You can say "it's a bad idea to work on extending life", but following on from there to cast the person presenting the idea as unethical is doing more harm than good.
Why would it be wrong to regard someone dedicating most of their time to actively accomplishing ("working on") an unethical thing as an unethical person? What else could "unethical person" possibly mean?
Everyone is going to have some threshold where they think 'an act that is this immoral means the person doing the action is also immoral', where actions that are below that threshold are treated as 'this action is unethical, but the person doing it could still be good'
Most people think someone who murders is a bad person (the act is immoral, and the person doing it is immoral). However, as the we move down the line, EVERYONE has to 'make the call' as to where the action becomes something that doesn't immediately make the person doing the action immoral. It isn't wrong that we have to make that call, it is the only way.
I haven't censored anyone or shut down any argument by saying this, and neither was I attempting to, so your point seems to be confused.
You haven't shut down any argument by saying "anyone who works on this is a bad person"? Seriously? I happen to think the exact opposite: life extension is probably one of the most noble things we could possibly be working on. Imagine if Einstein were still alive. We never learn from history, maybe because the people who lived it are all dead now. But in your mind, thinking this way probably makes me unethical (i.e. bad)! It's no problem when we're both two blobs of text on a forum, but I certainly wouldn't want you to be a boss or someone I was forced to interact with on a regular basis. And if enough people behave as radical as you are they will likely want to go beyond simply labelling people (e.g. see all the "hate crime" talk).
I don't see how I can stop extrapolating from "action X is unethical because the expected consequences look like bad ones" to "this person who dearly wants to bring about action X is behaving unethically". I simply don't see them as being meaningfully different statements.
In your second paragraph you've deviated from what I'm talking about (perhaps I was responding to the wrong person? EDIT: I didn't). "Person X is behaving unethically" is perfectly fine. "This person is an unethical person because they engage in action X" is where I draw the line (asuming action X is controversial and not very clearly evil like first degree murder) because it assigns a trait to someone by which they will be judged by their peers.
EDIT: Actually no:
>people dedicating their lives to it today are unethical people.
You said that. So your revised statement is moving the goal posts.
> I haven't shut down any argument by saying this
You're being naive if you think that saying this doesn't end any hope of a reasonable discussion.
One person's reasonable discussion is another person's interminable sea lion. http://wondermark.com/1k62/
Given your stance here, you're perfectly ok with the baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, right? Because the law was effectively the sea lion in your comic.
If people aren't allowed to state that 'behavior X makes person Y unethical', then how are we supposed to determine what is 'objectively unethical'.
To be sure, there is a lot of self-censorship -- the Overton window is real, and it's not advisable to say things fully outside the Overton window. Perhaps Altman is saying that the Overton window is closing on some opinions that he thinks we should be able to discuss openly, but because they're now outside the window he feels unsafe mentioning them. That would be a fair argument, though it'd be nice to make a list of things that can and cannot be said publicly, then we could argue whether we should widen the Overton window.
I happen think the Overton window is a good thing, even if I'm not always happy as to what falls inside and what falls outside of it. And, of course, the Overton window is a natural result of human nature, so it's hard to argue that there shouldn't be an Overton window. We can affect the Overton window, and sometimes we really should try to.
If person A is a white supremacist, and person B thinks ether exists, am I supposed to treat them equally because otherwise I would be "ostracizing" person A?
"I think black people are genetically inferior." ...followed by... "Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?"
What if the ideas are unethical? There is a lot of that going around these days.
Life extension is one that comes up quite a bit, because the question doesn't seem to involve life extension for all, but life extension for a few who can afford it. Or, if it is being presented as a public good, the owner of the tech gets to become a new robber baron.
Maybe we need to decide if being ultra-wealthy is moral when people are in need and there is a system in place that generates people in need.
Downvotes away!
A: "I think black people are genetically inferior." B: "I think that's a bigoted thing to say that has historically caused a lot of harm to a lot of people." A: "Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?"
Person B is engaging with that idea, it's just that they think it's completely indefensible. I have a hard time understanding how Person A thinks this conversation is supposed to go -- like are we supposed to entertain everything as if it were serious? If I go up to a physics professor and say "I think physics is completely inferior and wrong" what is she supposed to say?
