Politics Without Technology or Philosophical Subtlety is an Endless Cycle of Arguing and Moral Realist Fixations
The discussion about politics has created an astonishingly tense and uncomfortable atmosphere in this corner of the blogosphere. And how could it not? Human beings are political animals that have evolved for millions of years in environments where tribal politics could determine whether you had 10 children or were murdered before ever getting laid. We are slaves to our own political instincts.
When I say I want to move beyond politics, I should specify in more detail what I mean. I believe that modern day political issues have such strong moral valence that they are often opaque hurricanes of cognitive biases. What is most troublesome is the lack of distinction between facts and values along with moral realism. Facts about the world are objective and constant, while values are subjective and fickle. Because 99.9% of people take a moral realist stance, but moral values legitimately differ, there is an endless cycle of combat and retrenching, where everyone thinks they are right and little progress occurs. To quote Joshua Greene's Ph.D thesis:
In this essay I argue that ordinary moral thought and language is, while very natural, highly counterproductive and that as a result we would be wise to change the way we think and talk about moral matters. First, I argue on metaphysical grounds against moral realism, the view according to which there are first order moral truths. Second, I draw on principles of moral psychology, cognitive science, and evolutionary theory to explain why moral realism appears to be true even though it is not. I then argue, based on the picture of moral psychology developed herein, that realist moral language and thought promotes misunderstanding and exacerbates conflict. I consider a number of standard views concerning the practical implications of moral anti-realism and reject them. I then sketch and defend a set of alternative revisionist proposals for improving moral discourse, chief among them the elimination of realist moral language, especially deontological language, and the promotion of an anti-realist utilitarian framework for discussing moral issues of public concern. I emphasize the importance of revising our moral practices, suggesting that our entrenched modes of moral thought may be responsible for our failure to solve a number of global social problems.
What people call "politics", I usually see as inevitable conflict between inflexible moral realist fundamentalists. It has gone on for all of human history and will continue forever unless we abandon moral realism.
I have substantial political knowledge, and frequently follow politics, but I speak about my (socially liberal, economically moderate) political views much more frequently offline than online. Why? Because politics is a huge niche occupied by millions of people. Anyone can do it. Pick a side and start shouting slogans. I do occasionally make political comments here, for instance when I expressed happiness that Obama won the Democratic nomination. But look right there -- by stating my support of Obama, I've already alienated a portion of my audience that I could have connected with via non-political arguments. I've given them a confirmation bias-ready excuse to dismiss my future opinions -- "well, Michael is an Obama-nut anyway, so I'll just ignore his point here instead of thinking about it more deeply". Politics makes people acquire permanent biases about the beliefs of others.
Over the past 500 years, there have been two primary approaches to making the world a better place -- playing politics and inventing new technologies. Politics has had nice breakthroughs on several fronts, such as the extension of the franchise to women and non-whites. (We have yet to extend that to children, who are considered the property of their parents, and animals, which are mostly considered dirt by meat-eaters.) But so has technology -- in fact, I'd say that massively increased wealth since the Industrial Revolution has contributed more to the lowering of crime and improvement of our standard of living than political progress has. Without machines, there is no amount of social reorganization that would allow people to live the wealthy and often healthy lives that people in the developed world do today. In the end, our modern lives are enabled by technology, though politics has certainly lent a helping hand to ensuring that the benefits of technology are widely distributed.
When I look at modern politics, I see arguments caused by material scarcity and inflexible underlying values. If our current level of technology were maintained indefinitely, I would bet that our political bickering and arguing could go on literally forever without resulting in substantial increases in standard of living or subjective happiness among all of us. Political reorganization and improvement cannot generate wealth from nothing. But improving our manufacturing, resource gathering, and energy base certainly can. Because intelligence is relevant to everything, I consider the improvement our underlying intelligence as the most crucial technological challenge currently facing our civilization. Once we are able to turn sand (silicon) into intelligent, benevolent agents (human-friendly AIs), we will be able to leverage that tremendous resource into improving our world.
I applaud certain political agendas, like gay marriage. But I applaud them for their utilitarian effects, not because they are aligned with a certain political ideology. The most important thing is human welfare -- does the policy improve it or not? I don't care if the policy is progressive or libertarian -- does it make life substantially better for us, or any minority? I strongly suspect that most humans, blinded by political instincts and moral realism, wouldn't even think of taking a quantitative utilitarian approach to political decision-making.
