Humans are an evil god-species

Humanity, as a species, attained god-like power over the physical world and then used that power to create a massive sprawling hell.

It obviously depends on where you draw the lines, but the majority of the participants of civilization, right now, are being tortured1 in factory farms. For every currently living human, there is currently about one cow or pig living in hellish conditions, and about 3 chickens living in hellish conditions.

(This is not counting the fish or the shrimp, which massively increases the ratio of civilization-participants-in-hell-on-purpose to not. It’s also not counting the rats, raccoons, pidgons, etc, which pushes the ratio down. Leaving all of them out, the humans are only about 20% of the participants of human civilization, the other 80% are living in continuously torturous conditions.)

We did that. Human civilization built a hell for the creatures that it has power over.

If you told a fantasy story about a race of gods with massive power over the non-god races on their planet, and the gods used their power to breed the other races to massive numbers in constant conditions that are so bad that never having been born is preferable, there wouldn’t be the slightest question of whether the gods were good or evil.

Depending on the tenor of the story, you might zoom in on the evil-gods living their lives in their golden towers, and see their happy and loving relationships, or their spaceships and computers and art. You could tell whole stories that just take place just in the golden cities, and feel charmed by the evil gods.

But it would be the height of myopic bias to focus on the golden cities and call the gods, as a collective, Good.

When I think about the state of human civilization, the overwhelmingly important facts are 1) humans are rushing to build a more capable successor species without thinking very hard about that and 2) humans have constructed a hell for most of the beings that live in their civilization.(There’s also the impact on wild animal suffering “outside of” our civilization, which does complicate things.)

There other things that are important to track—like the decay of liberal norms, and the development of new institutions, and the the economic growthrate—because they are relevant for modeling the dynamics of civilization. But, if the quality of life of all the humans doubled, it wouldn’t even show up on the on the graph of total-wellbeing on planet earth.

Humans are an evil god-species.

  1. One might rightly object to calling what’s happening in factory farms “torture”. Torture, one could claim, means taking actions specifically to make someone’s experience bad, not just incidentally making someone’s experience very bad. I think this is arguable. If a mad scientist kidnaped someone and slowly skinned them alive, not out of any ill will towards the kidnaped, but just out of a scientific interest about what would happen, I think it would be reasonable for that person to say that the mad scientist tortured them. Doing harm to someone that is so bad that you might do to someone if your goal was to specifically cause them enormous pain, can be reasonable called torture. ↩︎

Some powers have ethical valence

There’s a trope of many fantasy settings, different kinds of magic have different moral valence, and your use of each kind influences your morality. Or alternatively, you moral character has effects which magics you can use.

In the starwars extended universe, there’s the light side and the dark side. It’s usually implied that the use of the powers of the dark side are seductive and corrupting.

‘Is the Dark Side stronger?’

‘No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.’

It’s not (to my limited knowledge, at least), explained why or how using particular force powers is leads one to the poor moral behavior, but it is stated that accessing dark side powers requires tapping into “negative” emotions, like fear and anger. Presumably there’s some magical explanation for why using the dark side is so corrupting. But as a matter of simple psychology, using the dark side entails nurturing and cultivating emotions and emotional dispositions that are generally not good for your soul.

In my memory of the Knights of the Old Republic game, the causality went in the other direction: your alignment on the light side dark side axis was determined by the choices that you made in the game. High integrity and altruistic choices moved you towards the lightside and selfish, vengeful, or ruthless choices moved you towards the dark side.

And there’s a broader version of the trope, of the wizard who conducts dark rituals with demonic beings, and this being a slippery slope to evil as exposure to those powers (and the kinds of sacrifices they demand in exchange for power) warps his or her soul.

There’s a parallel of this dynamic in real life.

Some skills have a moral valence, because they disproportionately favor cooperation or exploitation. Which skills you choose to develop shapes your affordances, which shapes your moral habits and choices.

For instance, if you learn to lie skillfully, you build an affordance for lying. When faced with a problem a prominent tool in your toolbox will be to lie to get your way. This puts an incentive on you to use that tool when you can, and thereby leads you to less ethical behavior than you might otherwise have chosen.

Another example: various persuasion techniques that take exploit human biases to get others to agree to what you want generally lean evil. They’re more symmetrical than argument, and methods in that class have a disproportionately larger set of outcomes in which you get others to agree to something counter to their idealized or reflective interests.

