Thoughts on rationalizations and justifications for evil

Something I've been thinking about recently:

Often when someone (or a group of people) commit some heinously evil act, the media (and/or their supporters) will try to promote a narrative of the importance of focusing on why they got to the point where they were "compelled" to that type of action. They (the supporters) will insist that the motivating factors should be addressed if we (society) want to prevent that type of societally destructive behavior in the future, and that just focusing on the actions in isolation doesn't properly account for all those responsible.

You can see this in numerous different situations; here are some examples. In Israel/Gaza, supporters attempt to justify the murderous terrorist actions of Hamas by pointing at the conditions in Gaza. In the case of mass murderers, supporters will often insist on asking why the deranged individual was driven to commit acts of murder, and if more societal support might be possible. In cases of ubiquitous urban crime from street gangs, prognosticators will often point to demographic imbalances as a proximate cause, and ask how to "correct" for societal imbalances which might drive certain demographics to lives of crime.

I've been thinking about the similarities in all these cases, and I'm come to a tentative conclusion: I don't care about the "why", and I don't think society should either. We seem to have fallen into a sociological "trap", where we feel like sociopathic and/or pure evil actions must be motivated or excused by some societal pressures, and that we need to look to address those conditions, rather than addressing the behavior directly.

The funny thing is, I see this same problem with parenting my kids. There's always something which is the rationalization for bad behavior: some excuse, some social dynamic, some rationalization (lack of sleep, lack of vitamins, bad day at school, etc.). Yet, as parents, we know (or learn) that succumbing to the trap of incessant rationalization and excusing of behavior doesn't fix the behavior, because there's always another rationalization or excuse. The way to fix the behavior is to simply not tolerate it, not accept any excuses, and try to instill in your children that no excuses or rationalization justify the behavior: fundamentally, it's your societal responsibility to be a "good person", irrespective of what other people do, or what burdens you may face. If you become an evil sociopath, that's fundamentally not the fault of society: that's on you.

Similarly, by excusing the behavior or terrorists, murderers, and/or career criminals, we're helping propagate a dangerous lie that the individuals are not fully accountable for their actions. To wit, if you are intent on murder or genocide (for example), you are an evil person, full stop. It does not, and should not, matter why you have reached that point, except in so far as maybe society also trying to cut off and/or eliminate other factors which may have driven you to that point (eg: if there is a charismatic leader who has convinced you to be a sociopathic murderer, then it would be in society's interests to eliminate that person as well). But no amount of external factors should shift the blame: people who do evil are evil, and we (society) need to care a lot less about the claimed justifications for evil actions.

We need to fight bad people by eliminating the bad people from society, and setting a precedent that no justifications for evil will be accepted, or even really considered. The only way to hope to try to stop those types of actions in general is to make them societally unacceptable, under any context or justification. The more we allow people to rationalize evil (via tolerance of the rationalizations), the more excuses we allow and perpetuate, and the more evil actions and outcomes we will experience as a result.

And if everyone in civilized society could align on that approach and treatment, maybe we could actually make some progress in reducing the amount of evil in the world.

Reflections on Procreation

Every once in a while, I have occasion to reflect on the act of having children, and whether or not it can be justified in the existential sense. I have children, and have made the choice to have them, so for me it's more or less a post facto analysis, but still a somewhat interesting philosophical one.

Some pundits have made a big deal about the idea that declining birth rates in first-world countries is a societal problem (eg: https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/30/health/elon-musk-population-collapse-wellness/index.html). This is not, generally, a problem currently, as birth rates in poorer and less educated areas more than make up for declines in procreation among the wealthy and educated. There is, certainly, a valid but more nuanced argument that the shifting demographics as a result of who chooses to procreate is degrading the quality of the gene pool for humanity, but that's not a very politically correct argument to make in public, so most people steer clear. I'm not going to focus on it either, except to note that it is objectively reasonable, and probably an existential concern over time.

I think the more material philosophical push-back is whether or not it's ethically reasonable to dump a child into the world as it is, and as it's evolving.

