Thank you !
The links to the report are now fixed.
The 4 blog posts cover most of the same ground as the report. The report goes into more detail, especially in sections 5 & 6.
Jeffrey Heninger
Karma: 1,034
I think this is true of an environmentalist movement that wants there to be a healthy environment for humans; I’m not sure this is true of an environmentalist movement whose main goal is to dismantle capitalism.
I talk about mission creep in the report, section 6.6.
Part of ‘making alliances with Democrats’ involved environmental organizations adopting leftist positions on other issues.
Different environmental organizations have seen more or less mission creep. The examples I give in the report are the women’s issues for the World Wildlife Fund:
In many parts of the developing world, women of all ages play a critical role in managing natural resources, which they rely on for food, water, medicine, and fuel wood for their families. Yet they often are excluded from participating in decisions about resource use.[1]
and the Sierra Club:
The Sierra Club is a pro-choice organization that endorses comprehensive, voluntary reproductive health care for all. Sexual and reproductive health and rights are inalienable human rights that should be guaranteed for all people with no ulterior motive. A human rights-based approach to climate justice centers a person’s bodily autonomy and individual choice.[2]
It’s hard to date exactly when many of this positions were adopted by major environmental organizations, but my impression is sometime in the 1990s or 2000s. That’s when the Sierra Club started making presidential endorsements and when several major environmental organizations started promoting environmental justice.
This mission creep is part of the story. Allowing mission creep into controversial positions that are not directly related to the movement’s core goals makes it harder to build bipartisan coalitions.
- ^
“Women and girls,” World Wildlife Fund, Accessed: March 28, 2024. https://www.worldwildlife.
org/initiatives/women-and-girls. - ^
The Sierra Club and population issues,” Sierra Club, Accessed: March 28, 2024. https://www.sier
raclub.org/sierra-club-and-population-issues.The title for this page is not explicitly about gender, but to get to this page from the “People & Justice” page, you click on “Read more” in the section: “And our future depends on gender equity.”
- ^
This is trying to make environmentalism become partisan, but in the other direction.
Environmentalists could just not have positions on most controversial issues, and instead focus more narrowly on the environment.
There is also the far right in France, which is not the same as the right wing in America, but is also not Joe Biden. From what I can tell, the far right in France supports environmentalism.[1]
Macron & Le Pen seem to have fairly similar climate policies. Both want France’s electricity to be mostly nuclear – Le Pen more so. Both are not going to raise fuel taxes – Macron reluctantly. Le Pen talks more about hydrogen and reshoring manufacturing from countries which emit more (and claims that immigration is bad for France’s environmental goals). Macron supports renewables in addition to nuclear power. The various leftists seem to be interested in phasing out nuclear & replacing it with renewables. None of the parties dismiss climate change as an issue and all are committed to following international climate agreements.
- ^
Kate Aronoff. Marine Le Pen’s Climate Policy Leans Ecofascist. The New Republic. (2022) https://newrepublic.com/article/166097/marine-le-pens-climate-policy-whiff-ecofascism.
- ^
I think it was possible for the environmental movement to form alliances with politicians in both parties, and for environmentalism to have remained bipartisan.
Comparing different countries and comparing the same country at different times is not the same thing as a counterfactual, but it can be very helpful for understanding counterfactuals. In this case, the counterfactual US is taken to be similar to the US in the 1980s or to the UK, France, or South Korea today.
I think you should ask the author of the song if it’s referring to someone using powerful AI to do something transformative to the sun.
This is extremely obvious to me. The song is opposed to how the sun currently is, calling it “wasteful” and “distasteful”—the second word is a quote from a fictional character, but the first is not. It later talks about when “the sun’s a battery,” so something about the sun is going to change. I really don’t know what “some big old computer” could be referring to if not powerful AI.
Thank you for responding! I am being very critical, both in foundational and nitpicky ways. This can be annoying and make people want to circle the wagons. But you and the other organizers are engaging constructively, which is great.
The distinction between Solstice representing a single coherent worldview vs. a series of reflections also came up in comments on a draft. In particular, the Spinozism of Songs Stay Sung feels a lot weirder if it is taken as the response to the darkness, which I initially did, rather than one response to the darkness.Nevertheless, including something in Solstice solidly establishes it as a normal / acceptable belief for rationalists: within the local Overton Window. You might not be explicitly telling people that they ought to believe something, but you are telling that it is acceptable for high status people in their community to believe it. I am concerned that some of these beliefs are even treated as acceptable.
Take Great Transhumanist Future. It has “a coder” dismantling the sun “in another twenty years with some big old computer.” This is a call to accelerate AI development, and use it for extremely transformative actions. Some of the organizers believe that this is the sort of thing that will literally kill everyone. Even if it goes well, it would make life as it currently exists on the surface of the Earth impossible. Life could still continue in other ways, but some of us might want to still live here in 20 years.[1] I don’t think that reckless AI accelerationism should be treated as locally acceptable.
