Reading Period: January 01 - January 31
1. The Hedonistic Imperative (P), by David Pearce
Link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18042414-the-hedonistic-imperative
Fascinating book. Full of incredibly interesting, controversial ideas that make you question your entire worldview. Do we need to suffer? Or can our existence instead be made, through drugs, nanobots, and genetic engineering, to instead be one of competing "gradients of bliss?"
Let's say that our current experience runs between -10 and 10, with , -10 being immense suffering, 0 being neutral feelings/happiness/utility, and 10 being immense happiness. If we could change the scale to instead be between 6 and 10, deleting from existence anything below a 6, would that not be the single biggest net positive decision in history? Many moral frameworks would argue we have an imperative to do so. Is our current menu of pleasure and pain a philosophical certainty, or a soon-to-be-relic of a horrifyingly immoral evolutionary past?
David states that "The 'hedonic treadmill' ensures that very few of us can be very happy for very long. An interplay of cruelly effective negative feedback mechanisms is at work in the central nervous system. Feedback inhibition ensures that a majority of people would be periodically bored, depressed or angst-ridden in a recreated Garden of Eden." If you think about it, there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason why would couldn't engineer away chronic pain from an individual's experience. With sufficient technology, it's pretty conceivable that we could engineer away all pain entirely. David thinks we are morally required to, and that we eventually will. He's not afraid to pull punches, and he follows his own claims to their logical conclusion. This is the type of intellectual courage I respect! Even if it leads to statements that are sure to cater controversy, such as the following: "Future parents who decide, whether in deference to God or Nature, to decline gene-therapy for a child they know will likely grow up depressive, for example, may be open to accusations of child-abuse. Responsible parents, on the other hand, will want to get their kids the best happiness money can buy."
David argues that the predator-prey relationship in the wild is pretty messed up, and once we're able to, we probably shouldn't have lions hunting down and terrifying gazelle. We're predisposed to see nature as beautiful and meaningful, and while we'd rescue a drowning squirrel, we certainly wouldn't prevent one from being eaten by a coyote (circle of life, and all). Is this coherent? Negative utilitarians like David see nature as a suffering-filled-horror-show, and they're not entirely wrong. Also, there's a clear issue with our gut reactions, as we've been pre-disposed with evolutionary programming and desires. Are David's ideas really crazy? Or maybe, we can't trust ourselves to be objective here. David claims: "Is one's potential unease, if not revulsion, at the prospect of paradise-on-earth an incidental cultural by-product of natural selection? Or has selection pressure ensured that one is genetically predisposed to be biased against the idea of enduring bliss in the first instance?"
Quick criticism - I don't think David understands correlation/causation, or he recklessly disregards common understanding in a way that is extremely disappointing. An easy claim to make is that we'll just turn into wire-headed drug addicts, mice that keep smashing the "cocaine" button. Why do anything productive if we're just blissfully happy? Maybe we wouldn't reproduce, or we become content with our overlords, or we stop being productive. All pretty stunningly obvious ideas. David has an extremely weak response: "The argument that our descendants might become functional wireheads, too happy to reproduce, isn't compelling either. Happy people tend to want more sex, not less." He also states: "It's depressives who are prone to procrastinate; by contrast, happy people are typically decisive, extremely happy people more so." And finally: "Given the correlation between depressed mood and low social status, the project of radically enriching the mood and motivation of the bulk of the population will probably leave people much less, not more, vulnerable to exploitation by a power-elite."
One obvious logical implication of David's thinking is that we have a moral imperative to change the hedonistic scale of not just to our species, but of every life form and alien species. We need to rewire the brain chemistry of every gazelle, and every life form on distant planets (Pluribus much?). David, however, chooses this moment to step out. "If multi-cellular evolution occurs, such alien life-forms will quite plausibly run on the same pleasure-pain axis as we do. Of course, this is all hugely speculative. And if trying to save the wold is ambitious, then trying to save the universe smacks of hubris; so this avenue won't be pursued further here." I was a bit disappointed in this, given how willing he is to meet controversy head-on until this point. Perhaps interstellar colonialism is a bridge to far.
When it comes to meaningful political decisions, I don't think we should let negative utilitarians make any decisions. It's easy to claim that "no amount of happiness enjoyed by some organisms can notionally justify the indescribable horrors of Auschwitz." However, this philosophical outlook generally leads to the conclusion that we should pave the rainforests and stop reproducing. Although I guess in this case, instead of paving the rainforests you forcefully alter the brain chemistry of every entity in the rainforest. It might be the correct outlook, but given the weight of our uncertainty, and the fact that these people are generally moral non-realists, I've never embraced many actionable-insights that come out of this worldview. However, I think it can point us in new, novel, and actionably correct directions.
Quotes:
"The present dimensions of the human mind and its affective capabilities are limited by the size of the female birth canal."
"It is chastening to reflect that a seemingly minor molecular variation in neuro-protein generates types of experience as disparate as sight and sound. Heaven knows what further incommensurable modes of what-it's-like-ness ("qualia") will be disclosed when much more far-reaching changes in the architecure of excitable cells are engineered."