A: Statistically speaking, there are some genetic explanations for trends we see between men and women.
B: That is a sexist thing to say that women can't do tech, so you are harming women in tech. You need to be fired.
A: But... that's not what I said...
B: SO COURAGEOUS of the company to fire that employee for those bigoted ideas
C: Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?
D: Every time someone says something bigoted, they're like "muh free speech!" Stop saying bigoted things!
There are obviously genetic differences between races. That's how AncestryDNA can tell where you came from. So if there are obviously genetic differences, why can't I talk about the pros/cons of being black without being hateful? Some differences are going to be objectively better or worse, why I can't we talk about them without going into full blown racism? If we acknowledge the fact that there are physical differences due to genetics, maybe there are mental differences too (that's a real touchy one)?
Pro: some localized African phenotypes make for world-class athletes in certain sports- a single tribe in Kenya is vastly over-represented in marathon running.
Con: Africans are worse at living in the Arctic Circle compared to Nordic people. Their dark skin isn't suited to producing enough vitamin D with limited skin exposure.
Con: Black people with high blood pressure don't respond well to beta blockers and ACE inhibitors. Instead they need to be prescribed diuretics and calcium blockers, but these have worse side effects.
It seems like today if we mention that there are actually genetic differences between races it automatically gets shut down because they assume we're going to start making the conversation about hate instead of what we can do to fix some of the cons.
I guess what I mean is that even when folks are talking about these things in good-intentioned ways, they're not appreciating the weightiness of the ideas they're throwing around -- and depending on your priors, it's reasonable to worry about that.
If I can just ignore Twitter (and I do) then Twitter mobs don't directly affect me. But if my management does things because of Twitter mobs (or anything else like that) we have a big problem.
And more importantly, people with decision-making power have shown a remarkable tendency to submit to the will of these capricious and volatile online mobs.
Yeah because that hasn't happened, and if it did would be met with universal condemnation and be up against full weight of law enforcement and the legal system.
> And what do you think has a stronger chilling effect: the possibility of being fired or the possibility of being murdered?
If the possibility of being fired for ideas is highly likely while the possibility of being murdered for ideas is essentially zero, then the possibility of being fired has a stronger chilling effect.
Historical context alone does not make a direct threat. A direct threat is a direct threat, and right now being accused of racism (no matter the truth of it) is far more scary than racism itself.
Propositional claims, in and of themselves, cannot be unethical. It's just a category error.
Now, if you're talking about the propositional claim, "black people are genetically inferior", well, as far as I know, it's contradicted by reams of available evidence and supported by little to none. You might as well claim the moon landings were faked, and, I suppose, many racists probably also do claim that one.
I do think there's a difference, so to speak, between heresy and quackery, and if we're treating racism as heresy, we've arrived to a very worrying place. The problem is, we treat ideas as heresy when we don't think we can actually provide evidence against them. That's why the whole notion originates with the unprovable realm of religion.
Claims like the supposed "inferiority" of some groups of people, on the other hand, were, at least as I was taught, quackery. They're just wrong, and all you have to do is point at the contradictory state of affairs in the real world.
A quack you ignore because you can prove they're wrong. A heretic you burn because you're secretly worried they're right.
Which makes me wonder how many secret racists we have around those pyres burning racists and sexists.
>Maybe we need to decide if being ultra-wealthy is moral when people are in need and there is a system in place that generates people in need.
This sorta idea? https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/its-basically-just-im...
Then argue the case for that position and tease out the ethical ramifications with your interlocutor. Bring a lot of evidence to back up that argument. Argue against the strongest form of the opposing idea(s), don't just create straw men to knock down or attack simple weak spots for easy points.
Unless the person advancing an unethical idea is intentionally trolling, take them seriously and seek to engage & explain your point. But it also requires truly understanding the other side (hence why you should be able to both articulate and argue against the strongest form of their argument).
Humanity has had some pretty awful ideas over its brief history. We have a mixed record when it comes to eradicating them by dialogue vs fighting. Usually we try dialogue for as long as we can. Too often, we wind up fighting when dialogue fails. Changing hearts/minds isn't an easy task. But the more we vilify, insult, ostracize, and otherwise verbally (or physically) attack those whose ideas we deplore, the more they frequently dig in on their position because they've tied their own identities to their beliefs. It's a funny condition with people that they often hold their identity as a believer in thing X far more strongly than they actually hold thing X.
