Debate: Robots will eventually dominate the world

Jesus; Liar Lunatic Lord, or realistic?

I don't like C.S. Lewis' Liar Lunatic or Lord argument (the Lewis Trilemma). It goes like this; Jesus said some pretty crazy things about him being Lord. Is he a liar? No because it conflicts with his character. Is he a Lunatic? No because it conflicts with his character. Well then it must be that he really is Lord.

Criticisms of the Lewis Trilemma have been made. One is that he might be a legend. This largely comes from people who are trying so hard to prove that there isn't a God that fall into their own kind of religiosity. If you have time read Bart Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist? He says that it is not only his professional opinion that Jesus existed, but the professional opinion of almost all New Testament Scholars. Ehrman is a high ranking New Testament Scholar and atheist who is more commonly found defending his atheism from Christians than defending Christians, but defending Christians he does. So he gets a lot of credibility when he defend's Jesus' existence from the Mythisists. Or if that's not good enough you could always read the many reasons he gives in the book, but of course, reasons are for suckers.

Another Criticism of the Lewis Trilemma is Space Alien... that Jesus might be a space alien. Hey, it's not more unrealistic than believing he's God, right? The problem with this you're substituting belief in one crazy thing for another. Maybe Jesus isn't Lord, but you have to go all the way to Space Alien to prove it. Why atheists are more comfortable with things like space alien and not Lord is beyond me.

I think the best criticism is one that I never hear talked about. Jesus was inconsistent. When we look at historical figures we tend to turn them into cartoon characters; not a lot of layers. Jesus could have been very profound when he talked about loving each other, and at the same time very loony when he talked about his role in the Kingdom of God. I know lots of people who are fanatical about some things and not about others. Or are liars about some things and not about others. Lots of sensible honest people will say insensible dishonest things about their favorite politician for example.

Liar Lunatic Lord? Or how about just not a cartoon character?

Best of Bryan Caplan

My brother has been listening to econ-talk, and more recently focused on Bryan Caplan episodes. He likes them a lot. I love econ-talk, but I've watched/listened to everything Bryan Caplan has on the internet, and my favorite interview with him is on Rationally Speaking: Does Parenting Matter.

My other favorite other things Bryan Caplan are his Night Watchman State talk, his liberty vs efficiency debate, and his Separation of Health and State Debate.

Bryan Caplan on Canadian Immigration and Healthcare

Here is what Bryan Caplan thinks of Canadian Healthcare. Er, parts of it. Actually it's about what he thinks about immigration...

Canadians are hardly alone, so why single them out?  Because their blatant exclusion of sick foreigners directly contradicts their stellar international reputation for compassion and common sense.  As usual, the welfare state isn't about helping the poor and desperate.  It's about helping relatively poor and desperate members of your tribe while keeping absolutely poor and desperate human beings comfortably out of sight.  Sick.

Lowest measured risk

Statisticians have measured the risk of dying as a result of cancer caused by the release of plutonium from a deep space probe that loses control during its swing around the Earth to gain velocity and burns up in the atmosphere—measures in at three-millionths of one percent.

So enough people to make a news story and worry people.

Health and Safety Class vs. Standard Economics of Risk

For work I'm required to take a health and safety class for eight hours every week. What I take away from the class is how to cover my ass as an employer, but the instructor wants me to take it a step further. He wants me to believe in the regulation, when I simply don't.

One tactic he tried to use to get me to become a believer is storytelling. He told us about a friend who had an accident at work (of course it was all the employer's fault). As a result of the accident, her elbows were permanently damaged. Here's the crux of his argument; she could no longer pick up her child because of the accident. "You can't put a price on that," he said. The whole room nodded, except for me.

Suppose we could go back in time and shut down the entire multi-million dollar firm she worked for. Without the firm, she never hurts herself and she can pick up her child again. Should we shut down the firm? As soon as you say no, you've just put a price on her ability to pick up her child. If you say yes, you should really shut down pretty much every industry ever because accidents will always be possible. And with so many potential people for an accident to happen to, it will happen to one of them no matter how low the risk.

These people see the purpose of legislation as reducing risk to as close to 0 as possible. A more sensible task is to move risk to the level that a fully informed, sensible person would have if all the costs and benefits belonged to him.

If I as a reasonable person stand on a counter in my kitchen to get a bag of chips,
The chips are mine if I succeed
The damage is mine if I fall
I know the risk of me falling is very small (less than 1%)
I know the risk if I fall of me doing serious damage is pretty small (less than 10%)
I still stand on the counter in my kitchen to get a bag of chips,
Then that is a reasonable risk, and a risk that I should be able to take at work

look, there are lots of economists who think the health and safety regulation is good. That's not what I'm disputing. Of course there are times when an employer receives the benefits and an employee receives the risk and there's a market failure there. The real question then is what would the risk level be if the employee received the all benefits or if the employer were taking all the risk. That's the risk level to shoot for. That's the target. The risk level currently being shot for is 0, and you can see that in the pages and pages of legislation we go over that tries to prevent any possible harm.

If tragic stories keep substituting for statistical competency and the standard economic logic of risk, the world will never be as good as it could be.

Eliezer Ydkowski's The Sequences

If you've never read Eliezer Yudkowski's Sequences, now is the time. I highly recommend it.

In this essay I pose questions. If you see what seems like a really obvious answer, it’s probably the answer I intend. The obvious choice isn’t always the best choice, but sometimes, by golly, it is. I don’t stop looking as soon I find an obvious answer, but if I go on looking, and the obvious-seeming answer still seems obvious, I don’t feel guilty about keeping it. Oh, sure, everyone thinks two plus two is four, everyone says two plus two is four, and in the mere mundane drudgery of everyday life everyone behaves as if two plus two is four, but what does two plus two really, ultimately equal? As near as I can figure, four. It’s still four even if I intone the question in a solemn, portentous tone of voice. Too simple, you say? Maybe, on this occasion, life doesn’t need to be complicated. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?