The line in Brighter Than Today points in the same way. It’s not only anti-religious. It is also disparaging towards people who warn about the destructive potential of a new technology. Is that an attitude we want to establish as normal?If the main problem with changing the songs is in making them scan and rhyme, then I can probably just pay that cost. This isn’t a thing I’m particularly skilled at, but there are people who are who are adjacent to the community. I’m happy to ask them to rewrite a few lines, if the new versions will plausibly be used.
If the main problem with changing the songs is that many people in this community want to sing about AI accelerationism and want the songs to be anti-religious, then I stand by my criticisms.
- ^
Is this action unilateral? Unclear. There might be a global consensus building phase, or a period of reflection. They aren’t mentioned in the song. These processes can’t take very long given the timelines.
- ^
The London subway was private and returned enough profit to slowly expand while it was coal powered. Once it electrified, it became more profitable and expanded quickly.
The Baltimore tunnel was and is part of an intercity line that is mostly above ground. It was technologically similar to London, but operationally very different.
I chose the start date of 1866 because that is the first time the New York Senate appointed a committee to study rapid transit in New York, which concluded that New York would be best served by an underground railroad. It’s also the start date that Katz uses.
The technology was available. London opened its first subway line in 1863. There is a 1.4 mi railroad tunnel from 1873 in Baltimore that is still in active use today. These early tunnels used steam engines. This did cause ventilation challenges, but they were resolvable. The other reasonable pre-electricity option would be to have stationary steam engines at a few places, open to the air, that pulled cables that pulled the trains. There were also some suggestions of dubious power mechanisms, like the one you described here. None of the options were as good as electric trains, but some of them could have been made to work.
This is not a global technological overhang, because there continued to be urban railroad innovation in other cities. It would only be overhang for New York City. This is a more restrictive definition of overhang than I used in my previous post, but it might still be interesting to see what happened with local overhang.
The original version of the song reads to me as being deist or pantheist. You could replace ‘God’ with ‘Nature’ and the meaning would be almost the same. My view of Divinely Guided Evolution has a personal God fiddling with random mutations and randomly determined external factors to create the things He wants.
It is definitely anti-Young-Earth-Creationism, but it is also dismissive of the Bible. Even if you don’t think that Genesis 1 should be treated as a chronology, I think that you should take the Bible seriously. Its commentary on what it means to be human is important.
Many of these seem reasonable. The “book of names” sounds to me like the Linnaean taxonomy, while the “book of night” sounds like astronomical catalogues. I don’t know as much about geology, but the “book of earth” could be geological surveys.
This kind of science is often not exciting. Rutherford referred to it as “stamp collecting.” It is very useful for the practice of future generations of scientists. For example, if someone wants to do a survey of various properties of binary star systems, they don’t have to find a bunch of examples themselves (and worry about selection effects) because someone else has already done it and listed them in a catalogue. It is nice to celebrate this kind of thankless work.
The closing lines are weird: “Humans write the book of truth… Truth writes the world.” This sounds like constructivist epistemology. The rest of the song has empiricist epistemology: Truth is determined by the external world, not written by humans. Maybe something like “Humans can read the book of truth.… Truth comes from the world.” (Although this adds syllables...)
If it were done at Lighthaven, it would have to be done outdoors. This does present logistical problems.
I would guess that making Lighthaven’s outdoor space usable even if it rains would cost much less (an order of magnitude?) than renting out an event space, although it might cost other resources like planning time that are in more limited supply.
If Lighthaven does not want to subsidize Solstice, or have the space reserved a year in advance, then that would make this option untenable.
It’s also potentially possible to celebrate Solstice in January, when event spaces are more available.
Staggering the gathering in time also works. Many churches repeat their Christmas service multiple times over the course of the day, to allow more people to come than can fit in the building.
There’s another reason for openness that I should have made clearer. Hostility towards Others is epistemically and ethically corrosive. It makes it easier to dismiss people who do agree with you, but have different cultural markers. If a major thing that unifies the community is hostility to an outgroup, then it weakens the guardrails against actions based on hate or spite. If you hope to have compassion for all conscious creatures, then a good first step is to try to have compassion for the people close to you who are really annoying.
Christianity seems to be unusually open to everyone, but I think this is partially a side effect of evangelism.
I endorse evangelism broadly. If you think that your beliefs are true and good, then you should be trying to share them with more people. I don’t think that this openness should be unusual, because I’d hope that most ideologies act in a similar way.
So I think the direction in which you would want Solstice to change—to be more positive towards religion, to preach humility/acceptance rather than striving/heroism—is antithetical to one of Solstice’s core purposes.