There is a valid observation that, historically, people have a tendency to undervalue their current situation and focus on the negatives. Objectively, the world now is better than before the advent of antibiotics, for example, or periods like the middle ages. However, there are currently significant real and pressing concerns which humanity seems utterly unwilling or unable to deal with. Things like climate change and wealth inequality are presenting persistent threats to global stability, and threats like nuclear annihilation haven't gone away. Moreover, humanity seems intent on trying to build AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), which (if we're successful) will almost certainly also end humanity as we know it, and yet we persist anyway. Humanity has a lot of problems, and while in some cases it's unclear exactly what forces are propagating those problems, it's very clear that as a species, we are entirely incapable of addressing them.

Children born today will have to live in a world where those issues present an existential threat which cannot be mitigated. At best, they will need to try to make the best lives for themselves as possible, while knowing that the world will be worse for people in the future, and there is nothing which they can do about it. The best option for happiness they will have will likely be escapism, and living in some simulation of "good" while the rest of the world crumbles around them, for as long as possible. That is, in totality, not an incredibly attractive proposition.

Can it be ethically justified to procreate in this world? I don't know. There is certainly not a cut and dry answer to that question in my mind, although perhaps in one or two more generations, it'll be more clear.

On the Current State of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

Ben Shapiro has an interesting take on the current state of the Ukraine invasion, and what he perceives at the likely and/or necessary endgame for the war: https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1605899823491620866

Now, Shapiro is not a dumb person (even though he has plenty of viewpoints and opinions which I don't personally agree with), but this line of thinking exemplifies the idea that opinions are very often shaped by assumptions, and people can reach very different conclusions if they start with different assumptions (which may or may not be stated). In this case, Shapiro assumes that Ukraine cannot push Russia out of all of its territory (and/or that "defeating its invasion" is not inclusive of repelling Russia from all the territory which it has invaded, but only halting their advances). I don't know that either of those assumptions are accurate.

Moreover, I somewhat disagree with the premise, in concept. The interests of the US, in a geopolitical sense, are more along the lines of degrading Russia's military capability and identifying/exposing weaknesses in it. Both of these interests are fostered by allowing the conflict to continue as long as Ukraine is not losing (even if there is a stalemate in terms of territorial acquisition). Moreover, by supplying arms and logistical support to Ukraine, the US effectively increases progress toward those goals. I think fully repelling Russia's invasion attempt(s) serves a valuable purpose, but it would be a mistake to overlook the value in degrading their military capability in general, both in terms of functional capability and perception (ie: ability to achieve geopolitical goals through threats of force).

Now, one could argue that Shapiro is simply acting as a stooge for Russia in this instance, and his position is nothing more than serving that subservient interest, and while I cannot refute that speculation, I would suggest that a different set of assumptions might also lead to his conclusions. To wit, if we assume that Ukraine cannot succeed, and that the only goal of the US is to help them halt the invasion (as misstated by Shapiro initially), then his conclusions might be valid. Again, I don't think those assumptions are accurate, which is why my opinion is so materially different.

Additionally, and somewhat tangentially, I'd suggest that setting aside the human cost and considering only the military implications, the US has a strong interest in prolonging the conflict for as long as Ukraine continues to not lose significant territory. As a proxy method to degrade the Russian capabilities, Ukraine is a near-ideal battlefield situation, and we are undoubtedly learning many things from the real-world tests of not only the existing deployed technology, but also various NATO capabilities as they are incrementally deployed to the battlefield. I'd go as far as to say the US would be okay with Ukraine pushing into Russian territory as part of their counter-offensive, as a means to a strategical end.

Note that, per Russia's repeated threats, that action might provoke a nuclear response, but I don't think that actually need be a significant concern. Yes, Russia could attempt to strike anywhere at any time with nuclear weapons; this threat has persisted since the cold war, and is not likely to diminish any time soon. But the reality is that with every new threat, and every new use of nuclear strikes as a backstop to the reality of battlefield losses, the impact of those threats is diminished. Remember, Russia's doctrine allows for the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation for Russian territory which is attacked, and Russia has claimed parts of Ukraine which it doesn't even control as its territory, so in concept their use of nuclear weapons is currently allowed by their doctrine. But a persistent threat with no clear "red line", which is bandied about as a catch-all, loses a lot of its value in practice. Add to this the idea that if Russia was to launch a nuclear strike they would presumably immediately lose all remaining allies and be the "enemy" of the entire world, and the threat becomes something which is not really worth factoring in to potential actions. Yes, it's still there... it's just not important for the calculations.