[edit: wording & a little extra explication]
The best argument for life extension here would probably be to say that technologies like cell phones, which we now consider to be liberating technologies that almost everyone can afford -- even people living in poverty -- also started out as affordable only by the ultra-wealthy, and there's simply no way to arrive at a new tech without going through that stage.
If the tech were only useful to the ultra-wealthy once developed, that would be a flaw demanding criticism. But criticizing a technology for having a first stage of not being affordable before it becomes more affordable later seems to miss the mark.
Are you actually hearing that, or are you reading someone else's disingenuous over-simplified interpretation of what someone else said? Maybe just doing the incorrect reading yourself? Or are you reading an anonymous 4chan one-liner that could have been posted there by anyone for any reason?
> What if the ideas are unethical?
Then explain why. If you can't explain why something is unethical without resorting to intimidation of the people expressing those ideas, then maybe they are more ethical and your concept of righteousness is flawed or missing something important.
I disagree as to inequality. You just can't get equality; get over it. But life extension can still be problematic. E.g., life extension w/o extension of working years is a tremendous burden on everyone else, especially if such life extension is/becomes low-cost, and the only way out is to automate more and more so that we might provide for enormous elderly populations. On the other hand, we'll end up automating as much as possible, so it may be that this is a non-issue. Life extension w/ extension of working years would certainly be better. Another issue is whether we can correspondingly extend fertility years, otherwise we might risk negative population growth (which might or might not be a good thing anyways).
Workers can't afford to buy the products and businesses lose demand in a downward spiral.
That's what worked about the New Deal. If capitalist's want to continue getting to be capitalists, they have to sacrifice large amounts of profit to the common good. They still get to be wealthier than every one else, just by a smaller amount.
I really just consider life extension a wealthy vanity project. All of them contribute some money to defeating death, just in case...It really makes you think you should be in the business of promising immortality to wealthy people.
> "There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation."
I find this to be a pretty mundane statement, and it's fairly spectacular to me that a 20 year veteran of the company was fired for saying it. I also think there's a lot of irony in the fact that Apple removed a black woman from a position of power just because she suggested that diversity as a concept should not be reduced completely to skin color and gender.
---
So the problem is not with the criticism of ideas. It's that folks are being fired or completely ostracized for ideas that deviate even slightly from established consensus.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/16/apple-vp-of-diversity-and-...
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/11/16/apple-vp-of-diversity-l...
Please post a source documenting that person being fired.
2) Is that a problem of speech or a problem of the authoritarian nature of corporate power?
No, he's asking not to be critisized for his ideas. And it's troubling to me that you think what you presented is a proper discourse but I guess that's where we are today. The "someone else" in your example is simple minded and potentially dangerous in large enough numbers. It is not at all a given that people living longer would be disasterous for the environment [1] and therefor, no, people working on this may not be unethical.
Your "someone else", whom you seem to think responds in a completely reasonable manner, makes a highly oppinionated statement and then judges people based on that oppinion. How far is it from "they must be unethical" to "we should boycott their means of feeding their family" or even "we should probably put them in jail before they do something bad".
[1] In fact I find the idea beyond ludicrious. If people live longer, they're likely to put off having children until much much later (people in the west already wait about as long as they physically can). Further, if people like the Koch brothers knew they would have to stay on this planet for 10k years maybe they wouldn't be so willing to destroy the next 50-100 years for a nice 5-10 now.
Well the jail comparison is really far away. The boycott one probably isn't so far but who cares? If people band together to boycott someone they view as unethical that doesn't seem wrong to me.
>No, he's asking not to be criticized for his ideas. And it's troubling to me that you think what you presented is a proper discourse but I guess that's where we are today. The "someone else" in your example is simple minded and potentially dangerous in large enough numbers.
Or we're dangerous in large numbers huh? How long until you start jailing us?!?! Anyways somehow I don't think people are calling just any idea unethical. Usually the idea that provokes this kind of response is an idea which involves hurting some one or some group. The idea that I can work towards something which hurts a lot of people and not be criticized for it? Come on man.
