Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

by Arturo Macias
3 min read 0

0

PhilosophyPolicyUtilitarianism
Personal Blog

Idolatry is the worship of non-conscious objects, sometimes falsely attributing consciousness to them, sometimes putting the value of some admittedly nonconscious being over that of conscious beings. Idolatry leads to human sacrifice because to prove your idol more important than the human soul the natural test is to sacrifice a human in the altar of the idol. That is precisely why Judaism was founded on the prohibition of idolatry and human sacrifice.

When the religious idols of the past were weakened, political idolatries substituted them. Race, nation and the working class were given intrinsic reality and value. Let’s be clear: I am absolutely for sacrificing yourself or even others for an idea, if in the other side of the idea there are real humans improving their happiness and potential. If the flag, the party, or the ideology serves the people, sacrifice is not idolatry, but martyrdom. But conscious beings must only sacrifice for other conscious beings because nothing in this world is higher than us. 

For a few decades after the second World War, this idea was almost universal. Different branches of humanism fought often cruel wars, but always under the banner of a better tomorrow. Those happy days are over. 

The fear of death, the feeling of disenchantment toward a world where there is not more guide than your own mind has conjured back the political and religious demons of the past. Mind is real and conscious, but mortal. The human longing for eternal existence is the natural portal for the smuggling of idolatry: a rock, a tree or some arbitrarily defined tribe (nation, race, even gender) can outlast your life, so it is natural to put those trivial but durable objects over the daily miracle of (mortal) consciousness. 

But nothing really exists but you (your conscious mind, your cartesian self, your res cogitans) and other conscious beings. The public life is instrumental: the government, the flag or the garbage collection service are necessary, and consequently worthy of the sacrifice of blood and treasury, but their value is to make the private life possible. It is in private life where we find what matters: romantic love, family life and the quest for knowledge, enlightenment and creation. 

The price of discarding superstition is accepting that the meaning of existence is not something we have to search for, but something we create. The humble utility function in the Economics textbook is in fact a massive metaphysical burden that every intelligent being must cope with. What do I want? Adam was given by God the task of naming the world, and we have inherited the task of putting value on it. The task is massive, and freedom is often seen by moral weaklings as the ultimate slavery. We end up hating our reason and desire. As Jacob, we wrestle with God’s angel, with our own image.   

But the only alternative to freedom and reason is self-mutilation. I read “Memoirs of Hadrian” in my early twenties, and I knew that I had read the only self-help book I would ever need; what else can you do with your life but a work of art? A work of art is not made of truth (while it shall respect truth), but of will and desire. 

Sometimes, of course, you can feel disenchanted, and of course you can always find some shaman, offering you comfort at the modest cost of your soul now (probably of your blood tomorrow). The race of Baal worshippers is inexhaustible: esoteric nationalists (René Guénon, Julius Evola,  Alexander Dugin), religious totalitarians (Sayyid Qutb, Edmund Waldstein) and race and gender critic theorists (Theo Goldberg, Andrea Dworkin) are irredeemable enemies first of Truth, then of Mankind. Politics is as complex as the problems of society itself, and there is room for massive disagreement, but many political ideologies are idolatry, and we can effortlessly reject them.

0

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Policy
20
Hiring pre-docs
Eva
· · 1m read
0
0
113
USAID Aid Freeze - Bridge Fund established - Donate now for immediate relief
James&Joe
· · 1m read
15
15
31
Impact in Global Development: A Discussion Series
DavidNash
· · 5m read
1
1
View more