On the state of the world

There is a lot happening right now. I’ve thought about commenting on it, but I’m a believer in forming opinions slowly with evidence rather than emotion (for a discussion of why, see my footnote – if this concerns you already, I strongly urge you to read it*). Having said that, I think I’m ready to share some thoughts, though I of course reserve the right to change my mind with new information. This is a long post, but I think the world is complex and nothing less would accurately describe my views.

I like to try and make the strongest case possible for both sides of argument (see steelmanning). I think this is just good practice, but it can sometimes get me in trouble, since I end up arguing in part against both sides of a story, even the side that I actually agree with. Oh well.

First, it would be remiss of me to start without a direct statement on the cause of the protests in USA. I believe that suffering and loss of life are tragic, and so I was naturally horrified to hear about the death of George Floyd. As best I can tell from what I’ve seen, his death was unnecessary and a gross breach of police conduct. I’m not an expert in policing, but I can feel relatively confident at this point in saying that the police seriously fucked up. Regardless of whether or not Floyd had committed a crime or had a valid reason for being detained, the response was not warranted.

Black lives matter, and I’ll try my best to do my part to create a better world for African Americans.

I know people desperately want a solution to what is happening (myself included), but the world is extremely complicated, and a solution is unlikely to be simple. There are many examples of actions taken that sound great and have the best intentions, but end up creating more harm than good. Could that be happening now? Maybe. It would be epistemically dishonest of me to pretend to have an answer to that. For what it’s worth, I’m strongly pro-non-human rights but still think there is a chance that some action ‘for the animals’ could result in more animal suffering.

I also refuse to propose a solution. This may warrant some criticism (“You say that what people are doing might not be the best way to go about it, yet you don’t even have a solution? Hypocrite!”), but I want to push back on the culture of people who aren’t domain experts claiming to have a simple solution to a complex problem.

And yet, I have a view about the solution for many things unrelated to my core expertise. Usually I arrive at these views after reading and thinking about the issue for a while. I haven’t done this for this particular issue. Maybe I should be spending more time doing this. I can’t argue with that, but I won’t propose a solution until I do.

In particular, the counter-productivity of looting in the US has been talked about a lot. This is something you could write an entire journal paper on. I won’t say much on it except to say that there are a lot of competing views. A couple of interesting things come to mind – the Boston Tea Party involved the destruction of British property by dissatisfied American colonists. To say that destruction of property is always bad as a form of protest, you’d have to accept that the Boston Tea Party was too (see the Tweets below that have been making the rounds).

Some of the looters may be doing it opportunistically, and some may be doing it as protest. But just as I accept that well intended actions don’t always have good consequences, I accept that the looting doesn’t necessarily have bad consequences. I don’t claim to have the answer, though I do note that supporters of the protests remain divided on the looting and property destruction itself.

Some are criticising those who are protesting for being hypocritical about COVID-19. Some people were seemingly concerned a few weeks ago enough to criticise those who protested about the lockdown restrictions, but think that these protests are worth the risk.

This is a pet hate of mine. Often (not always), I find that when someone disagrees with the methodology of a protest or civil disobedience, what they actually mean is that they disagree with that method being used for that thing because they disagree with the thing being advocated for. E.g. an animal rights protest in Melbourne last year was criticised for blocking traffic, yet a union protest in the same week which also blocked traffic was celebrated (broadly speaking). You just need to look at the text and headlines of the ABC News articles on both to see this discrepancy.

I like Venn diagrams like the one below because they remind us that we can hold numerous different views at the same time. This might seem obvious, but my impression is that some people will naturally trend towards agreeing with all of the propositions a particular side makes. We don’t have to, we can choose.