>It is not at all a given that people living longer would be disasterous for the environment [1] and therefor, no, people working on this may not be unethical.
Then make the argument. Where Sam cuts this conversation is totally arbitrary but it invokes the feeling that calling someone unethical ends the conversation. No, it's a claim. You don't think it's unethical then argue back. Maybe the someone else is convinced, maybe not, that's called a conversation.
People in the west, right now, are going to jail for expressing oppinions. Right now those oppinions are universally seen as bad (e.g. rascism) but does that justify going to jail?
>boycott one probably isn't so far but who cares? If people band together to boycott someone they view as unethical that doesn't seem wrong to me.
You don't find it bad that a bunch of people, based on their own non-objective oppinion get to ruin someones business and/or career? I feel like I'm talking to a Hitler youth right now. If the person is behaving objectively unethically, that's one thing but this is not at all settled.
>Or we're dangerous in large numbers huh?
Yes, when you become a voting block and start outlawing thought, as is already happening. It's distasteful thought at the moment, but this entire discussion shows that things that are potentially great can be targetted.
>Usually the idea that provokes this kind of response is an idea which involves hurting some one or some group.
Not in the case of life extention. The objections are based on people assuming the worst possible case there but the evidence I see suggests the opposite.
>The idea that I can work towards something which hurts a lot of people and not be criticized for it?
Which is not what we're talking about. Only in your own mind. But here is the issue again, as soon as you decide, on your own, that something is "harmful" for however you decide that, now you get to do whatever you want.
>Maybe the someone else is convinced, maybe not, that's called a conversation.
When is shut down when you start off by claiming anyone who believes what you saying is unethical. Do people not understand how to think anymore?
What is an 'objective opinion'?
> get to ruin someones business and/or career?
Are you saying that it's a bad idea for people to boycott businesses, or that boycotting businesses shouldn't be allowed? If it's the former, how do you distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' reasons to refrain from purchasing from a business? If it's the latter, what would that even mean? Should people be forced to buy from a particular company?
> I feel like I'm talking to a Hitler youth right now
If calling someone unethical is "shutting down a conversation", what is comparing someone to the Hitler youth?
> Which is not what we're talking about. Only in your own mind. But here is the issue again, as soon as you decide, on your own, that something is "harmful" for however you decide that, now you get to do whatever you want.
As opposed to (objectively?) determining if something is 'objectively unethical'?
Look, things like murder or pedophilia are unabigiously evil. So it's not out of line or particularly dangerous to say that a person who engages in one of those activities or supports/defends those who do is unethical and possibly even evil.
Extending the life of humans? That's not objectively evil. It has not been clearly demonstrated to be a negative on anything. In fact there are plenty of arguments that it could fix a lot of problems we have. So to come out and attach a label to someone who dares work on such a thing, before we even know what it would mean is dangerous. I feel like society, at least a larger portion of it, understood this in the past. Your creating taboos. Things we don't dare talk about or explore because we fear having our lives destroyed by twitter lync mobs and the like.
>Are you saying that it's a bad idea for people to boycott businesses, or that boycotting businesses shouldn't be allowed?
No one should force you to have to shop where you don't want to. But what you actually want to do is knowing as "mobbing" in Europe and it's generally illegal (at least in some countries). The issue is one of power. With twitter flash mobs and so on today, you can quickly destroy someone's life with this kind of behavior. Most people don't mind if what that person is doing is obviously unethical but this thread is applying this to things that are completely unsettled. No one knows what will happen if we extend life because it's never existed before.
>what is comparing someone to the Hitler youth?
I appologize. This was certainly well over the top but please understand the context of what I'm saying: Hitler was able to come to power, in part due to people behaving this way. If you said something critical of Hitler, certain people took offense. They felt Germany had been in a bad way for a long time and this man was doing something about it. Why would you question him unless you wanted to destory Germany? So they started supressing thought. If your paper was critical of the Fuhrer brown shirts would storm in, trash the place and assualt people. As we know, eventually there was no one left to say anything eventually.
I hope you can see the parallel here: people felt their view was sufficient to begin censorship. It wasn't made illegal to question Hitler, it didn't need to be. Society had effectively shut down such behavior on their own.
