Last year Elizabeth Van Nostrand and I recorded a podcast episode debating whether EA is headed for Renaissance or Diaspora.
We have recorded a new episode of our podcast with Austin Chen of Manifund (formerly of Manifold, behind the scenes at Manifest).
The start of the conversation was contrasting each of our North Stars- Winning (Austin), Truthseeking (Elizabeth), and Flow (me). We eventually got into a discussion of Sam Bankman-Fried, where Austin very bravely shared his position that SBF has been unwisely demonized and should be “freed and put back to work”. He by no means convinced Elizabeth or me of this, but we deeply appreciate the chance for a public debate.
Episode:
Transcript (this time with filler words removed by AI)
For bonus content from Elizabeth and me, check out our second episode (Austin's is our third), in which we start to sketch a road map for an EA Renaissance we would both endorse: Audio recording; Transcript
Editing policy we allow guests (and hosts) to redact things they said, on the theory that this is no worse than not saying them in the first place. We aspire but don’t guarantee to note serious redactions in the recording. Elizabeth also edits for interest and time.
Thanks to our listeners and commenters, and especially our Manifund donors, EAIF, and Elizabeth's Patreon patrons for funding our work on this.
A few quotes I wanna speak on:
I think it’s heavy downplaying—potentially even disingenuous—to leave racism out of the discussion when talking about Hanania. It’s a demonstrable fact that he wrote for neo-Nazi and white supremacist organisations in the past, but when Austin talks about him ‘growing’, it’s not that he has denounced this work (FWIW, he has), but that he now supports animal welfare. It’s a bit of a non sequitur, nobody is arguing he used to be racist against shrimp?
The same goes for the other speakers. They aren’t controversial because of their opinions on embryo selection. They are controversial because they routinely endorse human biodiversity. Austin knows this, because all of the controversy around Manifest was about the topic of human biodiversity.
Evidently, Austin understands something about the dynamics here. But the language such as ‘people who are more sensitive to this’ feels indicative that he doesn’t believe that the racism is the problem; rather, it is the reactions of a particular profile of person.
I don’t feel like Austin has internalised that people aren’t merely offended or sensitive to racism; they are harmed by it, and want to both avoid spaces that cause them harm, and prevent future harm caused by spreading those ideas. The difference is that offence is a reaction that you can behaviourally train yourself out of, but harm is a thing that is done to you.
More broadly, Austin repeatedly speaks about trade-offs between ‘winning’ (success, sometimes framed as harmony) and ‘standing up for what’s right’, which is sometimes framed as a form of truth-seeking. But this implicitly frames inquiry into and discussion of human biodiversity as a form of truth-seeking. David Thorstad has already written at length about why that’s harmful, so I’ll defer to his work on that.
Hey! Thanks for the thoughts. I'm unfortunately very busy these days (including, with preparing for Manifest 2025!) so can't guarantee I'll be able to address everything thoroughly, but a few quick points, written hastily and without strong conviction: