georgioz
9mo ago
The first thing that came to my mind was that animal killing may be part of some Vodun/Voodoo or other magical ritual. I tried to google it now and it seems that the internet was already scraped. You can easily avoid it by limiting the google search to before August 2024. Here are some articles. National Geographic in 2004
These disembodied spirits are believed to become tired and worn down—and rely on humans to "feed" them in periodic rituals, including sacrifices. "It's not the killing of the animals that matters," Corbett said. "It's the transfer of life energy back to the Loa."
Another one from Slate in 2013 describing sacrifice of goat
The life energy of the animal is for the Lwa. Often the blood is collected in a calabash bowl and later placed on the Poto Mitan, which represents the center of the universe and access to the spirit world.
Another article from New York Times that mentions that 90% of Haitians practice some form of voodoo and has this to say about animal sacrifice:
I talk about sacrifice a lot. That is usually the first order of questioning. People find themselves offended by it. And then I usually ask, 'Do you eat chicken? Do you eat meat? How do you think the animal was killed? Do you feel any responsibility for it?'
And then we usually move on from there. The imagery surrounding blood sacrifice is much exaggerated. After the food is presented to the spirits as a gift, it is given back to the people by the spirits. It is all cooked and eaten, so none of it is wasted.
Here is an article about dog torture in West Africa. Just do your own research. It may not necessary be the issue of hungry people eating cats or dogs - although it definitely can happen - but it is also about tradition.
georgioz
9mo ago
Per Wikipedia, Mariupol was conquered by Russia in May 2022, months after the Putins special operation had been begun.
What do you even know about the conflict? Are you not aware of siege of Mariupol, one of the most hard fought battles in the war?
Either your soldiers now fight Russia in your neighbors territory, or they fight them in a year in your own country, or they end up fighting someone else for Russia in two years. So the least-bad option would be to support your allies in a conventional war.
Exactly. Why even risk invoking article 5? Don’t you think?
I am honestly a bit baffled by the reasoning in your post.
Sure, let me help. This was my original post as a response to quoted part. What are you baffled about exactly?
It's trivially true that the current war in Ukraine could've been avoided had the Kievan Russ welcomed Moscow as liberators and acquiesced to their rule instead of choosing to fight.
It absolutely is not trivially true, in fact it is trivial to prove the opposite. People in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea welcomed their Moscow liberators in 2014 and ended up being conscripted as cannon fodder for Moscow's new war with Ukraine in 2022.
———————————————
So Russia has recent history of using conquered peoples to wage future expansionist wars. What is the bafflement again?
If you are such an expert, you know about Suwałki Gap. Russia could invade Poland using Ukrainian stormtrooperzz in order to protect the 40 miles gap while simultaneously marching into Baltics thus connnecting enclave of Kaliningrad Oblast with motherland, achieving its strategic goals. Exactly the reasoning why they invaded Ukraine to protect Crimea.
And what would be the response from NATO? Article 5 is weak,
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
So yeah, in alternative universe Russia gets Ukraine, invades Poland and Baltics in 2025 in order to protect Russian minority from “nazis”, and makes it fait accompli - just like with Mariupol in Donetsk Oblast and Zaporizhzhia oblast and Kherson oblast, that Russia already officially annexed. Germans would send helmets to Poland and US agonizes if sending Himars can cause WW3. Was not NATO expansion in 2002 grave mistake provoking Russians anyways? Nobody has to do anything.
georgioz
9mo ago
You have interesting observations, but I think they are far from trivial. A lot of arguments from incredulity and building up some intricate narratives about which country really thinks what.
While on my side I have facts: Russia annexed Crimea and Luhansk and Donetsk. And they definitely are using LDR and DPR troops as cannon fodder in their latest war, so in fact welcoming Russians did not bring them peace.
A fundamental cause of the war, according to the author, is that Germany and England had conflicting views of security. In general, England's policy was to play European powers off each other, always supporting the second-strongest power against the strongest power to ensure that no one country would dominate the continent and thus be in a position to challenge Britain. In the early 1900s, that meant supporting France in opposition to Germany. Germany's idea of peace, on the other hand, was precisely to dominate and unify the continent under German rule, thus ensuring that they would have no problems on the continent.
I would not say that this was the major cause of the conflict. There are much more fundamental reasons. Let's go through some of them:
-
Demographics: after unification of Germany in 1871 it had population of 41 million people. By 1913 the population increased by 65% to 68 million. Population of France was 36,1 million in 1871 without Alsace-Moselle they ceded in the war, and in 1911 it increased only marginally to 39 million. French were scared of rapidly industrializing and growing Germany. But in turn Germany was scared of Russian Empire which increased from around 85 million in 1870 to around 160 million in 1910, and it also industrialized very rapidly.
