We Are Not Saved

In this weeks episode I tackle the subject of global warming. First I start by breaking down the various questions we have to ask, and then I turn to what must be done to keep warming in check, and finally I look at what's really at stake with Global Warming.

I start with a review of Chuck Klosterman's book "But What If We're Wrong?", which was disappointing. Primarily because he didn't really grapple with anything consequential. I go on to talk about ways we could be wrong which would be a big deal. And use the example of women in the military.

It's possible I'm too pessimistic. And after reading something from Gordon B. Hinckley I decide to examine whether that's the case. I think it probably is, but I think on the big things I'm still on target. In particular how keeping the commandments give people the stability to be happy and optimistic. 

Continuing my discussion of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. I point out through the metaphor of the chocolate covered asparagus that we actually have a lot in common, and that in most cases I hope they're right and I'm wrong, but that in the end because of the far worse consequences which come from the MTA being wrong, that it's best to assume they are and prepare accordingly.

Many people think that technology will save us. Some of these people are religious. Of particular note is the Mormon Transhumanist Association. Many people, including including my friend the Catholic Priest, feel that these people have entirely missed the point of the Tower of Babel story. In this podcast we examine whether that's the case.

The immigration debate has become exceptionally polarized. Obviously the election of Trump hasn't helped, but it was polarized long before that. As part of this polarization rational considerations of feasibility, and long-term goals, and even what standard to apply have all been lost in the yelling. This episode hopes to get back to a rational discussion of how many people can we really let in, and what sort of standard should we use?

Continuing the discussion of Fermi's Paradox I turn to an examination of Liu Cixin's Three Body Trilogy and his Dark Forest explanation of Fermi's Paradox, which assumes that any aliens will shoot you on sight if they become aware of your existence. In other words most aliens are malevolent. I argue that most likely the exact opposite is the case. That it is in fact hard to imagine how you could end up with an extraterrestrial civilization that isn't extremely benevolent.

Returning to a discussion of Fermi's Paradox. I use (and abuse) the movie Interstellar to examine some explanations for the paradox. In particular how culture can act to give people an incorrect view of how probable or improbable certain things are. 

I discuss the possibility of violence erupting in the wake of the recent election with four reasons why I think it might be more likely than in the past. In particular I found the strength of the reaction right from day one to be particularly alarming. Also I examine the common misperception that violence will be limited and easy, when in reality it's like Godzilla trudging back and forth through your town.

The world and particularly the elites on the left have fallen pray to a new ideology. The idea that progress is locked in, that it will go on forever, and that in many cases that it is supernaturally driven. The human consciousness is evolving and that through that evolution we're waking up and realizing that certain things which seemed acceptable are not intolerable. This is a shallow and largely selfish way of thinking.

There are three groups. First the Actively Religious who believe we will be saved by God. The Radical Humanists who believe we will be saved by technology. And the Disengaged Middle who aren't actively in either camp. For us to be saved by technology we have to get off the planet. This podcast explores how difficult that is.

I offer a bunch of predictions. Not for 2017, but forever. I also talk about the difficulty of prediction in general and the issues that can arrive from being mostly right, but about inconsequential stuff, and only slightly wrong, but about the big stuff.

A review of Pinker's book The Better Angels of Our Nature. While enjoying the book, I feel that he did a lot of subtle things to lead you to believe that the trend of decreasing violence has been going on longer and is more durable than it actually is. In particular I think some of the things he mentions have not been going on long enough for us to truly asses their duration or impact.

In this podcast I discuss the writings of Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Beginning with his ideas on how people are Fooled by Randomness, moving on to his concept of Black Swans (extreme, unexpected events) and finally finishing with the idea of Antifragility, which I think is one of the concepts most lacking in the modern world.

This week we look at the subject of infrastructure. We seem to spend a lot of money on it to little effect. Why is that? And is it indicative of a civilization in decline. The idea of catabolic collapse is brought up, which is the idea that your society can start to fall apart when the maintenance costs exceed a certain level. I know it sounds boring, but trust me, it's not.

Bad things happen, and it's impossible to know when they will. Occasionally we find ourselves in a bad situation, but it's difficult to know if it's going to get nightmarish like Poland in 1937 or if it's about to peter out like in East Germany in 1988. But that doesn't mean there aren't ways to prepare for it, and perhaps that's a waste of time an money, but if it is 1937 and you are a Polish Jew than no preparation is too great.

Since the election many people have warned against normalizing Trump. This is a dangerous repudiation of the system of law unlike anything in modern memory, and more closely representing the election of Lincoln in 1860. Making this election potentially a lot different than any other election in the last hundred years. The question then becomes what to do about it, which I go on to address.

In this podcast I present three theories of religion. Religion is either divinely inspired, stupid, or a distillation of accumulated wisdom. I then examine what religious persecution looks like under each theory, and conclude that one of the big dangers is the recent dominance of the Religion of Progress.

In the wake of the election many people were declaring that everything would be okay, while other people were declaring it the beginning of the end. In this episode I admit that I don't know if everything will be okay. But I offer a couple of overlooked reasons for Trump's victory and I examine six areas of concern and give my opinion as to how consequential Trump will actually be.

It is tempting to restrict the speech of those you disagree with, but in doing so you may very well reduce your protections against the authoritarianism you fear most. Any weakening of free speech is a bad idea whatever your motives. Also this podcast was taken from a blogpost written a few days before the election, thus it's a little bit dated, but important nonetheless.