It’s not that this couldn’t possibly be used for Good. It’s that honing this as a skill, builds affordances of ethically dubious action.

In contrast, Convergent Facilitation, an offshoot of NonViolent Communication, is a group decision making framework that involves hearing, holding, and solving for the disparate needs of everyone in a group, and thereby drawing out both the willingness to adapt and the creativity of the whole group. This is a technique that is structurally cooperative. Helping other people get what’s important to them is a functional part of the technique, not a side benefit that could in principle be stripped away, for better selfish efficiency.

A person who puts skill points into getting really good at Convergent Facilitation is building skill that supports cooperative behavior, as someone who puts skill points into psychological persuasion techniques is building skill that supports adversariality. Investing in one or the other shapes the affordances that are available to you in any given situation. If you’re good at persuading people, you’ll see those options, and if you’re good at CF, you’ll see opportunities to do CF-like moves to find mutually supportive solutions.

The better you are at lying, the more tempting it is to lie.

That difference in affordances corresponds to a difference in payoffs: If you’re good at persuasion, it’s a higher cost to forge that strategy when it would be unethical to use. The tools you’re skilled with exert a vacuum pull towards their ethical attractor.

In this way, the some skills have a moral valence. Which you choose to cultivate exert pressures on the condition of your soul.

A series of vignettes for thinking about assisting corrupt regimes to prosecute crimes

I was talking with a someone about whether you should always help the police prosecute serious crimes, up to and including rape and murder, even if you know that the police system is corrupt. I said that I would support the police in prosecuting a murder, but I didn’t think that this was a slam-dunk obvious moral conclusion. This was my response to them.

I don’t have a super strong take about what the correct answer is here, only that there’s a moral dilemma to contend with at all.

I

Let’s start with this hypothetical:

Let’s say you live in a slum in Chicago. The neighborhood you live in is controlled by a gang. Police officers mostly don’t go into your neighborhood, because the gang has a tight hold on it.

The primary activities of the gang are selling crack, and extorting protection money. That’s their main business model. There are a bunch of grunts, but the top guys in the organization get pretty rich this way.

That business model entails maintaining control over their territory. So if someone else tries to sell crack in your neighborhood, they’ll scare him away, and if he comes back, they’ll kill him. And a lot of violence is bad for business, so if someone not in the gang is roughing people up, the gang will typically threaten them, drive them away, hurt them, or kill them. (If a member of the gang kills someone unnecessarily, they might get reprimanded for being stupid, but probably not much more than that.)

If someone is murdered by a non-gang-member, the gang won’t do much of an investigation. But usually it’s pretty clear who did it. And depending on who was killed, killing someone on gang territory represents a challenge to the gang’s power, and so they’ll probably find and kill the perpetrator, in retribution.

The gang is a major “social institution” in your neighborhood. They’re the closest thing to an organization of law and order that’s around.

I claim that it is NOT obvious that if someone is murdered, you should help the gang find and kill the perpetrator.

That might sometimes turn out to be the best available option, especially if the killer seems really dangerous. But helping the gang is basically siding with one set of murderers against another. And by helping them you’re adding whatever social weight you have to their legitimacy as the Schelling norm-enforcement institution.

Probably if the gang suddenly got a lot weaker, such that they stopped being the Schelling “biggest force around”, things would get locally worse, as a bunch of smaller gangs would make a play for the power vacuum. There would be more violence, not less, until eventually you’ll settle into a new lower-violence equilibrium where there’s some other gang that’s dominant (or maybe a few gangs, which have divided and staked out the old territory). 

But that the collapse of the gang’s power would be locally bad, doesn’t make it obvious that supporting them is the moral thing to do. 

II

That’s one hypothetical. Now let’s try on a different one.

Let’s say that literally all of the above circumstances obtain, but instead of a gang, it’s the local police force that’s behaving this way.

Let’s say you live in a slum in Chicago. The neighborhood you live in is controlled by the local police department. Police officers from other jurisdictions mostly don’t go into your neighborhood, because this local police force has a tight hold on it.

The primary activities of the police force are selling crack, and extorting protection money. That’s their main business model. There are a bunch of grunts, but the top guys in the organization get pretty rich this way.

