Below are my notes on various topics I find important. When I get an idea, I write it down. I’ve found that this method generates more and more ideas, so I don\u2019t judge the ideas at first impulse. I review and evaluate them later, as I believe this approach enhances creativity.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>The notes:<\/span><\/p>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>Rights, Multi-State Liberalism, and anarcho-capitalism<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\u00a0<\/h6>
Here I use Rawls’ argument about “the original position”, but which I believe would develop very differently. If no one knew who they would be born as, then people would choose their own will (when I use the word will, I just mean what a person wants) and therefore not allow coercion and would choose the society that was <\/span>in accordance with<\/span><\/span> their will. That is, they would not be able to allow coercion because if they did, there would be a risk of being forced into liberalism or socialism, but ultimately, people would just want both options if they didn’t know if they were born as socialists or liberals.<\/span><\/p>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>One ought to discuss the fundamental rights of those who can feel and those who, in the future, gain the ability to have a good will. By this, I mean that they can understand something as objectively good or evil and can also create their own ethics (for example, understanding utilitarianism and how their actions affect others). If they cannot, they cannot choose their own state, as they do not yet understand that others are ends in themselves and not merely means). This is something that happens in children when they are around 12 years old (this is an open discussion, but when it happens, they have the right to choose a state). All those with a good will can never be a means to an end; there could be several reasons for this, such as that a good will is always good. Thus, it would be good to maximize all the good wills as much as possible, so we get “the greatest good will principle” or “the greatest possible freedom principle.” Therefore, if we force people to live in a political system they do not want to live in, we are using them as a means to achieve the state’s goals. Therefore, it is a fundamental right for all those with a good will that they live under anarcho capitalism so that they are ends in themselves. At least as a stepping stone towards anarcho-capitalism, we can create a Multi-State Liberalist society as I have described, which can be more feasible to achieve. More on that later.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/p>In an anarcho-capitalist society, everything would be privatized. In contrast, a Multi-State Liberalist society would maintain a government monopoly on violence, but it would offer significantly more freedom than we currently experience. In this system, individuals could establish their own states and compete with the government without fear of being shut down. Taxation would be minimized, covering only the essential costs needed to uphold the monopoly on violence.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\u00a0<\/p>
Every country would technically be considered <\/span><\/span>anarcho-capitalist in a perfect world.\u00a0<\/span>However, individuals in a <\/span>anarcho-capitalist country<\/span> should still have the freedom to choose to live in a socialist state if they prefer. I fully support this right, provided that individuals have the option to opt out of the state, and that they consent to the “tax” or donations they contribute, as well as to the overall functioning of that state. <\/span>There will be a lot of people who want to stay in America as we know it today, and that is acceptable as long as it is consensual and you have the option to leave. Initially, the ‘weirdos’ will leave America, and eventually, Americans will realize that some of these states are far superior. This could lead to reforms in America or to people leaving it to join a better state.<\/span><\/span><\/p>One could describe me as an anarcho-capitalist with reservations, as I want to see more evidence of its success in practice before fully committing to it.<\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/p>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>The right not to be used as a means to an end should extend to nonhuman animals. It sounds radical, but actually, it is super simple. You wouldn’t want to have a knife sliced through your throat, so if we claim to follow the golden rule, then we are inconsistent if we are not vegan. I think nonhuman animals should have similar rights to those of children and have yet to hear a single good argument that would justify not being vegan. Almost all people say they are against kicking dogs, and most people will also agree that they would rather be kicked than stabbed to death. Yet, they pay people to stab nonhuman animals to death, so how is that consistent? Objectively, forcing a pig into a gas chamber where they scream for 30-60 seconds (which is what happens to pigs in animal agriculture) is much worse than kicking them. These innocent beings are as sentient as small children, and we torture and kill 3 trillion of them annually. It is, without a doubt, the worst atrocity ever committed.<\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/p>If you are in doubt about how humans treat other animals, watch Dominion on YouTube.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>All sentient beings should have the right not to be used as a means to an end. Therefore, abortion should be illegal once we have a reasonable certainty that the fetus has become sentient. Prior to that point, abortion should remain legal, as a non-sentient fetus cannot experience harm, have preferences, or perceive its life as going well or badly. For something to be considered bad, it must be bad for someone capable of experiencing it.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\u00a0<\/p>