I believe that the idea of the necessity of research into the goal systems of advanced artificial intelligence is strong enough that it will easily survive misleading comparisons with pseudo-religiosity or political libertarianism. In fact, I think attacks on such a research program are symptomatic of its rapidly rising profile and credibility. Metaphorically speaking, the higher a fighter jet flies, the better a target it is for AA guns. But the validity of that research program, which rests mostly on arguments from cognitive science, philosophy, and evolutionary psychology, is an entirely separate thing than the discussion of whether we can or should move beyond "politics" or "politics as usual". The level of vitriol we've seen over the past few days alone ("Kick them hard, and repeatedly") and the general construction of straw men ("Peter Thiel wants to ban women from voting"), shows that things have already gotten out of hand, emotions have been heightened, and people have already picked sides.
Improved technology and intelligence is the sword that will cut through the 200,000 year old Gordian knot of human politics and moral realism. Only by creating an intelligence outside ourselves will we figure out how we actually look in the mirror.
August 8th, 2009 - 00:12
What people call “politicsâ€, I usually see as inevitable conflict between inflexible moral realist fundamentalists. It has gone on for all of human history and will continue forever unless we abandon moral realism.
I agree that we should abandon moral realism as fast as we can, but things are simpler: politics is about money and power, with inevitable conflicts between those who want more money and power. Politicians, and religions, and cultural group etc. play on a perceived moral realism of the population to win votes and influence. In doing so, they _create_ “moral values” crap.
I applaud certain political agendas, like gay marriage. But I applaud them for their utilitarian effects, not because they are aligned with a certain political ideology. The most important thing is human welfare — does the policy improve it or not? I don’t care if the policy is progressive or libertarian — does it make life substantially better for us, or any minority? I strongly suspect that most humans, blinded by political instincts and moral realism, wouldn’t even think of taking a quantitative utilitarian approach to political decision-making.
Well said, this nicely expresses my own views.
August 8th, 2009 - 02:11
I also advocate political beliefs that are based on strictly utilitarian criteria. But that apparently makes me a writer of “hateful leftist propaganda” according to at least one blogger. :-#
Whatever comments you might make about politics, they will align with some faction and you will get labelled for it.
In regard to “though politics has certainly lent a helping hand to ensuring that the benefits of technology are widely distributed”, as a thought experiment, consider what you might do if you were a dictator with the type of control over a country that was seen in the Shah’s Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, or Caucescu’s Romania – and you had the moral standards that led to you not caring at all for anyone who is not a friend or relative.
I expect that most intelligent people who consider such things would not make the decisions that were made by the dictators I cite for the simple fact that two out of three died violently and the third would likely have had a similar fate if he hadn’t died of natural causes first.
I think that current technological society on Earth is incompatible with absolute dictatorship. Providing the techno-toys, food, and health-care that an emperor might desire requires a large population base that is well educated. This means that they can communicate well and theoretically at least arrange a revolution if they desire. So keeping the peasants happy has to be a priority.
A space colony might be different as a hydraulic empire based on air would probably be very effective. When they develop mind-control devices it will change things, but that would require that they be cheap and effective enough to control a significant portion of the population.
August 8th, 2009 - 07:40
Great points, and well said.
I don’t know that you always have the option to simply dismiss the bellowing melee that is the political arena, especially as your ‘fighter jet’ gains altitude.
Someone within the h+ movement needs to be a figurehead who can argue its case in the public sphere.
Preferably someone young, bright, well-spoken and telegenic. No dark closets, no patchy history, no ill-advised or inflammatory remarks google-able in the public record.
The public perception of, and reaction to, what is developing now and going to occur in the future needs to be addressed. It behoves the need for a spokesperson to defend against the many and varied attacks that will be received from existing groups with political and cultural clout.
These groups have the will, and ability, to have passed into law statutes that will severely hamper ongoing progress.
These laws may result in the interment of persons. The hyperbole surrounding their enactment may result in physical harm coming to certain prominent researchers and/or operators within the field.
Without a strong advocate who is hardened and practised in the exposition of the affirmative argument in the face of obstreperous opposition, the public profile will become increasingly toxic.