That business model entails maintaining control over their territory. So if someone else tries to sell crack in your neighborhood, the police will scare him away, and if he comes back, they’ll kill him. And a lot of violence is bad for business, so if someone who’s not a member of the department is roughing people up, the police officers will typically threaten them, drive them away, hurt them, or kill them. (If a police officer kills someone unnecessarily, they might get reprimanded for being stupid, but probably not much more than that.)

If someone is murdered by a non-police-officer, the police won’t do much of an investigation. But usually it’s pretty clear who did it. And depending on who was killed, killing someone on their territory represents a challenge to the department’s power, and so they’ll probably find and kill the perpetrator in retribution.

The police department is a major “social institution” in your neighborhood. They’re the closest thing to an organization of law and order that’s around.

It is maybe an important difference between the first hypothetical and this one, that the gang wears police uniforms. But I don’t think it is much of a cruxy difference. If we blur our eyes and look at the effects, the second scenario is almost identical to the first. It’s only the labels that are different.

If it seems morally incorrect to side with the local gang in the first hypothetical, then it seems morally incorrect to side with the police in the second. That an organization is called “the police” is rarely cruxy for whether they deserve our support as a bastion of civilization.

III

That was a hypothetical. Now let’s talk about some real historical cases.

Let’s consider the sheriff of a small town in the South around 1885.

The primary function of the Sheriff is maintaining white supremacy. He does that in a bunch of ways, but most notably, he goes around arresting black men on extremely flimsy legal pretext (“loitering” or “vagrancy”, if the man goes into town, for instance, or for failing to pay debts that he was forced to take on), and sometimes no legal pretext at all. He and the local judge sentence the black man to hard labor, and then sell a contract for that man’s labor to one of their buddies, a man who owns a mine up-state.

The black man will probably spend the rest of his life doing forced labor for that mine-owner. Every time the end of his sentence is coming up, he’ll be penalized for some infraction that will necessitate extending his sentence. That way, the mine can continue to extort his labor indefinitely.

The Sheriff, the Judge, and the mine-owners all make a profit from this.

Sometimes people from the North come down and observe this system. Some of them are appalled, but no one wants another Civil War, and there’s a balance of power in the federal government that lets the Southern states govern themselves how the choose. So no one stops this, even though it’s definitely illegal by common law and by US federal law.

Sometimes, when a white man is murdered, the Sheriff will do an investigation and punish the perpetrator. But often, they’ll probably scapegoat and lynch a black man for it, instead. But, I presume that he does (at least sometimes) do basically appropriate law-enforcement work, arresting and prosecuting white criminals, approximately according to the law.

This really happened. For decades. 

(If you want to know more you might check out the book Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II. I think there’s also a PBS documentary. I don’t know if it’s any good.) 

This seems to me to be much worse than a police force that is primarily selling crack and extorting protection money.

That Sheriff is the only game in town for law and order. He is legally empowered by the local government. But the local government is so corrupt and evil as to not to be morally legitimate. I don’t think it deserves my support.

If there’s a murder, even if I trusted that the Sheriff would find and prosecute the perpetrator instead of a scapegoat, I might not want to evoke (and thereby reinforce) his authority, which is not legitimately held.

IV

Now let’s talk about today.

Here’s some stats that I could grab quickly.

  • American prisons are famously inhumane. Inmates are regularly raped or killed.
  • One out of three black men go to prison in their lifetimes.
  • 44% of all the people in American prisons are there for drug offenses. Some large fraction of those are for the victimless crime of smoking weed.
  • 5% of illicit drug users are African American, yet African Americans represent 29% of those arrested and 33% of those incarcerated for drug offenses. African Americans and whites use drugs at similar rates, but the imprisonment rate of African Americans for drug charges is almost 6 times that of whites. (source, which I didn’t factcheck, but these numbers are consistent with my understanding)
  • As of October 2016, there have been 1900 exonerations of the wrongfully accused, 47% of the exonerated were African American. (same source as above.)
  • It is normal for arrested black men to be threatened into making plea bargains, even when they’re innocent. It is normal for arrested black men to fail to receive due process.
  • A Nixon aid said explicitly that the war on drugs was a way of targeting black people:

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” (source)

This…does not look Just to me. This looks like a massive miscarriage of justice

If a person looks at the past history of how black people were treated by law enforcement, and looks at law enforcement today, and notices that the current crimes are being perpetrated by the same institutions that perpetuated the earlier evils, and they conclude that current US law enforcement organizations are immoral and illegitimate and shouldn’t be cooperated with…

Well, I can see where they’re coming from.

