There is always the danger with any theory of finding it so flattering to one’s personal biases and convenient to one’s personal interests that one applies it even where it doesn’t work.
— Avery Easton
Author: T.L. James
Matthias Adler on Utopias
What is a utopia but the humanly impossible, pursued by the philosophically reprehensible, using means morally indefensible?
– Matthias Adler
Avery Easton on Infallibility
People who revere ‘experts’ never consider whether the years of study and practice they view as ‘credentializing’ a given expert may have been in the service of ideas or doctrines or schools of thought which are factually incorrect or even morally abhorrent. Error doesn’t become infallibility through perseverance.
– Avery Easton
Matthias Adler on Activist Principles
Any principle elevated to dogma will become hypocrisy. This is something that activists seem surprised to discover about themselves and their causes no matter how many times they discover it.
– Matthias Adler
Matthias Adler on Independent Thinkers
It’s easy to spot the most ‘independent’ and ‘informed’ thinker in any group: he’ll be the one parroting the most conformist and ignorant nonsense.
– Matthias Adler
Even Less Impressed With Our Technocratic Overlords
Sapiens just gets worse the more I read.
The theme of the most recent section can be summarized as: “Unless you can prove a moral principle or element of civilizational organization is a direct expression of some unquestioned aspect of human biology, it has no basis in reality, and is therefore arbitrary, and therefore cannot be justified.”
Which is a fun bit of nihilism, and further confirms my read that Harari has a fundamental hatred for humanity: everything humanity has done as a species from the point we started to express traits unique (or unique in degree) to humans has been a mistake, and a tragedy – not only for all other species, not only for the planet as a whole, but for humanity itself. Agriculture, industry, complex social organization, property, specialization, technology as a whole, culture as a whole, civilization as a whole: all bad ideas, any cherry-picked “benefits” far overshadowed by their pervasive negative consequences.
I know I’ve criticized Sagan here, but Harari is his philosophical inverse. Sagan may have smugly dismissed what he considered unscientific or irrational views and those who hold them, but he didn’t breezily discredit everything that makes us human and the entire legacy of human history.
Which makes me wonder if “technocratic” is really a suitable adjective for Harari…
Busywork as Social Order Maintenance
I found this passage from Two Years Before the Mast interesting for several reasons (emphasis mine):
Before I end my explanations, it may be well to define a day’s work, and to correct a mistake prevalent among landsmen about a sailor’s life. Nothing is more common than to hear people say, “Are not sailors very idle at sea? What can they find to do?” This is a natural mistake, and, being frequently made, is one which every sailor feels interested in having corrected. In the first place, then, the discipline of the ship requires every man to be at work upon something when he is on deck, except at night and on Sundays. At all other times you will never see a man, on board a well-ordered vessel, standing idle on deck, sitting down, or leaning over the side. It is the officers’ duty to keep every one at work, even if there is nothing to be done but to scrape the rust from the chain cables. In no state prison are the convicts more regularly set to work, and more closely watched. No conversation is allowed among the crew at their duty, and though they frequently do talk when aloft, or when near one another, yet they stop when an officer is nigh.
…This is the usual resource upon a rainy day, for then it will not do to work upon rigging; and when it is pouring down in floods, instead of letting the sailors stand about in sheltered places, and talk, and keep themselves comfortable, they are separated to different parts of the ship and kept at work picking oakum. I have seen oakum stuff placed about in different parts of the ship, so that the sailors might not be idle in the snatches between the frequent squalls upon crossing the equator. Some officers have been so driven to find work for the crew in a ship ready for sea, that they have set them to pounding the anchors (often done) and scraping the chain cables.
In the full passage, Dana explains that there is more than enough necessary work aboard ship to keep the crew continually busy. But he implies here and elsewhere (and may at some point come out and say it explicitly) that the continuous employment at all times is a means of maintaining discipline and order among the crew. When every waking moment is taken up with some task (necessary or make-work), there is little opportunity or energy left for the kind of talk or actions that could lead to conflict or disobedience.
Which, when you think about it, is a lot like modern life: work, commuting, childrens’ enrichment activities, the DMV, tax prep, home maintenance, car maintenance, doctor or dentist appointments, walking the dog, bathing the cat, etc. And what time is not consumed in these tasks (some of which are the consequences of personal choices, and some of which seem consciously structured to maximize the waste of your time), omnipresent distractions like sportsball, addictive social media, banal entertainment, controversy-stoking “news”, shifting trends, etc. are there to absorb.
I can easily imagine this shipboard practice being implemented on ships traveling between Earth/Luna and Mars – and at least in the early days, in settlements themselves – for exactly the reasons thus far implied by Dana.
Matthias Adler on Causes
Yes, I’m sure all of this seems vitally important if not deadly serious to you today, but tomorrow, or the day after that, you’ll wake up to find all the other fish have shoaled abruptly in some entirely different direction. And you, terrified to be left behind, will just as abruptly drop today’s cause to follow along.
— Matthias Adler
Avery Easton on Scientific Mindsets
Having a scientific mindset – embracing skepticism, rationality, empiricism, etc. – does not mean accepting every idea or policy claiming to be based in science or endorsed by scientific experts, while dismissing out of hand any disagreement or alternative proposals as “anti-scientific” or “science denialism”.
That isn’t science, it’s cultism.
One can easily recognize this cultism in how the response to these supposedly scientific ideas or policies is accompanied by extravagant condescension, histrionic outrage, punitive spite, and other affects at odds with the objective and dispassionate pursuit of knowledge about reality.
— Avery Easton
Avery Easton on Challenging Experts
The expert’s claim to authority is his superior knowledge and skill in his particular sphere. Second-guessing him calls into question his legitimacy as an expert, and thus his claim on authority.
The solutions to this were straightforward: make it socially and intellectually uncouth to challenge experts (by labelling such questioning as “misinformation”, “conspiracy theory”, “anti-science”, or the like), and stop providing the layman with the information and thinking skills necessary for him to form and articulate such challenges.
— Avery Easton