I’d add one more circle to this Venn diagram for now, which is ‘concern about a second wave of SARS-Cov2 is warranted’. Again, this might seem obvious, but some seem to be framing it as ‘you can only pick one’. Probably a lot of the protesters hold all five of these circles, but have decided, either consciously or subconsciously, that the risk of spreading SARS-Cov2 is worth the payoff of achieving change through the protests. It’s important to acknowledge that COVID-19 will disproportionately affect black neighbourhoods for a variety of reasons. This isn’t an argument in itself, but an important point that I don’t know people are considering enough.

The only Venn diagram we need : Enough_Sanders_Spam

I would encourage anyone who chooses to protest (for anything) to socially distance where possible while protesting (I know this is just impractical most of the time), wear a mask as a matter of priority, not protest if they are sick, and self-isolate for two weeks after the protest if possible.

For a specific example of things being complicated, I want to mention ‘Blackout Tuesday’, where people posted black squares on social media this week. This was intended as a show of solidarity and support of BLM, but there have been concerns from some in the BLM community that it had been drowning out live information (e.g. the #BlackLivesMatter and #BLM feeds) about the protests and what was happening on the ground, which was a life line for activists. Once again, no simple answer.

I hope that the systemic issues that are being questioned now do not get forgotten in the next media cycle. I hope that SARS-Cov2 is not forgotten about in this media cycle. The world sucks all year round, so let’s make sure we are always fighting for a better one.

Have I missed something? Almost certainly. There are also other related topics which I intended to write about, but felt that including them here would be distracting. I’m happy to update my views and amend anything that needs amending (that’s largely why I’m writing this). I’m happy for people to comment here or reach out to me privately.


* In January 2019, there was a confrontation at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., USA. There were groups of opposing political demonstrators at the site, and a video was released of a high school student wearing a Make America Great Again hat, seemingly taunting another man. The student was lambasted on social media, being called a racist and getting sent death threats.

Later footage revealed that the initial media coverage was inaccurate, and that the students had been antagonised by another group of protesters. Suddenly, the smirking, racist student was just a student smiling awkwardly after a man came up to him and started beating a drum in his face. Do I agree with all of the students’ views? No. But I don’t think that excuses criticising them for things they didn’t even do.

From the Wikipedia article on the incident: “The news media has been criticized for how it covered the incident, specifically for their initial reporting of the story based on various social media posts without fully investigating what occurred and subsequently fueling controversy and outrage over the incident.

Videos and photos can be powerful, but they rarely constitute viable evidence in isolation. This is why I try not to make strong judgements based on a video and initial reporting, no matter how compelling they seem.

My response to the North American Meat Institute on ‘The End of Meat’

The North American Meat Institute responded to Jonathan Safran Foer’s ‘The End of Meat is Here’ piece in the New York Times, so I responded to the response.

In short, it had no references, and even made some points that had already been rebutted in the original piece by Safran Foer.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SceITUkn7gc]

Australian live export ban of 2011 invalid?

The Federal Court of Australia has ruled that the temporary ban on live export of farmed animals to Indonesia in 2011 was invalid, and the Federal Government is likely going to have to pay out damages to animal agriculture corporations.

I make no judgement on whether the court findings are valid (I’m not a lawyer), keeping in mind that I don’t think legality equals morality.

However, the use of the words ‘reckless’ and ‘capricious’ in the judgement about an action aimed at reducing suffering to non-humans makes it abundantly clear that the legal system is not built to protect the interests of anyone but humans.

It also sets a sad precedent. Future governments may well be less inclined to make legal change in the interests of non-humans if they think an animal agriculture company or industry representative group is going to sue them. Consider also what happened to Premier Mike Baird after the (ultimately temporary) ban on greyhound racing in NSW.

Effective Animal Advocacy: The difference between life and death

I don’t believe that an action will always have a positive effect simply because it is ‘for the animals’. There are many well-studied examples of well-intended programs causing more harm than good in human-focused interventions, and we need to be careful.