While I would love to see the entire rationalist community embrace the Fulness of the Gospel of Christ, I am aware that this is not a reasonable ask for Solstice, and not something I should bet on in a prediction market. While I criticize the Overarching Narrative, I am aware that this is not something that I will change.
My hopes for changing Solstice are much more modest:
Remove the inessential meanness directed towards religion. There already has been some of this, which is great ! Time Wrote the Rocks no longer falsely claims that the Church tortured Galileo. The Ballad of Smallpox Gone no longer has a verse claiming that preachers want to “Screw the body, save the soul // Bring new deaths off the shelves”. Now remove the human villains from Brighter Than Today, and you’ve improved things a lot.
Once or twice, acknowledge that some of the moral giants whose shoulders we’re standing on were Christian. The original underrated reasons to be thankful had one point about Quaker Pennsylvania. Unsong’s description of St. Francis of Assisi also comes to mind. If you’re interested, I could make several other suggestions of things that I think could be mentioned without disrupting the core purposes of Solstice.
also it’s a lot more work to setup
How hard would it be to project them? There was a screen, and it should be possible to project at least two lines with music large enough for people to read. Is the problem that we don’t have sheet music that’s digitized in a way to make this feasible for all of the songs?
This is more volunteer-based than I was expecting. I would have guessed that Solstice had a lot of creative work, the choir, and day-of work done by volunteers, but that the organizers and most of the performers were paid (perhaps below market rates). As it is, it is probably more volunteer-based than most Christmas programs.
I’ll edit the original post to say that this suggestion is already being followed.
This kind of situation is dealt with in Quine’s Two Dogmas of Empiricism, especially the last section, “Empiricism Without the Dogmas.” This is a short (~10k words), straightforward, and influential work in the philosophy of science, so it is really worth reading the original.
Quine describes science as a network of beliefs about the world. Experimental measurements form a kind of “boundary conditions” for the beliefs. Since belief space is larger than the space of experiments which have been performed, the boundary conditions meaningfully constrain but do not fully determine the network.
The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field.
Some beliefs are closer to the core of the network: changing them would require changing lots of other beliefs. Some beliefs are closer to the periphery: changing them would change your beliefs about a few contingent facts about the world, but not much else.
In this example, the belief in Newton’s laws are much closer to the core than the belief in the stability of this particular pendulum.[1]
When an experiment disagrees with our expectations, it is not obvious where the change should be made. It could be made close to the edges, or it could imply that something is wrong with the core. It is often reasonable for science (as a social institution) to prefer changes made in the periphery over changes made in the core. But this is not always the implication the experiment makes.
A particular example that I am fond of involves the perihelion drifts of Uranus and Mercury. By the early 1800s, there was good evidence that the orbits of both planets were different from what Newtonian mechanics predicted. Both problems would be resolved by the mid 1900s, but the resolutions were very different. The unexpected perihelion drift of Uranus was explained by the existence of another planet in our solar system: Neptune. The number of planets in our solar system is a periphery belief: changing it does not require many other beliefs to change. People then expected that Mercury’s unexpected perihelion drift would have a similar cause: a yet undiscovered planet close to the sun, which they named Vulcan. This was wrong.[2] Instead, the explanation was the Newtonian mechanics was wrong and had to be replaced by general relativity. Even though the evidence in both cases was the same, they implied that there should be changes made at different places in the web of beliefs.
- ^
Also, figuring things out in hindsight is totally allowed in science. Many of our best predictions are actually postdictions. Predictions are more impressive, but postdictions are evidence too.
The biggest problem these students have is being too committed to not using hindsight.
- ^
I would say that this planet was not discovered, except apparently in 1859 a French physician / amateur astronomer named Lescarbault observed a black dot transiting the sun which looked like a planet with an orbital period of 19 days.
I would say that this observation was not replicated, except it was. Including by professional astronomers (Watson & Swift) who had previously discovered multiple asteroids and comets. It was not consistently replicated, and photographs of solar eclipses in 1901, 1905, and 1908 did not show it.
What should we make of these observations?
There’s always recourse to extremely small changes right next to the empirical boundary conditions. Maybe Lescarbault, Watson, Swift, & others were mistaken about what they saw. Or maybe they were lying. Or maybe you shouldn’t even believe my claim that they said this.
These sorts of dismissals might feel nasty, but they are an integral part of science. Some experiments are just wrong. Maybe you figure out why (this particular piece of equipment wasn’t working right), and maybe you don’t. Figuring out what evidence should be dismissed, what evidence requires significant but not surprising changes, and what evidence requires you to completely overhaul your belief system is a major challenge in science. Empiricism itself does not solve the problem because, as Quine points out, the web of beliefs is underdetermined by the totality of measured data.
- ^
I’m currently leaning towards
kings and commonwealths and all
http://aiimpacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Why-Did-Environmentalism-Become-Partisan-1.pdf