-
The change in foreign policy of Russia and it's turn from the principle of Holy Alliance since 1815, where three Emperors of Russia, Austria and Prussia formed a coalition on monarchic principle against revolutionaries and other threats. This alliance got steadily weakened despite Russia supporting Austria in 1848 against Hungarian rebels only to be betrayed during Crimean War in 1853. Then with unification of Germany this soured further until Russia formed Franco-Russian Alliance in 1894.
-
Britain was in a bit of a pickle. You are right that they wanted to play continental powers one against another, but at the same time they were terrified of Russian expansionism. They had valid fears of Russia influencing Central Asia in so called Great Game - the primary concern was Russia expanding into India via Afghanistan, but also establishing Warm water port in East Asia. Brits viewed Russia with suspicion.
-
One of the key moments where situation changed was when Russia lost war in 1905 to Japan, which turned its focus more on to the west in Balkans while negotiating alliance with Great Britain in 1907. This put Russia more directly onto collision course against Austria which also wanted influence in Balkans. There were some precursors such as Russia supporting Serbia in Balkan Wars at the expense of Austria. This solidified two competing blocks in Europe.
-
There were some crisis situations also concerning Germany, France and UK such as Agadir Affair. The conflict was brewing for some time.
I of course omitted many other things such as German naval rearmament, which however stalled before WW1 with Germans focusing more on the army, and thus it was not a direct cause of it, but it contributed to tensions. I still think WW1 was not inevitable. The collision course was there, but with a little bit more luck and/or more diplomatic skill or at least not outright incompetence during the July crisis, the world could have survived this period of tensions.
georgioz
9mo ago
Yes, it is easy to steelman it from the standpoint of virtue ethics, which puts a lot of weight onto acting virtuously. In fact it is your duty to be virtuous, even if there is nobody to observe it or if it may seem futile, virtuous act has its own value independent on direct or observable result. From this standpoint things like "human rights" or prosperous society is not some accident or some result of Machiavellian planning of philosopher kings. It is result of ordinary citizens accepting their duties and acting virtuously.
It's trivially true that the current war in Ukraine could've been avoided had the Kievan Russ welcomed Moscow as liberators and acquiesced to their rule instead of choosing to fight.
It absolutely is not trivially true, in fact it is trivial to prove the opposite. People in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea welcomed their Moscow liberators in 2014 and ended up being conscripted as cannon fodder for Moscow's new war with Ukraine in 2022. If Ukraine welcomed their liberators in 2022 then who knows, maybe Ukrainians would end up in meat wave assaults against Poland or Baltics in 2025.
Recently there was an article in Czech media loosely titled Russian Border Ends Where it Recieves a Beating. There is large grain of truth in that, not only for Russia but also for other expansive empires.
Do rationalists believe that there are moral commitments that are more rational than others? My assumption would be that rationalists would consider moral commitments to be axioms and therefore a requirement to even discuss morality, and that to be morally rational would be to derive positions from your moral axioms in a consistent way.
Rationalists subscribe to utilitarianism, which in and of itself is incoherent moral philosophy. It has two main problems:
-
Inability to define utils. Utils are mired with inconsistencies, it is hard to put against each other suffering vs pleasure. Many rationalists evade this as principle of minimizing suffering, but even then there is a problem of comparison: is sand grain in an eye of 1,000 people worse than broken arm of one person?
-
Time inconsistency of utils. Actions that decrease utils today may increase them tomorrow. Existential comics has a good example for trolley problem in that vein.
To be rational is to rationally extend ones moral principles rationally. Why would it be irrational to behave in line with ones moral principles?
The word "rationally" does a lot of heavy lifting here, as it assumes utilitarianism. Let's say I subscribe to virtue ethics, which says that I cannot commit murder. But then a rationalist comes and says "hey, if you kill Hitler in his crib, you will prevent countless murders in the future". Wrong, this is not going rationally about my moral assumptions, it is assuming completely different moral system.
georgioz
9mo ago
Saving lives was used as an underlying assumption, I freely admit it. But in the end this intuition was equated - or if you will sublimated into the form of serving the healthcare system. Then it took life of its own, the discussion revolved around what was good or bad for the system, human life was subtracted and extrapolated from in these discussions. That is why we got into the monstrous results of lockdowns.
georgioz
9mo ago
Sure, but this makes my point - it was an analogy. We do not legalize murder just looking at what murderers have to go through in prison. We look on societal impact and other things. So the question is again: what good will legalizing and normalizing weed bring to the country? To me there are no upsides and only downsides, like Scott and others now also admit.
It is a slogan as it just steers the discussion into what is crime, if it has to have some violent or social impact component, what is victim and all that. Plus I am unwilling to accept the premise of your slogan before we even begin the discussion.
