transgender ideology.

As @Cirrus explains below, there is plenty of evidence. Thousands and thousands of eyewitness accounts, prophecy, et cetera.

Not to mention the very cultural/political connotations, history and tradition are themselves evidence compared to transgenderism. Just evidence that points to a conclusion you really don't like or can believe is true.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but your strong claims against Christianity show a clear bias and lack of clear eyed, Bayesian priors. I think you need to reassess your own 'objectivity' before you start claiming a high horse.

Or are you genuinely having trouble understanding what a human is, or what fundamental human experiences could be?

I’ll ignore the clearly bad faith snark, and say that yes I don’t think humanity is as clear cut as you’d like to believe. Humans nowadays are different in incredibly drastic ways from our evolutionary origins, yet nobody has any issues calling us human.

As to your dig on post modernism, I barely want to give that any credence. Definitions and getting to the heart of a matter is the core of Western philosophy, something you presumably care about given your snide dismissal of what you mistakenly see as ‘post-modernism.’ Ever heard of a guy called Socrates? He was obsessed with definitions.

I think you can make a good case that a blob or whatever is still ‘human.’ Your argument makes no sense because it’s circular - you’re refusing to define what humanity means then using the term again as the crux.

Given the response to my post below about culturally bound illnesses I figured it would make sense to write out a top level post specifically discussing gender dysphoria, since I expressed a desire to avoid that topic initially. I was inspired by Scott Alexander's recent post on culturally bound illnesses.

The basic idea of my previous post is that some illnesses which seem quite common in our society, things like anorexia, depression, chronic pain, and gender dysphoria, seem likely to be highly culturally mediated - i.e. they would not exist if the cultural norms we are inoculated in didn't account for them. This goes against the standard narrative for LGBTQ+ people, who often put forth the idea that before a minority gets social approval, there are a ton of 'closeted' individuals who simply live in suffering. Under this model, the social approval actually creates the urge to, for instace, sleep with the same sex or transition gender. (I'm less confident about homosexuality being highly cultural.)

I'm sure someone here could give a better history of rough numbers of trans individuals/gender dysphoria cases over time, but the gist seems to be that numbers have exploded recently. A quick search shows laughable results such as:

The percentage and number of adults who identify as transgender in the U.S. has remained steady over time.

And then on the exact same website:

Our estimate of the number of youth who identify as transgender has doubled from our previous estimate.

This is some of the most clear double think I've ever seen, and I tend to be much less invested in the trans debate than many here. Other studies are more honest explaining that:

The population size of transgender individuals in the United States is not well-known, in part because official records, including the US Census, do not include data on gender identity. Population surveys today more often collect transgender-inclusive gender-identity data, and secular trends in culture and the media have created a somewhat more favorable environment for transgender people.


I think this whole topic presents a clear problem, but I'm less sure about the actual solution. I'm sure many would jump at the chance to say we should just tell people who have gender dysphoria to suck it up and keep it to themselves, but I doubt the feasibility of that given how easy it is to create subcultures on the internet. Also, if you try to apply that frame to other problems like say anorexia, or depression, the failure modes become extremely clear.

Then again we can't just let these culturally created illnesses run rampant through our culture, and I predict they will only become increasingly problematic as our communication infrastructure and leisure time scales up. Ideally we want to replace these unhealthy cultural memes with healthier ones, but we run into a chicken and egg problem.

So - what are your recommended solutions to the issue of transgender ideation and other culturally bound issues?

Most of the arguments I’ve read against transhumanism seem to boil down to some variant of:

I find that distasteful on a gut level.

I don’t find this convincing? If your best argument is “I don’t like it,” you may want to reassess your position.

Interesting point, I hadn't heard of tax logic laid out in this manner before. It's not something I have thought much about, I am attracted to Georgism more on the economic basis. The idea of a tax without deadweight loss etc.

That being said I think if you take a look at the political will of the people in the U.S., with regards to land ownership, there is a growing clamor and need for housing reform. I don't know if Georgism will fix the problems we have, but it certainly seems useful enough to try. Landowners are a powerful political bloc though, so your point makes sense.