A major change I am advocating for is a radically different approach to how we treat children aged 12-18 years. From 0-12 years, we should ask ourselves if what we do for or against the child is in the child’s future interest. During this period, the child would also become increasingly more independent. I propose that nonhuman animals be treated with the same basic care and consideration as 0-12-year-old human children. Additionally, I suggest that we should treat 12-18-year-olds more like we would treat an adult in a lot of respects because they possess a good will. For what else should be “the insuperable line”?<\/span><\/p>Try to see if you can non-coercively encourage the child to do what is important or negotiate with them to see if you can make them agree, for example, if they need to learn a very important subject. I believe it is possible that future generations may view how children are treated today as unethical.<\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/p>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>Adults in democracies don’t have the right to choose their state, but we still have more rights than children. Therefore, we can argue for extending voting rights to humans aged 12 and up. This would make the rights violations children face in democracies somewhat less severe.<\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/p>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>Although I am an ethical pluralist, a utilitarian argument for Multi-State Liberalism or anarcho-capitalism is that people will seek their own happiness and therefore choose the state that maximizes their happiness. Consequently, people will only live in states that have maximized happiness as much as possible, while the rest will fall away.<\/span><\/p>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>Some argue that the state doesn’t violate your rights because you have the option to live in another country where you don’t have to pay taxes. However, I have never given explicit consent to be governed by my state. Furthermore, if I attempted to establish my own state, the government would shut me down using the threat of violence\u2014a monopoly that doesn\u2019t allow for competition, which contradicts the principles of freedom. Thus, the state coerces me through the threat of violence. If I were to act like the state\u2014taking people’s money without their consent and imprisoning those who refuse to comply in a cage in my basement\u2014most people would consider such actions unethical. So, how is this fundamentally different from what the state does?<\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/p>Imagine I demanded 30% of your income simply because you live in a certain area, despite you never agreeing to give me your money. Then, I suddenly suggested you could just move to Belize to avoid paying taxes. Most people would find this an unreasonable justification for taking your money. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>Imagine I took your money and justified it by claiming you had signed a hypothetical contract. Most people would find this reasoning absurd. Yet, some argue that the state can demand taxes because it has authority, often citing a hypothetical social contract, as Rawls did. However, a hypothetical contract is not worth the paper it’s not written on. <\/span><\/span>Even if you believe the hypothetical social contract is a valid justification, I still think people would prefer to have more options than just one state and prefer Multi-State Liberalism or anarcho-capitalism.<\/span><\/span><\/p>This might sound radical, but it stems from a straightforward premise: That coercive violence is inherently wrong. If coercive violence is bad, it logically follows that anarcho-capitalism, which rejects such coercion, is prima facie a good thing.<\/span><\/p>\u00a0<\/p>
\u00a0<\/span><\/p>If someone is reasonably well-off, it becomes immoral to redistribute wealth by taking money from a richer person to give to a poorer person. However, this does not apply if the money is used to aid people in extreme poverty. Nonetheless, I am skeptical about the government\u2019s ability to implement only fair taxes, which supports the case for a fully voluntarist world where people can choose to live in superior states that could also help lift others out of poverty. In cases involving extreme wealth created by an AGI, I consider the democratization of the technology to be a more just approach.<\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/p>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>Genetic engineering, AI, S, E, X-risks, and <\/i><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span>wild animal suffering\/rights<\/span><\/span> <\/b><\/i><\/p>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>It is entirely possible that we can end all intense suffering. So, are there any good arguments against ending intense suffering? No, there is not a single plausible ethical system that does not consider intense suffering to be a bad thing. Throughout history, we have unfortunately seen people defend surgery without any pain relief. David Pearce has argued, that it is possible that future generations will look back on those who defended the preservation of suffering in the same way we look back on people who justified surgery without anesthesia.<\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/p>You might agree that intense suffering is indeed a bad thing, but believe that the idea of ending it is fantasy. The counterargument is that there are people who experience little to no suffering at all, and there is no fundamental reason why we couldn’t develop gene therapies to end suffering, or use pre-implantation genetic screening to select embryos with a higher hedonic set point.<\/span>
<\/span><\/span><\/p>A pain-free life should be a birthright. The Far Out Initiative is an example of an organization that strives to achieve a world without intense suffering, and I would recommend that people donate 10% or more of their income to this charity; it is morally urgent.<\/span>