I put it into GPT and apparently trespassing, prostitution, gambling, public intoxication, loitering, public nudity, vagrancy, unlicensed hunting or jaywalking are all examples of "victimless crimes". So yeah, I will bite the bullet and just admit that actually victimless crimes should be crimes. Because I do not want to have a society where intoxicated nude vagrants trespass and loiter on streets outside of pedestrian crossings, hunt local birds and sell their gambling scams and their bodies for everybody else to see. Go bark your slogan up somebody else's tree.
I don't see any upsides of legalizing weed, there may be only hidden downsides. Exactly how Scott Alexander now realized.
georgioz
10mo ago
Victimless crimes that harm no one should not be crimes.
This is just a slogan, not an argument. It is exactly what I mentioned with the first principles thinking. Plus it is interesting that you say this right after you talk about how jury can convict somebody who did something criminal under influence. Victimless crime, right?
georgioz
10mo ago
It's not such an easy to do thing as with breathalyzer, in fact legalization of marihuana makes drug testing for manufacturers very hard, as they can no longer have zero tolerance policy as it is hard to analyze if you had a dose an hour or a day ago.
But again, this is even besides the point. What are those incredible positives this legalization brings to the society?
georgioz
10mo ago
I asked you before, what concrete actions are you taking when you strongly believe that we will have utopia/apocalypse in 10 years? Do you have any bonds with longer than 10 year maturity? Do you find it stupid to invest in any new whisky with a plan for aging it for more than 10 years? Along the line with your demographics skepticism - do you consider people stupid for having kids now, if they won't matter in 10 years? A this point I am really curious.
georgioz
10mo ago
Legalization of marihuana brought into my view something that I myself have not seen before. And that is the fact, that many people just support it from first principles, you have these liberal or libertarian assumptions about the world and legalization of marihuana is just part of it. It is first principles thinking - people should be able to do what they want and therefore legalization of marihuana is good. That's it.
Since then I had some discussions with pro-legalization people and they are kind of stumped by a simple question: what good will legalization of marihuana bring to the country? What benefit will you have if your plumbers and doctors and teachers can go about their lives high as kites without any legal repercussion or stigma? What I found was that they do not even think about it this way. Weed should be legalized, because legalization of weed is "good". Smoking weed is just some apriori human right, no matter what. At best, they can point out to a good caused by people not being fined/jailed for making it illegal. Which is generalized argument for legalization of anything: if you legalize murder, then murderers would not have to suffer in jail. That is an argument I guess, but what good will legalization of murder bring to the rest of the society besides people engaging in this activity?
As for what I was wrong about, count me into weed legalization as well as many other liberal causes. I thought I was the enlightened one, smashing old superstitions and bringing new light to humanity as some avatar of Prometheus. I was wrong, I did not realize that I was implicitly holding religious adjacent beliefs, and that I used semantic stoppers such as "X is human right" without actually understanding where I am coming from. I thought I was above mere mortal faults, while I was the most gullible of all the people, because I did not even stop to think where my moral premises such as "human rights" and myriads of slogans such as "taxation is theft" come from and how are they grounded.
I’m having trouble distinguishing your responses from just garden variety selfishness to be honest.
Of course you would have such a trouble, you worship the system. And now we are back to 2020 shaming, the modus operandi during lockdowns: "no, going to funeral of your grandmother and meeting with three or more people is selfish, we are now saving human life medical system". The point is, I don't care about monsters trying to shame me anymore. That is what I realized. Some people just have different moral assumptions. I am sure that there were people in some Aztec village shaming their neighbors, who refused to offer their children to rain god Tlaloc. Do they wish drought and calamity upon good people of the village? We are trying to save lives here! Sacrifice to the system at once! It is a small price to pay.
Me behaving slightly differently for a few weeks during a triage event in the local hospital is a pretty small price
Oh, your moral highness deems it a small price to pay, so everybody should do the same. Please talk more about selfishness. I will not even comment on "for a few weeks" part, yeah the famous two weeks to stop the spread lie to drop-feed the measures .
georgioz
10mo ago
Yeah, the whole "flattening the curve" slogan by measures such as social distancing and lockdowns was based on not overburdening the healthcare system as the primary argument. Were you living under the rock? Elective surgeries were cancelled, medical screenings were postponed and more - all in the name of "the system". I had a friend working in a hospital during lockdowns, when self-isolated people were beating on pots from their balconies, giving praise to heroic doctors, while she was sitting in empty hospital doing nothing. She thought it was stupid. And I really think that the system was the primary concern, stupid halfway-thinking people just substituted "human life" with "healthcare system" and then went from there.
So yes, I do think that "saving the system" was the primary concern, with some vague nod to "human life" to justify it. And as I said, this thinking is now pervasive and it will get worse.
georgioz
10mo ago
See, for me the human life is about enjoying life, meeting your family and friends, being able to grieve for your lost parents or even putting yourself through some tough events subtracting some supposed utils to achieve one of the myriad of goals you may have. Medical system is down there on the chain of what human life represents to me. I thought most people implicitly understand it, but that is apparently not the case.