In this video I talked about how animal advocates can be as effective as possible – I believe the animals deserve no less.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQj8I169QMw]

Esports and how to get interviewed in the media

I was interviewed by Ticker Sports about esports today, including my involvement as a League of Legends player for UNSW recently. It was a fun interview, and I got to talk a little about the past and future of esports, something I’m passionate about and enjoy a lot. You can watch the interview by clicking here and going to 21 minutes 12 seconds.

As a secondary reason for writing this post, I want to talk about how I ended up speaking about this. I don’t think I’m the most qualified or even most charismatic person to talk about this in Australia, and yet I was interviewed instead of a player or coach for an OPL team, or an esports journalist/analyst.

I use a website called Sourcebottle (I’m not sponsored, I swear), which puts both interviewers and interviewees in touch with each other. Anyone from journalists to blog writers can put in a request for someone to speak about a particular topic, and people like myself will get an alert based on some keywords they’ve entered.

I’ve been interviewed for several news articles and magazines in this way, and even ended up having a book chapter written about some of my work. It’s a great tool, and I’d highly recommend filling in a profile with some keywords if there are some issues you are knowledgeable/passionate about so you can get opportunities to talk about it with the media. There is a paid version of Sourcebottle which gives you some extra perks, but in my opinion it’s probably not worth it. The free version gives you what I described above.

Finally, the media alert I got wasn’t even directly esports related. They were looking to speak with someone involved in a sport that had not been severely affected by the Covid-19 lockdowns, and I figured esports might fit the bill. Turns out it did.

The case against colonising space

I read an article today that summarised a book titled Dark Skies: Space Expansionism, Planetary Geopolitics, and the Ends of Humanity by Daniel Deudney. The book (and the article) makes the case that we should be slowing down our expansion in to space. In particular, the article is commenting on the plans of both private and public entities to put humans on Mars. As a caveat, I haven’t yet read the book, though I intend to, and will likely do a longer post and video about it. But for now, I want to share some thoughts.

The article is quite critical of Elon Musk and SpaceX, mostly for their desire to put boots on Mars as soon as possible without thinking enough about the consequences, which include the possible weaponisation of space. Carl Sagan had long warned about the possible weaponisation of asteroids through the development of asteroid deflection technology (see also my take on this).

I’d like to add a concern of my own, relating to wild-animal suffering (please see this for an introduction to the concept). If you accept the premise that many wild animals and insects experience so much suffering that they have net negative lives, it would surely be bad to fill an entire new planet with them. And yet, that’s exactly what some people are proposing to do with Mars as part of or after a terraforming process. I’ve talked about this here. Given the enormous consequences, we should really stop and think about whether terraforming Mars is the right thing to do. Too many people in my field seem to assume it is definitely good to colonise and terraform Mars.

The article goes on to discuss some of Deudney’s critiques of some of the arguments people make for space colonisation, which includes ensuring the survival of humanity in the event of a catastrophe affecting Earth. I note that the article’s presentation of this case is rather strawmanned. They made it seem like people making this argument are only concerned about the death of our sun in several billion years, rather than the myriad of other X-risks such as artificial intelligence, pandemics, nuclear warfare, asteroid impacts and supervolcanoes, some of which could affect us tomorrow.

The article (and I can only assume the book also) seems to be making the case for slowing down space expansion, rather than halting it all together, which is a view I share myself.

This Device Protects You From 5G? Scientist Reacts to Pseudoscience

The main thing I discuss in this video is a series of products being promoted by ‘Juicing with Nadia K’, which claim to help protect people from the effects of 5G. To be immediately clear – 5G is not harmful, and I think this is a scam. I have reported it to the ACCC. Having said that, I thought we could have some fun and break down the claims Nadia is making, and look at a few other examples of recent pseudoscience.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD0a-ybWQLw]

The end of meat is here

This article titled ‘The end of meat is here’ by Jonathan Safran Foer in the New York Times has been getting a lot of attention in the past 24 hours, and I think it’s great. It’s about time we do away with animal agriculture for the animals, our health, the environment, and to reduce the likelihood of zoonotic disease spread.