I predict the US (and EU allies) continues to funnel money and training towards Ukraine, for as long as they continue to have battlefield success, and that by the fall of 2023 they will have a reasonably good chance of retaking substantially all of their territory. I predict that the US does not "tell Zelensky 'no'", as long as the Ukraine army continues to have battlefield success. And I predict the endgame is a negotiated treaty with effectively the pre-invasion borders (inclusive of Russia's invasion of Crimea), probably around the end of 2023.

That's my opinion, anyway.

On Biden's China Chips Strategy

 One of the more significant political moves which Biden has done, even if it's somewhat under the radar in terms of national news reporting, is the place extensive new restrictions on China's access to advanced semiconductor manufacturing technology. For a primer, see: https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/10/27/biden-s-unprecedented-semiconductor-bet-pub-88270

I've been trying to wrap my head around the motivation for this. After all, the status quo seemed fine from an outsider perspective, and aggravating China seems politically dangerous. It's also the kind of move which would traditionally be done by the more right-wing people in the US political sphere's (despite Trump's essentially "rhetoric only" approach to foreign policy, which was fairly damaging to the US efforts in general). However, I have another theory now, which I'll expound upon; no idea if this is accurate, but it's conceptually interesting.

Currently, a lot of US semiconductors are manufactured in Taiwan, and production had been migrating to China based on costs (and China's government subsidizing those efforts, so that they could steal the technology). The first-order read of Biden policy change is to slow those migration efforts, and perhaps encourage some high-end talent to be moved out of China, which has already happened. However, the longer term play might be larger.

Consider that China has pledged to eventually invade Taiwan, and take its stuff (land, resources, facilities, etc.). Rhetoric-wise, this is about national unity and other nationalistic concerns; realistically, though, it's probably more economically pragmatic, due to the advanced technology and financial resources in the other country. The US has pledged to defend Taiwan, but they do not have a formal treaty, and in-practice they could not significantly impede and invasion. Moreover, China is sacrificing some potential political leverage by staying biased towards Russia in regards to its invasion of Ukraine, presumably because they know they will need to invade Taiwan in a similar manner. This has "shown their hand", so to speak, as they would not miss the opportunity at world leadership if there wasn't a political need to support Russia's actions.

I hypothesize that Biden's move is sending a somewhat different message than just stopping the flow of technology into China. In essence, he's creating a policy that makes it such that if Taiwan is invaded, then US companies can no longer produce chips there, and must move talent and manufacturing abroad. Indeed, this is already happening: Taiwanese companies are already moving production facilities to the US, in pragmatic anticipation of the possibility (see: https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/21/business/taiwan-tsmc-arizona-plant-hnk-intl).

What does this mean for geopolitical strategy? Well, it creates a conundrum for China. Economically, the value of Taiwan is in the business and technology, but in the case of an invasion, the former would be largely disrupted (because the financial industry doesn't play well with Communist dictatorship), and now the latter would also be effectively destroyed (based on US policy, and the reactions of the Taiwanese companies). Currently, Taiwan can (and does) export chips to China, and supports a large part of their tech industry. If China invades, they could now lose that, and economically take a big hit.

This puts the Chinese government in a more difficult position: continue with the nationalistic push at potentially significant economic cost, or make a more pragmatic economic decision at the cost of losing some credibility in your nationalistic rhetoric? That won't be an easy call: China is already having some economic issues, and recently some domestic unrest, and causing significant damage to their technology access might be bad for the regime there. In essence, Biden's new policy is leveraging economics to achieve what military cannot, and in that sense it might be brilliant.

Anyway, just my opinion, and I could certainly be wrong.

On Bad Decisions, the Brittney Griner Edition

I don't care about Brittney Griner.