2. The Birth of Tragedy (P), by Friedrich Nietzsche
Link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2823.The_Birth_of_Tragedy
I've tried so many times to read Friedrich's writing, and I never enjoy it. This probably wasn't the best one to finally get through because I don't find the subject matter compelling, but I trudged through nonetheless. Probably won't read another.
3. Amok (P), by Stefan Zweig
Link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33297733-amok-ko-ucusu
Simply stunning work of tragedy. I had no idea where the story would end up, and totally forgot what it felt like to read a devastating and anxiety-filled work of fiction. "The one human right one has left is to die as one wishes, and keep well away from any stranger's help." A certified classic.
4. Death's End (A), by Cixin Liu
Link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25451264-death-s-end
Certainly the best book of the series. Still some flaws, but much less apparent flaws than the previous two books and an overall incredible sequence of plot developments. Still, the characters are so insanely unlikeable and the decisions they make so incompetent, it's a bit difficult to parse if Cixin has any sort of character development skills at all. It's also hard to tell if he's proving a point, or if the point of his books are simply to have humans make incredibly stupid decisions that have terribly disastrous outcomes. Also, a lot of his writing is basically completely unrealistic and full of plot holes (that when plugged, make things even more confusing). That all being said, the sci-fi is fun! The micro-level storylines are somewhat poorly done and not interesting, but the macro-level story is fascinating and thought-provoking. The futuristic, physics-based technology is something I've only come across in Cixin's work, and this is definitely one of the coolest stories I've read from a futuristic perspective. Recommend the series altogether, but you have to be willing to trudge through some imperfections.
5. What You Do is Who You Are (A), by Ben Horowitz
Link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44063692-what-you-do-is-who-you-are
Thoroughly disappointing. Ben's last book (The Hard Thing About Hard Things) was really good, and this was an utter letdown. One of those books that make the last book worse, because it makes you question the judgement and originality of the author. The hip hop quotes at the start of each chapter make no sense (and make Ben seem cringe and out of touch). Ben has no talent for history, and opens himself up too easily to satire. Sure, as a business leader you set the culture through your actions. But endless pages that tie together Ghengis Khan and corporate diversity (or whatever other business concept) was utterly weird. Might as well write a book about what Hitler's rise to power says about leadership in the board room. It's just a strange miscalibration of concepts that even if there's a small nugget of truth, the comparison is never justified. There are so many better and more apt ways to convey the underlying concepts, that the entire book feels lazy and unhelpful.
6. Elon Musk (A), by Walter Isaacson
Link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/122765395-elon-musk
Very compelling biography. It is interesting to note that I actually didn't learn that many new and novel things, perhaps because Elon has been such a force of cultural debate and intrigue for my entire life. There is little stated about Elon's early life, but I almost wonder, given how horrible it seems (and how toxic his father is), how the hell Elon turned out so well adjusted. He has quite the psychological profile, to be clear, but he was raised in such a hellscape its a wonder he isn't worse. Also, I have to mention that his story and his mission is incredibly inspiring. Regardless of his actions or his mentality, and the fact that he is truly terrifying to work for, the amount Elon has been able to accomplish is astounding. I wonder if having such a longtermist worldview, and having civilizational-level ambitions, almost guarantees success. All the greatest pioneers of the AI age have this in common (aside from Zuckerberg). I share the same worldview, and after reading this book it's hard not to feel like I lack work ethic.
7. The Nvidia Way (A), by Tae Kim
Link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/218319936-the-nvidia-way
The history of Nvidia, and by proxy a biography of Jensen Huang. It is really interesting to see how close the company came to failure at so many points, and how a few decisions swung the balance of history. Also, the company is insanely lucky. They had no way of knowing that making GPUs for gaming would later supercharge the AI revolution and transform the world economy. Tae argues that the main differentiator for Nvidia is the culture, and also by proxy Jensen Huang. Another book that makes me want to work on weekends even more than I already do (which is substantial). This book is a little more surface level than I would have preferred, but still definitely worth the read.
8. The Battle for Your Brain (A), by Nita Farahany
Link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60784561-the-battle-for-your-brain
Started strong, but then pulled back sharply in quality. Perhaps this was a marketing issue, but I was really interested to read a book more similar to Susan Schneider's Artificial You. This book also discussed transhumanism and futuristic concepts, but Nita lacks the philosophical rigor to create truly compelling takes on the issues she explores. Much of the discussion is fairly shallow and boring, and could have been written by any New York Times writer. For an issue so massive in importance, this book barely scratches the surface, and thus does not scratch the itch.
9. Amp It Up (A), by Frank Slootman
Link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59383944-amp-it-up
Pretty motivating book. Frank insists that a hardcore, hard-driving work culture is the key to winning, and you have to lead by example. Expect a lot from people, and thus demand a lot, and you will succeed. Frank randomly throws in anti-woke and anti-PC thoughts which was funny. I think he's probably right about a lot of things (hard to argue with someone who listed three companies) but that sort of stresses me out.
10. The Lottery (A), by Shirley Jackson
Link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6219656-the-lottery
Really short story, but figure I'll add to the list regardless. Hard to write anything spoiler free, but worth the read.
No comments:
Post a Comment