Back to the Conjectures and Refutations series, after a long hiatus! Given all that's happening in the world and the associated rampant pessimism, we thought it would be appropriate to tackle Chapter 19 - A History of Our Time: An Optimist's View. We get through a solid fifth of the chapter, at which point Ben and Vaden start arguing about whether people are fundamentally good, fundamentally bad, or fundamentally driven by signalling and incentives. And we finally answer the all-important question on everyone's mind: Does Adolf Eichmann support defunding the police? Banal Lives Matter.
We discuss
Thoughts on the recent Trump assasination attempt
How can Popper be an optimist with prophesying about the future?
The scarcity value of optimism
Russell's view that our intellectual development has outrun our moral development
Relationship of this view to the orthogonality thesis
Popper's competing view that our troubles arise because we are good but stupid
How much can incentives compel us to do bad things?
How easy it for humans to really be led by the nose
Ben's experience during the summer of 2020
References
Conjectures and Refutations ()
Orthogonality thesis (https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/orthogonality-thesis)
Eichmann in Jerusalem (https://www.amazon.com/Eichmann-Jerusalem-Banality-Penguin-Classics/dp/0143039881) by Hannah Arendt
Adam Smith's thought experiment about losing a pinky (https://www.adamsmithworks.org/speakings/moral-sentiments-active-and-passive)
Radiolab episode, "The Bad Show" (https://radiolab.org/podcast/180092-the-bad-show)
Quotes
Now I come to the word ‘Optimist’. First let me make it quite clear that if I call myself an optimist, I do not wish to suggest that I know anything about the future. I do not wish to pose as a prophet, least of all as a historical prophet. On the contrary, I have for many years tried to defend the view that historical prophecy is a kind of quackery. I do not believe in historical laws, and I disbelieve especially in anything like a law of progress. In fact, I believe that it is much easier for us to regress than to progress.
Though I believe all this, I think that I may fairly describe myself as an optimist. For my optimism lies entirely in my interpretation of the present and the immediate past. It lies in my strongly appreciative view of our own time. And whatever you might think about this optimism you will have to admit that it has a scarcity value. In fact the wailings of the pessimists have become somewhat monotonous. No doubt there is much in our world about which we can rightly complain if only we give our mind to it; and no doubt it is sometimes most important to find out what is wrong with us. But I think that the other side of the story might also get a hearing.
And whatever you might think about this optimism you will have to admit that it has a scarcity value. In fact the wailings of the pessimists have become somewhat monotonous. No doubt there is much in our world about which we can rightly complain if only we give our mind to it; and no doubt it is sometimes most important to find out what is wrong with us. But I think that the other side of the story might also get a hearing.
We have become very clever, according to Russell, indeed too clever. We can make lots of wonderful gadgets, including television, high-speed rockets, and an atom bomb, or a thermonuclear bomb, if you prefer. But we have not been able to achieve that moral and political growth and maturity which alone could safely direct and control the uses to which we put our tremendous intellectual powers. This is why we now find ourselves in mortal danger. Our evil national pride has prevented us from achieving the world-state in time.To put this view in a nutshell: we are clever, perhaps too clever, but we are also wicked; and this mixture of cleverness and wickedness lies at the root of our troubles.
My first thesis is this. We are good, perhaps a little too good, but we are also a little stupid; and