The Wayward Axolotl

Every now and then, I encounter someone who raises the free will | determinism paradox in a discussion about a choice. It usually goes something like this: Me: We have to make a choice. Either we regulate our population and genome ourselves, or nature will do it for us, with war, disease and famine. Joe Shmoe: Your assumptions are wrong. There is no free will, so we don’t really have a choice. I imagine Joe delivering this brilliant insight with a smug little smile, as if it is the ultimate “gotcha”. In this essay, I will explain why Joe’s comment is an absurd non sequitur. I will also talk more generally about the relationship between free will and determinism. First, what is the point of bringing up the free will | determinism paradox in the middle of a discussion about something else? The real motivation is to derail the discussion, while asserting one’s intellectual superiority. The intended meaning is something like this: You idiots think you have fr...

We need a new religion or ideology that meets the following criteria: It provides a foundation for a sustainable civilization. It provides individuals with a functional way of life. It isn’t fundamentally deceptive. It has a rational, philosophical basis that is accessible to intelligent people. It can be reduced to a few simple ideas that can be understood by ordinary people. It has good memetic properties. To that end, I propose a new ideology organized around two core values, one for the individual and one for the collective: Reproduction: The individual purpose of life is reproduction. In the short term, this means having children. In the long term, it means having many descendants. Civilization: Our collective purpose is perpetuating and advancing our civilization. Our civilization is “us”, but it is not just a collection of individuals. It is a complex system that has biological, cultural and social components. W...

If you make content and put it on the internet, you will get criticism. I divide critics into three categories: Good faith critics: They are polite, and constructive dialogue is possible. Ideological critics: They are rude and aggressive. Constructive dialogue is not possible. They typically insult and run away. Advice trolls: They are explicitly polite but implicitly insulting — passive-aggressive. Constructive dialogue is not possible. They attach like parasites and drain your time and energy. This essay is about the advice troll. The advice troll poses as someone offering constructive criticism, but he is just role-playing as an authority figure. He thinks of himself as an intellectual, but he is too lazy, stupid, and/or cowardly to create content of his own. Instead, he criticizes the work of others. This is a way for him to assert authority. The act of criticizing presupposes that the critic has superior knowledge or intelligence, so by criti...

UBI stands for “Universal Basic Income”. In its simplest form, UBI is a direct payment to every citizen every month. It would (at least in theory) replace other government programs that alleviate poverty, such as means-tested welfare. It is growing in popularity as a political proposal. In this essay, I’m going to make the case against UBI. The basic argument for UBI is that we already agree on the existence of a social safety net, and UBI would be simpler and fairer than existing welfare schemes. As it is typically conceived, UBI would just be a direct payment from the government to all members of a society, without the complex bureaucracy that administers means-tested welfare schemes. Because it would be universal rather than means-tested, it would also eliminate or reduce certain perverse incentives of existing welfare schemes. Let’s consider some of the problems with means-tested welfare scheme. They require means-testing on an individual basis, so they need a bureaucracy to admi...

This is a response to a comment by EyesWideOpen on the video Lucifer’s Question . His comment is long, so I will break it into parts and respond to each part. He began by quoting something I said: “Even if you fling yourself into the Abyss, so that you may reign in hell, you’re still serving in heaven.” Then he said: Do you really think that John Milton was an advocate of anything closely approximating the autocatalytic cells view of existence where ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ can both be reduced down simply to causality in a 100% materialistic universe? I believe Milton’s many metaphors should be viewed in context — Milton’s belief system was Christian. Although he was anti-organization when it came to Church governance, his ideas on existence and purpose were always structured within a framework built upon the Word of God as a divine revelation of higher truth (metaphysical). The video wasn’t about Paradise Lost or Milton’s worldview. I used the character of Luci...

This essay is about the economic problem created by the coronavirus pandemic. Here is the situation. There is a new disease that spreads like the flu or common cold, but with significantly worse symptoms. It floods hospitals with patients and kills about 3% of those infected. It spreads around the world. Stopping or slowing the spread of the disease is now a major goal of every government, and avoiding the disease is now an important goal for most individuals. Governments in most places introduce measures to slow the spread of the disease. They shut down travel, outdoor gatherings, restaurants, and other public activities. Individuals also change their behavior to avoid infection, mostly by reducing their exposure to others. The pandemic has effects on both production and consumption, both supply and demand. Certain goods and services are no longer produced, either because of new regulations or because of decreased demand. A huge number of businesses shut down and a huge number of ...

Consider the following statement: Trans-women are real women. It is a required belief in the current year. We are supposed to believe that trans-women are real women. Claiming otherwise is hate speech. Of course, this is crazy, and it demonstrates the insanity of Western culture in the current year. But the statement is more than just a blatant denial of biological reality. It is a semantic paradox. I’m going to call it the “trans paradox”. The trans paradox is similar to the liar’s paradox. An example of the liar’s paradox is “This sentence is false”. If the sentence is false, then it is true, and vice versa. Thus, it cannot be assigned a truth-value. The trans paradox is also self-negating, but in a different way. If the trans paradox is true, then it is meaningless. The trans paradox negates its own meaning because the concept of a trans-woman depends on the concept of a woman. More generally, it presupposes the gender binary. “Trans-woman” can be defined in differ...