>As opposed to (objectively?) determining if something is 'objectively unethical'?
Live and let live. There are people out there with different views than you. Some of those views might be down right offensive if you really thought about it. But society has always been this way and until recently we still managed to avoid getting so polarized about it and trying to censor everyone.
If by 'murder' you mean 'unjustified killing', then that's trivially true. If, on the other hand, you just mean 'killing', then it's far from obvious that killing is 'unambiguously evil' (self-defense comes to mind).
> I feel like society, at least a larger portion of it, understood this in the past. Your creating taboos. Things we don't dare talk about or explore because we fear having our lives destroyed by twitter lynch mobs and the like.
Harassment on social media is certainly an issue, but it's ridiculous to describe 'people criticizing me on the Internet for what I say' to 'censorship'.
> But what you actually want to do is knowing as "mobbing" in Europe and it's generally illegal (at least in some countries)
No, what I 'actually want to do' is allow people to chose which companies to purchase from, and to allow them to advocate for others doing the same. What exactly do you mean by 'mobbing'?
> If your paper was critical of the Fuhrer brown shirts would storm in, trash the place and assualt people
Are you really going to compare online speech to physical violence?
> Live and let live. There are people out there with different views than you. Some of those views might be down right offensive if you really thought about it.
How do you determine which of those are 'unambiguously evil'?
I don't, I was going for "things everyone, pretty much everywhere, accept as evil".
>but it's ridiculous to describe 'people criticizing me on the Internet for what I say' to 'censorship'.
First of all it's not "people criticizing me", it's "people applying a detramental label to me". And, no it's not (yet) government sanctioned censorship but I'm sure you realize it has an effect of shutting down the discussion.
>and to allow them to advocate for others doing the same. What exactly do you mean by 'mobbing'?
But in modern times with social media, I think we need to begin to realize that this is too much power for individuals to have. Anyone can simply decide that someone is bad for any reason and all and then advocate for others to get them fired, boycott their business, etc. To apply these kinds of consequences to people used to require going through the justice system.
>Are you really going to compare online speech to physical violence?
That's not what I was talking about here. I was describing a case where a group of people started deciding what kind of speach was ok and how that turned out. If there were brown shirts today they wouldn't engage in those tactics, they'd probably get lots of online accounts to brow beat and shut down any conversation they don't like. It would probably be even more effective than trying to go beat everyone into submission.
>How do you determine which of those are 'unambiguously evil'?
I go with well established societal consensus.
But they're absolutely not. What's the one thing everyone says they would do if they could time travel? Kill Hitler. Those actions are unambiguously evil to you which makes them subjectively unethical.
>So it's not out of line or particularly dangerous to say that a person who engages in one of those activities or supports/defends those who do is unethical and possibly even evil.
>Extending the life of humans? That's not objectively evil. It has not been clearly demonstrated to be a negative on anything. In fact there are plenty of arguments that it could fix a lot of problems we have. So to come out and attach a label to someone who dares work on such a thing, before we even know what it would mean is dangerous. I feel like society, at least a larger portion of it, understood this in the past. Your creating taboos. Things we don't dare talk about or explore because we fear having our lives destroyed by twitter lynch mobs and the like.
Here I begin to question whether you know what objective and subjective really mean. You're basically using "objective" to mean anything that agrees with your subjective opinion. All ethics is subjective, there is no objective base on which to call someone unethical.
>No one should force you to have to shop where you don't want to. But what you actually want to do is knowing as "mobbing" in Europe and it's generally illegal (at least in some countries). The issue is one of power. With twitter flash mobs and so on today, you can quickly destroy someone's life with this kind of behavior. Most people don't mind if what that person is doing is obviously unethical but this thread is applying this to things that are completely unsettled. No one knows what will happen if we extend life because it's never existed before.
This has nothing to do with boycotting which is what we're talking about. Mobbing != a boycotting campaign and I think you know that. So put away the crazy comparisons and make a case for why people shouldn't be able to participate in a boycotting campaign.
>If you said something critical of Hitler, certain people took offense. They felt Germany had been in a bad way for a long time and this man was doing something about it. Why would you question him unless you wanted to destory Germany? So they started supressing thought. If your paper was critical of the Fuhrer brown shirts would storm in, trash the place and assualt people. As we know, eventually there was no one left to say anything eventually.