That's somewhat inaccurate, I suppose. In relation to her as a human being, I care about her: I don't want her to be abused, or mistreated, or killed, etc. But in relation to the plethora of stories and attention that her situation continues to receive, I don't care as much, and I certainly don't think any of it warrants news media or Presidential administration copy. If you need to catch up, here's the latest as of today, for reference: https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/34982248/brittney-griner-moves-russian-penal-colony-exact-location-unknown

I don't care about her (beyond as any other person) because she's largely responsible for her current situation. First, she's a criminal: she brought known-illegal stuff into Russia, without respecting their laws. As Americans, we project our views and opinions a lot on other countries, but Russia has their own laws, and if you're going to visit there and you ignore them, you do so at your own peril. Second, while there's a reasonable argument that Russia is trying to use her as a bargaining chip in their tensions with the US (vis-a-vis their invasion of Ukraine), she knew (or should have known) that reality when she chose to travel to Russia. If you choose to put yourself in a known-dangerous situation, you also have to bear some of the responsibility when something bad happens.

Third, just for reference, consider the broader context. Russia is a terrorist state which literally assassinates people their leaders don't like enough to get on their radar, even if those people are totally innocent of any crimes. Griner is being punished for a crime, which she did actually commit, and is also nominally a crime in the US also (lest we forgot), and is serving the "normal" sentence for such. The fact that she is a professional athlete in the US shouldn't really be a factor in how she's treated in a criminal justice system, and it seems like Russia is the country here which is practicing that ideal.

So yeah... I don't care. Moreover, as an ironic side-note, the less people in the US cared, the less power Russia would think this "bargaining chip" had; if the White House wasn't talking about it, it would probably actually increase the chances of a exchange deal or something. Like many, many, many other criminals in the world who are serving time, she made some bad decisions, and now she's paying the price for them. Let's stop writing stories like the situation is something more than that, okay?

An Interesting Parallel, re Dmographics

So I was watching Jon Steward recently, briefly discussing Kanye West's comments about Jewish people in the entertainment industry, and the resulting backlash. It's not the main focus of the podcast, but it was interesting to listen to that segment (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVTXI-G0g4c).

To summarize, Jon was discussing how Kayne has asserted that Jewish people controlled a disproportionately large amount of the entertainment business, and how while people generally objected to the characterization as anti-semetic, there was an undercurrent among some who noted that Jewish people were overly-represented in those positions relative to general population demographics. Jon was discussing (along with two of his writers, one of which is also Jewish) how that put him in a somewhat uncomfortable position, where he felt like more of an outsider who people felt the need to stand up for, and that didn't seem necessarily appropriate.

The conversation touched on the parallel with the BLM movement, and how some black people, even while benefitting from the attention/protests and feeling like the sentiment may have been well overdue, might also be uncomfortable with the idea that they needed or deserved special protection or sympathy in that context. It was also interesting for Jon, in the sense that there is a demographic disparity, even though he doesn't feel like he or his organizations are responsible for propagating that disparity/advantage. Rather, as his writer alluded to, the disparity somewhat self-propagates, as people of the demographics which are overly represented feel more inclined to gravitate toward that industry, and as a result the demographics in the industry don't normalize to the population norm.

I was personally struck by the parallel to racial disparities in the country in general, and how in that sense we have negative labels like "critical race theory" to describe the implicit harm in such. After all, it's the exact same situation: you have a demographic disparity which is somewhat self-propagating, even if the overwhelming majority of participants are not purposefully propagating it. Moreover, in both cases, it's likely that a small percentage of people are purposefully propagating it, but both groups feel it's manifestly unfair to paint the entire demographic group with that same brush, and that in general, there is equal opportunity for all demographics within the industries.

Yet, it's interesting to me that the societal sentiment for these two different areas seems vastly different, and I think that was bothering Jon a little as well. To wit, if one suggests that Jewish people are over-represented in an industry (entertainment, financial, etc.), even if the sentiment is statistically accurate, you would likely be labeled as racist, anti-semetic, a bigot, etc., and shunned within society. On the other hand, suggesting the exact same thing with respect to (for example) white males in executive business positions would be met with approval, respect, and societal programs designed to directly employ race and gender discrimination to force the demographics toward a preferred alternative distribution (either representative of average societal demographics, or in some cases, explicit other biases, as long as they are not the "bad guys" race/gender; see [demographic]-owned business movements, or [demographic]-specific college scholarships, for example). The disparity in sentiment with respect to the same fundamental issue/situation is discordant and disconcerting, and when you're in the target demographic, it's also uncomfortable.