You get it, if you reduce and equate “human life” with medical system in your assumption, then the rest of the stuff follows. You treat the system as human life, so everyones perogative is to serve the human life medical system. I refuse this equivalency to begin with.
But I am not surprised that for instance utilitarians think this way, it is the same idea to sublimate/identify values into something else like utils, and then just follow the calculation to its inevitable and logically sound monstrosity.
georgioz
10mo ago
I observe that skiing is not actually banned. Neither is smoking or being fat.
One of those things was banned during COVID lockdowns, the other two were exempt. Maybe somebody thought through it stupidly, stopping halfway through and other stupid people ate it.
Sure, but there is more to the life than just your pulse. Should we ban kids skating, because they can break their bone and thus be the burden on the system? What I found more scary is how readily this thing was accepted without question. Ask not what the healthcare system can do for you, ask what you can do for the healthcare system. And again, this is nothing new, I just realized it at that point. For instance in the UK there is heated debate if immigration is good or bad thing for their National Health Service. The NHS is like a sacred cow, people accept it without thinking and put such an importance on it, that it is almost as if NHS has agency of its own, and we need to think what will harm NHS. It is just weird.
This idea is just fundamentally incompatible with my morals. Where does this lead?
This idea is ubiquitous. One of the point I realized this, was COVID era argument: we have to lock people down in order not to overburden healthcare system. It was one of the most stupid arguments I have heard - my purpose and governing principle in my life is now supposed to be not to overburden healthcare system? This amorphous system is actually more valuable than human life as it is embodied in my daily activities and pleasures. I exist for the benefit of this system - not the other way around. No more dangerous activities such as skiing or anything else. By the way the same goes for other similar arguments: smoking and being fat and chronically ill is terrible for the healthcare system, so you should stop doing it.
It reminded me of the old Monty Python skit.
georgioz
10mo ago
As you said, contraception only lowers the risk of unplanned pregnancy while increasing sexual promiscuity. Additionally presence of both options also decreases willingness of men to marry their pregnant girlfriends, no more shotgun weddings. The logic is simple - men did not want the child and it was woman's decision to not take pills properly and to keep the child when abortion is such an easy and accessible "healthcare" option. Which on average increases abortions while also increasing single parenthood.
Okay, here is one possible answer: gut feeling, instinct and heuristics. I may choose to hold dog owner criminaly liable if he has dangerous dog - so the kid is mauled and dog owner's ass is hauled into prison. We may implement one of the ranges of laws ranging from "one free bite" law or mandatory muzzles/leashes etc. In fact more often than not I find it more correct than endless harping over hypothetical trolley problems. One issues with this "rational" thinking is that it leads you astray. It strips the situation of context, forces you to abstract looking at the problem from some inhumane birds eye view and reconstruct stuff from some first principles, which often smuggles in more assumptions. More often than not, it is not useful or sometimes outright misleading.
I will actually use one example, that of famous Rawl's original position. At the first glance it seems reasonable, you are just using thought experiment to sharpen your moral instinct "rationally". However what it really does is smuggle in some strange or outright spiritual assumptions. The Original Position assumes that people are distinct from their bodies. They are all indistinguishable immaterial souls possessing all the rational faculties and all the knowledge and they are about to decide into what society to reincarnate. This is deeply spiritual and political assumption. The Original Position basically assumes some spiritual space communism and utopian equity between souls about to be trapped in sometimes stupid or weak human bodies maybe even of “wrong” sex and asks, if you would not want to recreate Social Justice communism here on Earth, that is what you would want to do in this scenario - right?
But let me ask you dear reader, to consider another thought experiment I will call Georgioz's Positon. It is identical to Original Position except that there also exists Christian God floating above all the commie souls from Rawls's thought experiment. Teachings of Jesus Christ are correct and if you do not adhere to it, you will go to hell after you die. Under such assumptions, you would surely want to be incarnated into body of a good Christian, right?
It is the same here with this example: let's assume this thought experiment, where you are presented with a choice between two outcomes with some range of various values - please calibrate the exact percentage threshold of your choice. We are assuming utilitarianism here in this thought experiment, which I refuse. Maybe I will refuse to calculate values X, Y, C, B, A and number of children or dogs killed as you steer me to do. Fuck that, maybe all I care about is adherence to eye-for-an-eye Hammurabi style of law: if a child gets mauled by some dog, then the dog owner will be sentenced to a colosseum, where he himself gets mauled by pack of bloodthirsty mastiffs - and portion of ticket sales for the spectacle will be used to pay for damages. Justice was served, next case. And also please dear utilitarian, calculate exact threshold between 5 to 10 mastiffs you think is the best choice when executing the transgressor in this thought experiment. I am sure you will come up with something interesting here.
More options
Context Copy link