This is so stretched... You're making the jump from me exercising my individual freedom to call someone out to brown shirts. Come down to earth please.
>Live and let live. There are people out there with different views than you. Some of those views might be down right offensive if you really thought about it. But society has always been this way and until recently we still managed to avoid getting so polarized about it and trying to censor everyone.
Read a history book, polarization is not a new thing, censorship is not a new thing and people exercising their freedom of speech to decry unethical people and actions is not censorship, it's the opposite. What you want: removing my ability to boycott, removing my ability to speak freely is censorship though.
Fine. I was going for "things society generally accepts to be evil".
>there is no objective base on which to call someone unethical.
If you want to get this technical but I'm obviously using the words loosely here: I'm using "objective" as a short cut to mean "things that are outright proven or agreed on by practially everyone". So nearly everyone would be ok labelling a criminal as such but I don't think most people believe extending life to be evil. In fact, I'd consider such a position quite niche in general since everyone is for it at least to a limited extent (i.e. medicine).
>So put away the crazy comparisons and make a case for why people shouldn't be able to participate in a boycotting campaign.
I think social media has made the random person too powerful. Any random person can decide that someone else is "evil" based on literally anything they want and if they have some means of organizing a flash mob they can destroy that person's life. The victim doesn't even have the ability to sue who ever did it. So it's a major imbalance of power. Normally this kind of power to destory people's lives is limited to the justice system.
>So put away the crazy comparisons and make a case for why people shouldn't be able to participate in a boycotting campaign.
Well, labelling someone is defamation of character and it's not a protected right. You can be successfully sued for doing it (though not arrested afaik).
>censorship is not a new thing and people exercising their freedom of speech to decry unethical people and actions is not censorship
Social media has changed this. Decrying someone everyone knows to be unethical is not the issue here. Getting a flash mob to attack someone doing something that some consider unethical while others consider it some of the most important work humans will ever work on is an entirely different thing.
You never had the right to "speak freely" in the way you're trying to twist it. Defemation of character will potentially land you in civil trouble and no nonsense about "first amendment rights" will save you.
The issue is instantly accusing someone of serious moral failings and painting them as a social pariah to be ostracized, the instant they put forward a locally unorthodox view.
One group is constantly expanding the area of topics that are taboo, the other believes that having taboos is a bad long term plan for society.
So why are we treating "This person is morally bankrupt" as the sort of argument that is unworthy of polite debate? What fundamentally makes it a worse idea than any of the above?
I think there's an incompleteness problem here, yes - but I think that problem genuinely applies to the original argument. I'm just pointing it out. (And the gist of The Abolition of Man, which I mentioned in another comment, is essentially an incompleteness argument against the idea that you can have an ethical society evaluate its own ethics without a base moral code.)
(If you take Gödel seriously, then you can't take Gödel seriously, in which case he's correct and you must take Gödel seriously, &c.)
The point, I'm assuming, is that Sam doesn't want to pack up his stuff and leave, he wants the Bay to become more open.
Open a YC branch in another city. Sam and other partners can spend more time there and find out if it really is more conducive to new ideas.
If the other location(s) really does turn out to be more conducive, ramp it up and close down the Bay Area operation.
Maybe the Bay loses out, but other places and the wider world win.
Toxic environment motivating you to move to another town: Tends to create an unhealthy society.
It should go like this: Me: let's extend life Someone else: If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment Me: Ok lets talk about that...
But you can't do that if now you're already unethical, etc.
Scientists get paid like children, seriously most in medium size cities can’t afford a mortgage on the crappiest house in the cities they work in. I will not build products to extend the lives of NIMBYs that vote against high-density housing and public transportation all for a shit salary that can’t even get me a house!
I’m basically extending the lives of selfish people while simultaneously making it harder for me to ever buy a home. Die NIMBYs Die. I’d love to help you live longer if you’d let me own a home, but you’ve proven you’ll prevent that as long as it benefits you.
So, die NIMBYs die.
Me: let's extend life
Someone else: If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment, so people working on this must be really unethical
Isn't this exactly how it's supposed to work? Why would Sam complain about an encounter like this?