It seems to be a pretty live question whether the typical police force, or the criminal justice system as a whole is better conceived of as basically a gang, extorting and exploiting the marginalized fractions of society, or as an imperfect institution (as all institutions are imperfect) of Justice. And depending on which it is (or if it’s some more complicated thing), I’ll have a different view about whether it’s a good idea to cooperate with the police.

First pass on estimating how much I benefit from structural racism

Suppose I wanted to estimate, quantitatively, how much I, personally, have benefited from historical and contemporary structural racism.

I’m interested in this question because I’m at least somewhat sympathetic to the argument that, if I personally benefited from oppressive systems, then there’s some fraction of “my” resources to which I don’t have a legitimate claim. 

(It’s not obvious how I should respond to that situation. A first thought is that I should donate that fraction of my wealth to racial justice charities. In the ideal case those charities might function as an offset, effectively compensating for the harm done. At minimum, disowning that fraction of my resources correctly aligns the incentives. If every person followed this policy <link to deontological principles>, there would be no incentive to enforce white supremacy in the first place. I would prefer not to live in a condition of being incentivized to turn a blind eye to racial injustice, and score moral points by condemning it after the fact. Though depending on the size of the numbers that might entail large moral or personal tradeoffs, and I’ll have to think more about how best to act.)

So how might I go about calculating the personal benefit that I’ve derived from the oppression of blacks in America?

These are some of my first pass thoughts.

Framing the question

Some of the ways that I could possibly have benefited:

  • I was born to a wealthier family, because my parents and grandparents were afforded privileges and advantages at the expense of black people.
  • I had better access to education for being white.
  • I had better access to jobs for being white.
  • I had way lower risk of staying out of prison, including for spurious or trivial offenses.

…and I think that’s about it? (I welcome additional suggestions)

Given my specific, highly unusual work history, I find it pretty implausible that I, personally, benefited from racial privilege.

(It’s possible that my community is more racist than I imagine, but eg I find it pretty hard to imagine Anna or Critch or Oliver turning down my earnest help in the counterfactual where I have black skin. But maybe I’m overstating the degree to which most white people will tend to take black people less seriously, taking their errors and mistakes as stronger evidence for incompetence.)

My educational opportunities seem basically mediated by the wealth of my parents.

So it seems like this question reduces to estimating what fraction of my parent’s relative wealth depends on 0-sum privileges at the expense of black people and to calculating the expected risk of being unfairly imprisoned as a white vs. black person.

A note on what I’m looking for

I’m not just looking for advantages or privileges that I benefit from, that black people lack. I’m looking for places where I derived benefits at the expense of black people, or other racial groups.

It’s straightforward that there barriers to black advancement that I’m just completely free of. My life was clearly made easier by being white.

But those barriers might be in the form of transfers of value, effectively theft from black Americans to white americans. In that case white americans or a subset of white americans come out ahead in absolute terms, from the existence of structural racism. And some of those barriers might be in the form of destruction of value. In this case, the white Americans (or some white Americans) come out ahead in relative terms, because the diff between whites and blacks is bigger, but not in absolute terms.

Economics, in particular, is not in general 0-sum. That there are privileges that I have and others don’t might be bad for them, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is good for me.

One way to frame the question: We can consider a hypothetical world where there wasn’t any systemic racism. In that world, would I have been poorer than in actual history, because in actual history I derived direct and/or indirect benefits from white supremacy? Or would my personal wealth have been about the same (adjusted somewhat for having greater purchasing power in an overall wealthier society), but black people, on average, would be richer. 

In the first case, I’m benefiting from structural racism. In the second case, structural racism is still a massive evil perpetuated in my society, for which I bear at least a little responsibility, but I’m not a beneficiary.

I care about this distinction, because it informs whether the wealth that is legally mine, is legitimately mine to do with as I want, according to my own morality, or not. If my parents gave me some advantages in life, and I capitalized on those advantages to create value in a mostly free market, I consider myself to have a moral right to my share of the gains from trade. But if my advantages are 0-sum, and came, unjustly, at the expense of other racial groups, even if I didn’t choose to opress them, my ownership of that wealth is far more suspect. 

I’m not sure how I should respond to that possibility. Maybe I should give away whatever fraction of my wealth is illigitmately earned, ideally finding some way to reinvest it in the communities from which it was stolen? That might turn out to be unrealistic / infeasible, but it seems like I should owe some extra responsibility if I am the beneficiary of an ongoing theft.