Without undue pressure being applied, those of us who wish to see positive outcomes need to ask someone to place themselves as a figurehead; to put themselves in the firing line, to take the flak, and to argue our case.
It is a lot to ask; it may well be a thankless job much of the time.
But there is ‘much’ riding on this. Some would say ‘existential’ much.
Very few persons are currently well placed to take on this role I would expect; forum squabbling aside, I would hope that the h+ collective would rally under such a person and provide them with the support necessary.
That person would need to do more than dismiss the messy reality of political discourse however. They would need to engage it tirelessly, doggedly putting themselves out there to ensure h+ has a voice, and is not swallowed by a reactionary tide.
August 8th, 2009 - 13:32
We’ve had the technology to provide for high standards of living for everyone in the world for at least ninety years. That this hasn’t happened is a political problem, not a technical one. Advancements in AI and molecular manufacturing could make general prosperity dramatically easier, but they won’t erase the need for organizing. Undirected capabilities mean little. Improving knowledge doesn’t necessarily provide physical benefits to the species. Indeed, the opposite can be true.
Consider Africa. Countless measures of human well-being there continue to decline. The same global arrangement that gives laptops and cell phones leaves Swaziland with an average life expectancy below forty. Characterizing the last fifty or a hundred years as a time of universal progress ignores both this reality and environmental threats such as climate change. The hydrocarbon fuel that sustains industry and invention may turn this world into a barren desert. As Chris Phoenix notes in The Dangers Of Prometheus, people living after a technology-induced disaster would not look on science so kindly as we do.
Politics and culture determine how the species employs the vast power knowledge brings. If we use it wisely, the planet will see an era of unprecedented peace, freedom, and abundance. If not, it will make the tyrants and oppressors unassailable or simply annihilate us all. Current evidence suggests an unpleasant middle ground. I remain optimistic only by insisting on radical social change alongside technological development.
August 8th, 2009 - 15:56
The frustration, vehemence and even anger that various participants in this debate must have experienced along the way show just how hard it is to keep one’s head on straight in a political discussion.
Here is a further proof, if one were needed:
– abortion –
If seeing that word out of context raises your heartrate, as it does mine and as it will do to many people, then I think we have a problem.
August 8th, 2009 - 23:54
kumara: Are you sure that there exists someone who is intelligent, has the necessary background knowledge, and a suitable personality for PR work, but who doesn’t have some record of making ill-advised statements on the net?
Benjamin: Unfortunately some big multi-national corporations are making huge amounts of money from the status-quo. Improvement in living conditions in Africa would result in some people losing money in the west and some nasty people in Africa losing power (and maybe their lives).
August 9th, 2009 - 11:00
The whole discussion politics vs. technology is deeply misguided, IMO. Politics and technological advancements have to go hand in hand. They have to complement each other. We need free world trade and the completion of the Doha round to help Africa grow its own food. On the other hand, we need to have the right military capabilities to make sure that stupid warlords don’t threaten our food supply. We need strong companies that invest in research and technology but we have to make sure that they don’t abuse their power to bully smaller competitors. More research into renewable energies is needed but the Obama administration must also start to subsidise these new technologies like governments in Europe do because of the environmental cost of coal-fired power plants, etc.
October 12th, 2009 - 14:28
To quote Habermas, “in our postmetaphysical age, philosophy (and its partial derivative politics) no longer pretends to have answers regarding the personal or even the collective conduct of life”.
The collapse of the established axiomatic frameworks started at the turn of the 20th century and was completed with the collapse of Communism. Hence the lamenting the domination of moral realism (which I would interpret as absolute frameworks which provide the foundation of ethical and political norms) seem outdated to me.
We live in the age of moral relativism where competing views no longer strive to achieve or impose their view about the common good (the Kantian summum bonum or the truly just society) but rather try to satisfy themselves with a strategically negotiated modus vivendi.
Politics is a process where agents negotiate social equilibria, while technology is an instrument of competition between the agents. Technology drives change, disequilibrium and conflict and as such it is an object of political negotiation rather than a substitute of the political process.
March 23rd, 2012 - 11:46
I am lucky that I detected this website, precisely the right information that I was looking for!
May 23rd, 2012 - 04:08
I haven’t looked at your site since summer and I am astonishedthatI can see so many something totally new. The articles are great and the graphics and pictures just wonderful! I can not take my eyes from your blog Feel free to look at my site!