The same way EA just so happens to only support democrat politicians

I know it's not the point of this post, but this is not true. EA does back a number of Republican candidates and works actively to get more, they just keep it quieter out of a mix of unpopularity/strategy.

Well no, not quite like a lion. They are beings of spirit, fundamentally different from us physical beings. And by many accounts much older and wilier.

Besides, there are plenty of people who have personal evidence of demons active in their lives. There are plenty of recordings of ghosts and strange phenomenon if yo know where to look. Again, the point is that scientific evidence requires reproducibility on demand.

The atheist/religious believer inferential gap is always huge, and especially difficult to bridge in rationalist forums. As someone who went from a materialist to one of the faithful, let's see if I can explain why statements like:

Which is nonsense, but it's nonsense of the not even wrong variety. And while "not even wrong" is a bad thing for a scientific theory to be, it is a very good thing for a religious belief to be. Partly because it means the religion is safe from being falsified by scientific evidence, but much more importantly because the religion will not be driven insane by the need to deny reality.

tend to rub me the wrong way. More importantly, they represent a total failure to grasp what most intellectually rigorous religious people actually believe.


What most rationalists (with the noteworthy exception of @coffee_enjoyer) fail to understand when discussing religion is that scientific materialism, the de facto worldview of the last few centuries, is also at bottom based on "supernatural claims." While the power of the scientific method, and more generally the method of treating all matter as 'dead' or devoid of mind a la Descartes, is undeniable, predictive power does not make something true in any metaphysical sense. Many modern philosophers argue that any description of life itself can't be formulated via materialism means, without resorting to an appeal to some higher organizational, metaphysical structure.

Historically the scientific materialist worldview has of course revealed much about the natural world, primarily through demythologizing our place in it. Over the past few decades however, we as a society have come more and more to understand the limits and outright detriments of a materialist approach. As the popularity of symbolic thinkers like Jordan Peterson clearly demonstrates, materialism leads to a 'meaning crisis' where people struggle to have any sort of deep purpose or narrative arc to their life, something that is deeply necessary for human happiness and flourishing.

While a ScientistTM may just scoff at the importance of meaning or purpose and say "Who cares, my science still gives me Truth," well, unfortunately that assertion is becoming more and more false by the day. L.P. Koch gives a decent summary in The Death of Science, but you can read about the phenomenon of our scientific apparatus falling apart all over the place. You've got the joke field of 'consciousness studies', the deep issues in quantum physics, the shocking revelation that our cosmic model is completely wrong via the James Webb space telescope, et cetera. Or just look at the fiasco of the Covid-19 response.

All of this to say, when people nowadays talk about religion having a comeback, what they often mean on a deeper level is that the Enlightenment myth, first posed by Descartes, is failing. Starting with the existentialists in the mid-20th century, this understanding is now percolated through to the masses with the help of the Internet and other mass communication technology. It's increasingly clear that the mechanistic, clockwork universe of the 19th century, again while granting us great power, is a framework that only goes so far; crucially this framework does not and cannot touch on the deeper questions of human meaning, other than giving us a destructive, nihilistic hedonism.

Ultimately the rationalist Enlightenment has been a Faustian bargain for humanity - we've gained unfathomable power over the natural world compared to our ancestors, but we have lost our souls in the process.

Why on earth should moderation be held to the exact same standard as commenting?

No. The people who don't make effortposts shouldn't have the same voice as the lurkers who never comment or just hop in for short retorts. Lurkers are everywhere, having a crop of people who are willing to take time out and write high quality posts about contentious issues are hard to find.

Honestly I can't recall a single mod action against things that are just short. I think top level CW posts should be a certain length to encourage discussion and prevent the strong pull of just having the Motte become a place where the news cycle is repeated.

Like the length of your comment is fine, and I see the vast majority of the comments on here around that length. Am I living in a bizzaro world where y'all are seeing all these comments modded and I'm not??? I am genuinely confused about these arguments.

Or is this just about the top level posts?

If your enemies tell you that you should do something for your own good that straightforwardly helps them and harms you, that's probably motivated reasoning or concern trolling.

