Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago School economists and fellow travelers.
In my previous robot post, I explained why natural selection will always drive robots to seek an existence independent of the good of humanity. Instapundit links to a Slate column by P. W. Singer that argues that the conditions for robot rebellion are highly unlikely. I disagree.
Singer list four traits that robots would have to possess in order to rebel. Unfortunately, either we will build these traits into the robots or natural selection will generate all four traits.
My son and I like to watch “Life After People” on The History Channel. The show is a thought experiment that examines what would happen to man-made structures and nature if humans suddenly disappeared while leaving everything otherwise intact.
I like the show but one thing about watching it creeps me out.
While linking to a Megan McArdle comment on a childish Matthew Yglesias post on bankers, Instapundit asks a question that reveals a void in our language and world-models:
“DOES GREED MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON? What about greed for power, a trait exhibited by many of those who denounce greed for money? Which is worse?”
Why does Instapundit have to use the cumbersome phrase “greed for power” to describe a very common human behavior? Why do we have to describe the lust for power in terms of the lust for money?
Language can tell you a great deal about the world models held by those who speak the language. Specifically, if a language lacks a specific, neat word for a particular concept, it tells you that the people who speak the language don’t use the concept very often.
What does it tell us that English and every other Western language have a single word to describe the destructive lust for money but that they lack a single word to describe the destructive lust for political power?
So, I have this running joke that goes, “I don’t care if someone is gay or straight but I hate bisexuals. But that is only because I can’t stand people who can’t make up their minds.”
My son called me on this and said, “If you don’t like people who can’t make up their minds then why are you an agnostic? Agnostics are people who can’t make up their minds.”
So, I explained agnosticism like this: Three people, a religious person, an atheist and an agnostic are standing around arguing about the context of a box without being able to open the box.
The religious persons says, “As a matter of faith I believe there are all kinds of wonderful things inside the box.”
The atheist says, “Using my giant pulsating brain I have reasoned with absolute certainty that the box is empty.”
The agnostic says, “I don’t know what, if anything, is inside the box because we haven’t looked inside the box.”
Agnosticism, I explained, is a statement about the limits of human knowledge and not a statement one way or the other about the totality of existence.
My son thought about this and said, “Most likely, if they managed to open the box, they’ll just find another box inside.”
I’m pretty sure he’s right about that.
So Obama has decided to keep rendition and the torture it implies as part of U.S. covert operations. Surprise, Surprise. Turns out that instead of being a sign of pure personal evil, at least threatening to torture spies and illegal combatants is a necessary tool for even the most “enlightened” individuals.
Of course, anyone who spent any time actually studying the matter instead of trying to score rhetorical points out of selfish political motives knew that something like this is needed and as always has been.