I made a video talking about the points covered in the article, and also about some of the comments people are making about it.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px5USiOTmV8]

More Youtube videos!

I’ve been putting a lot more work in to Youtube recently, and I hope for it to play an equal role alongside this blog. I know that video is a medium many people prefer to consume, and I want to reach those people too. For major posts in the future, I’ll aim to have a video and text version released at the same time.

In the mean time, please feel free to watch some of my recent videos and subscribe to my channel. Yesterday I spoke about asteroid impacts, and how developing asteroid deflection technology might actually increase the likelihood of asteroid impacts. Sound counter-intuitive? Take a look to find out how it kind of makes sense!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD0D5ZsiwUY]

Last week I spoke about how I rejected Christianity and became an atheist.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCLYPgXvj7I]

On meditation and mindfulness – part 1

You can find a video version of this post here.

I’ve tried meditation and mindfulness a few times in the past, including when I was at one of my lowest points with depression and anxiety (I wrote more about this here). Recently, I’ve started again, and have even been mildly intrinsically enjoying it (positive on the -10 to 10 scale!). I’ve been doing the daily meditations on Sam Harris’ Waking Up app, which a friend gave me a free month trial for.

One of the things I’ve liked least about meditation (I’ll just say meditation from here on to refer to both meditation and mindfulness), besides not feeling any benefit, was the common appeal to spiritualism. This is not to say all meditation appeals to spiritualism of course, but the moment it approaches pseudoscience territory I disengage. This is probably why Waking Up has appealed to me.

Harris talks about why we don’t need to appeal to religion or spirituality for meditation, even though a lot of practices, techniques and insights about the self through meditation have their roots in Buddhism. Religion and pseudoscience sometimes gets things right, but then we can choose to separate that out from the rest of it. In the app, Harris says something to effect of ‘Needing Buddhism for meditation and mindfulness today is like needing Christianity for physics [I fact checked whether Christianity played a role in physics – looks at least partly true, I guess]. Just because they played a role in formulating the early ideas doesn’t mean we need to give their other ideas any credence today.’

I’m writing this partly to document how my thoughts on meditation change over time, if at all, and I aim to write again in a month or so. In particular, I’m interested in the claim Harris makes about meditation allowing you to observe that the ‘self is an illusion’. I’m curious to see whether I will come to notice this myself. At an intellectual level, I feel like I can kind of understand what he means by this. When you have no thoughts, then a thought arises in your mind, it seems fair to say that you did not call upon this thought yourself. It came in to your mind without your willing it. Is this what he means? Is it that all of our thoughts, ideas and experiences (since we don’t control the input (senses) to our mind either) are out of our control, and we are ‘along for the ride’?

This seems reminiscent of the way Daniel Dennett talks about free will (edit – it looks like Sam Harris proposed the below analogy, but Dennett also talks about free will in a similar way). E.g. think of a city. Which city came to mind? Why was it that city? Did you choose that city, or is it the first one that your mind called up without your real involvement? Are not all thoughts like this? Is this view on free will the same as Harris’ view on the self?

Other things Harris mentions which I find intriguing but can’t intuitively notice yet include the idea that you can’t feel the shape of your body, but instead feel a cloud of experience. I don’t even really know what this means, but maybe it will be trivial in time.

Another question I have is; what do these realisations mean for how you live your life? Are they necessarily good? On some naive level to me, realising that there is no self feels like it might be depressing, and maybe I’m better off in blissful ignorance.

I think we can have all of these insights without having to invoke any kind of spooky spiritual or religious overtones. Everything is explainable through science, and the way our mind works should be no different. Just as we call alternative medicine that works ‘medicine’, we should call spiritual pseudoscience about the mind that happens to be real ‘neuroscience’.

Stay tuned for the next instalment of this, where I’ll hopefully be able to share more of my experience of meditation.