Now, I don't know if that disparity in opinion is based on whether or not you are in the target demographic, for example (ie: you feel the situation is fine as long as you're advantaged, and wrong if you are not). It might also be based on historical treatment. A more disturbing thought, though, is that it might also be based on media manipulation and subtle propaganda. Sometimes it can be hard to validate that you have an objective viewpoint on an issue, especially when confronted with a direct parallel where you hold a vastly different opinion. I think that one of the most fascinating things about Jon's segment, to me, was observing him coming close to being confronted with that situation, and observing how uncomfortable the participants were with confronting (and potentially needing to reconcile) that reality.

Personally, as an aside, I don't think discrimination is good, even if it's "well intentioned". I think the appropriate way to address demographic disparities in industries is to look at specific situations, and try to ensure that opportunity is equal. I have no issue if an org is hiring close to the demographics of applicants, even if those applicant demographics are not representative of the population in general: that makes sense, given types of jobs, industries, and applicant pools. The right place to address that problem is in the upstream opportunities, not by heavy-handed discrimination to manipulate the demographics downstream. But that's my opinion, and reasonable minds do vary on the topic.

Anyway, I found the discussion and resulting analysis interesting, fwiw.

How Twitter Could Succeed

Much has been made over Elon's recent acquisition of Twitter, paying ~$44B to take the company private. Many of the hot takes are just hot garbage, as you would expect from various marginal "news" organizations; an abbreviated selection with commentary:

• "Elon disbands the Board" (https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/31/tech/elon-musk-twitter-board/index.html). Note that this is totally normal, since he's taking the company private, no longer needs a Board to represent shareholder interests, and will save $3M/yr in the process. Also note that this was stated in April. Also note that Elon was very critical of the Board; arguably, this was one of the main motivating factors for the acquisition (ie: he thought he could run the company better).
• "Elon fires 75% of Twitter." This was a bogus story to begin with; current more reasonable take is that he's looking to reduce headcount by ~25%, which seems entirely reasonable. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/10/31/elon-musk-twitter-layoffs/
• "Twitter fires workers to deny vested stock grants." This story, based on NYT rumor mongering, mis-characterizes the concept of "vested" to the point of stupidity.

Yeah... people are dumb, and bad "news" gets amplified for clicks in modern society. However, that point actually segues nicely into my thought on how Elon could make Twitter successful, significantly beyond its current place and role in our society. I don't know if this is the intent, or even on the radar, but I do find the premise intriguing.

There's a frustrating gap in how information is propagated in today's society, which the various internet innovations have been unable to close: timely information on significant events is still gated through traditional media organizations. One need look no further than the ideological spin and alignment of local news organizations, and the aggregation of such under corporate conglomerates, to understand this phenomenon, but it goes much further than that. Media outlets not only control how the information is presented, but what information is presented as well, and they cannot present on everything.

Have you ever been walking around a city area, and observed some police activity? Chances are you might be curious what's going on: maybe its relevant to you at that moment, maybe it's good general information, maybe someone "important" is just in the area, or maybe it's nothing significant. How could you tell? You could perhaps ask the police, but that not only distracts them from their job, but police are notoriously confrontational and abrasive, so that's likely to be unproductive at best*.

* Aside: I did this once, when there were four armed officers roaming around the building in which I worked, as was told gruffly that "nothing was going on". Which was a lie, on its face, obviously, but also came with the strong undertone that if I pressed the issue, I might be arrested or worse for "interfering" with the nothing which was going on. Police are assholes, generally.

Yet, that information exists, in general, in a crowd-sourcing sense. For any significant event, there are likely to be tweets about it, and Twitter is (for better or worse) one of the best sources of actual real-time information for things which are happening. When I see something locally, I go to Twitter, and search local feeds to see if there's anything about it. It's inefficient and uneven, but it's the best option there is, and often you can get good, actionable information from there. If only there was a way to use computer algorithms to make crowd-sourced local news information immediately available to people without having to know the local feeds which might have it, and/or do your own reputation analysis to gauge the veracity of the information (I assume you can see where I'm going with this)...

Twitter has the opportunity to become the de facto source for local, real-time news information, displacing all other vastly inferior efforts in favor of a platform which could provide a tangible and significant boost in value. This has network effects, as well as secondary monetization potential. This is one way that the acquisition and running of Twitter could succeed, in my opinion; it's probably not the only way, but it's one which I don't know if people are considering enough.

Anyway, that's my opinion.