Family Wealth

First of all, it is possible that my parents are financially worse off, on-net, for the existence of structural racism in America. The economy is not, in general, a 0-sum game. Typically, everyone benefits from more people having more economic opportunity, because those people are more productive and society as a whole is wealthier.

It’s plausible that, over the course of the 20th century, rich Southern whites were deriving benefits from oppressing and extracting value from blacks, but that most whites in most of the US were made materially worse off, not better off by this. (In fact, most people are not very literate in economics. It may be that even the whites actively perpetuating white supremacy didn’t benefit on net, and would have been richer if they had created a fairer and more Just society.)

I need to find not just places where my parents or grandparents had advantages that black people mostly lacked, but 0-sum privileges that they were afforded at the expense of black people.

My personal situation: 

My mother was born and grew up in Boston. My maternal grandparents were Jewish, second-generation immigrants from Poland. My grandfather worked as an engineer, including for military contractors.

My dad was likewise born and raised in the Northeast. I don’t know as much about his parentage. Also a third generation immigrant, I think, from Ireland.

Both my mom and dad went to college, then moved to New York city, and worked in the computer industry, doing sales. They’re well off now, in large part because when they were a young couple, they were both motivated by money, and made a lot of it for their age, but they were also judicious: mostly living on one salary and saving the other.

Did they have an advantage securing those jobs because they were white? Would a black man have been handicapped in how much he could sell because of racism?

[Edit: I talked with my dad about his early corporate experience. From 1981 to 1992, he worked for a company called Businessland, selling computers. When he started in, Boston, 2 out of about ~150 people who worked for the company in that region were black. 10 years later, in the early 90’s, when he was a sales manager in New York, about 25% of the ~120 people in that region were either black or hispanic.

He relayed to me that hiring a black person in the 80’s was generally seen as a big risk, and that Boston, in particular, was extremely racist, with segregated neighborhoods that felt and expressed antipathy for each other. New York was better, both because NYC is a uniquely diverse melting pot, and because by the 90s, overt racism had declined.]

Probably the answer to both of those is “at least a little”. But the jobs they held were not sinecures. Sales in particular is a domain in which you can measure performance, which is why salespeople get paid on commission. Someone who was as driven as my dad, but black, would surely have faced discrimination, but how much less would he have made?

But there’s a key point here which is that my parents did work for their wealth. That there were barriers deliberately and emergently placed in front of black people, to make it harder for them to get ahead, doesn’t illegitimate my parents’ wealth accumulation. 

I already know that being black in the United States is a severe handicap. But I want to know in what ways those handicaps were transfers of value from one person to another, not just destruction of value. 

Avoiding prison

Thinking about this one a little further, I expect to see the same dynamic as above, except more strongly. It’s manifestly unjust that a black person goes to prison for smoking marujana, and a white person doesn’t. 

And that’s on the tip of the iceberg of ways that the criminal justice system extorts black / low class people.

But all of those are examples where white people are being granted the rights due to them in a Just society, while black people are being denied those rights. Not a situation where white people are benefiting from special extrajudicial privileges above what is due to them by law. 

(Admittedly it is technically illegal to smoke marujana in some places, but only technically, and I’m not tempted to say that white people are “above the law”, in that case. The law, in that case, is a farce, used to penalize marginalized people).

It’s obviously unjust to have a society which claims, but doesn’t follow through on, equal treatment before the law. That’s obviously evil. 

But I don’t think that I benefit from that evil. Again, my risk of going to prison is lower than that of a black person, but that’s not because I’m externalizing a conserved quantity of “expected years in prison” onto someone else. If we reformed society so that it became Just, there would be many, many fewer black people in prison, but my own risk of going to prison wouldn’t change. If anything, it would go down somewhat, since “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. As a Jew, and as a human being, I should expect to be safer in a just society than in a society that maintains Justice for only a subset of its population.)

Conclusions from first thoughts and next steps

My tentative conclusion is that because of explicit, unjust discrimination, it is much harder to be black in America than to be white, and that was especially true in previous centuries, most Northern whites didn’t actually benefit from that discrimination, especially those who were primarily accumulating wealth via economic production instead of privileged access to rents.

But these are only first pass thoughts. My next step is to collect and read some books about racial wealth inequality and white privilege, to build up a more grounded list of ways that I might have benefited from structural racism.