<\/span><\/span><\/p>Although I wouldn\u2019t recommend listening to Peter Singer when he talks about how the humane slaughter of sentient beings (including humans) is morally justified, provided they had a net positive life even when it’s against their will, his drowning child thought experiment is excellent. It illustrates our moral obligation to help those in need. Imagine you’re walking by a shallow pond and see a child drowning. You can easily save the child, but doing so would ruin your expensive shoes. Most people would agree that saving the child far outweighs the cost of the shoes and that you ought to save the child. When we have the ability to prevent intense suffering and save lives with minimal effort, it becomes our duty to do so. This is the situation we\u2019re in, by donating our time or money to effective organizations, we can make a significant difference to the lives of sentient beings. Since distance is not morally relevant, it becomes a moral obligation to help others.<\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/p>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>It is ironic that humans romanticize nature so much, given that we have removed ourselves from it in exchange for making our lives more comfortable. One example of this romanticization is how we refer to nature as ‘Mother Nature,’ but nature is nothing like a mother to wild animals; it is more akin to a psychopathic serial killer or medieval torture expert.<\/span><\/p>Sentient beings want to live, be free, be happy, and be free from suffering. Given this, it makes sense to respect their preference not to be exploited, killed, or made to suffer. Therefore, we should stop eating them and engineer the natural world to eliminate death and suffering. We could genetically engineer animals to have genes similar to Jo Cameron, who experiences very little\/no pain, and herbivorize predators. Then we could control the population of prey animals using contraception. This is what David Pearce refers to as “paradise engineering.”<\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/p>People will go mad on social media if you suggest that we should help wild animals; I have been ratioed twice on Twitter. But imagine what you would want humanity to do if you were a prey animal being slowly eaten alive by a predator. Things look a lot different from that angle.<\/span>
<\/span><\/span><\/p>Some people justify the predation of or\/and consumption of other animals and their secretions by arguing that humans are more intelligent. However, not all humans are equally intelligent; for example, babies and severely mentally disabled people can be less intelligent than some nonhuman animals. Some people accept that there are no rational arguments for this difference in attitude toward humans and other animals. Others argue that simply because humans are humans, it is acceptable to treat other animals worse and not help them in nature. This reasoning is akin to saying that because men are men, it is acceptable to treat women worse. If we discovered that 49% of “humanity” were actually Kryptonians, we wouldn\u2019t suddenly deem it acceptable to ignore their suffering and brutally exploit nearly half of the human population. Upon closer examination, it is clear that speciesism needs to be overcome, just as racism, sexism, and homophobia do.<\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/p>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>Given that people who have more children tend to be less intelligent, I think it is important that we begin to utilize technologies like pre-implantation genetic screening and use sperm\/egg banks so we don’t become progressively less intelligent. Being less intelligent is unsurprisingly negatively correlated with being vegan and positively correlated with supporting conspiracy theories and being more supportive of discrimination, such as homophobia.<\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/p>The real challenge isn’t technical; there’s no fundamental barrier preventing us from analyzing the SAT scores of 23andMe<\/span><\/span> users <\/span>(a genetic testing service)<\/span><\/span> to determine which genes are linked to higher intelligence. Stephen Hsu has discussed how human DNA contains numerous variations, some of which are correlated with IQ. These variants differ significantly between individuals, and if someone possessed all the variants <\/span><\/span><\/span>positively<\/span> correlated with intelligence, an IQ of 1000 could theoretically be possible. We could apply a similar approach to identify genes associated with altruism or a lower likelihood of supporting discrimination. By analyzing the genes linked to psychopathy, we could determine which embryos to avoid. We could also examine family trees to identify genes connected to the support of segregation, <\/span>authoritarianism<\/span>, homophobia, slavery, speciesism, and sexism and then take steps to avoid those genes.<\/span><\/p>So, I imagine a future where people are cleverer than Marie Curie, saintlier than Donald Watson, happier than <\/span><\/span>Jo Cameron<\/span><\/span> and more creative than Leonardo da Vinci.<\/span><\/p>It would be fantastic to see an organization dedicated to achieving a world without existential risk by identifying genes that make us more moral. We already have the Far Out initiative, which focuses on abolishing suffering and is also effective for reducing existential risk. As David Pearce says, people who love life want to preserve it. However, I also believe that an organization focused on making us more moral through embryo selection and gene therapies is still underrated within the effective altruism community. Both suffering abolitionist organizations and such a moral enhancement organization deserve much more attention. <\/span><\/span>I think accelerating these technologies, influencing policymakers, and making moral arguments for embryo selection and gene therapies consistent with making us more moral and happier would be a morally good thing to do. The case for focusing specifically on these areas is also strong, as so few people are working on them, which increases the chance for an individual to make a significant impact.<\/span><\/span><\/p>It would be valuable if this organization offered these gene therapies to people involved in creating AGI and those with access to other dangerous technologies, in order to minimize risk as much as possible.<\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/p>
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/nothingisart.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/athens-art-school-g081beaaef_1920-1-1-1.jpg\")
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t