Seeing everyone as your enemy is a big part of the problem. Besides, do you really think holding grudges and living your life in anger and fear is the best way to live?

I agree, and frankly I think that a formal religion with space exploration and/or artificially intelligence as key parts of the doctrine has a good chance to rise up in the relatively near future. As @DaseindustriesLtd has mentioned occasionally, Russian Cosmism is an interest blend of techno-optimism and Christianity.

I somewhat doubt that we can build a new religion entirely from scratch to fit the industrial times, however. The modern equivalent already exists, and it's called Therapy/Psychology. The goal of religion has almost always been to help us understand ourselves and let humans cooperate at a community level, at least from a darwinian perspective. Psychology tries to do this but is extremely committed to 'scientific' atheist materialism, and so is doomed to failure.

Sadly the vast majority, even if they claim to be religious, are actually rationalists/materialists when really pushed. "Well, I'm not sure if Christ actually came back from the dead, it's a metaphor..." and such.

It's a shame how easily Newtonian mechanics destroyed our entire conception of the sacred.

Thanks for your perspective, voted for AAQC.

This perspctive is what I agree often gets missed when we talk about homelessness. It's strange to me that even when a strong study is presented that says hey, maybe homelessness is about, you know, HOMES, so many people here immediately jump to drugs and shitting on the street.

The real problem is that housing, a basic human need (maybe right depending on your beliefs) is denied to many because they simply cannot afford it. And this isn't a complex problem like many try to make it out to be - as others have said, if we just stop artificially constraining the supply the market will help solve the problem. It won't fix it entirely of course, but not shooting ourselves in the foot repeatedly is a good start.

Like, what's so fucking hard about it?

What's so fucking hard about finding meaning in a world where meaning seems pointless and nothing matters? Do you even hear yourself?

Frankly in this post you're a caricature. You're discussing masculinity as if it's something self-evident, related to lifting heavier and heavier iron bars. (of all things...)

Do you really think a standard dude who lifts heavy today is better than a Roman emperor like Marcus Aurelius? If you truly see masculinity as reducible to how many pounds you can lift, I feel sorry for you.

These articles are the dumbest thing. There's seemingly an entire industry of women giving men bad advice on whatever topic women know nothing about. 'Masculinity' is probably the worst one. What is only slightly less worse is the retreading of ground everytime it comes up. Where people pretend 'masculinity' is even a thing.

You are not your grandfather or great grandfather when it comes to physicality, but you are your grandfather when it comes to your brain.

Why do you dismiss this so readily? In my view, this topic is the crucial point of life for many men.

Why such a callous dismissal?

The greedy landlords are the ones that are stopping more housing from being built.

Not an apocalypse for anybody with a skill set that can exist completely independent of the internet, not an apocalypse for the people who understand computer programming from first principles.

In the sense the AI will bankrupt the people who have been mining the good out of society while contributing absolutely nothing of value to it, it is a massive net good.

I can't tell if this comment is a spoof?

Sure, go back to your farm and use tools like tractors, fertilizers, modern crop rotation techniques, plates, silverware, cups, etc which have been created by the larger society. Created, distributed and improved by people who are supposedly 'mining the good out of society.'

Society is a team effort, bud. Your fantasies of living scott-free totally 'independent' on your plot of land are just that - fantasies. You wouldn't make it a week without the collective wisdom and knowledge society has gifted you and your family. Have some respect for the people who came before you, and the people who help you live a cushy life now.

You are a traitor to humanity, aider and abetter of the Great Enemy. I genuinely can't believe so many people hold this view.

Making 30hr/week of work count as "full-time" for employers so you get health insurance would be a big one. The work culture / health culture in America at least is insane. I'd like to see it for everyone but parents are a good start I guess.

This is more controversial, but you could also let parents exercise kids' voting rights before they turn 18. Essentially give another vote for each kid your family has - maybe make the parents agree on where to put it?

I’m saying someone is “lost” if they care more about arbitrary standards of purity than actually solving the horrific problem our society has with drug use. They’re going to pay either way, but the status quo means a lot of people are going to die for their foolish beliefs.