Bostrom cancelled

[Russell Standish]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/19/oxford-future-of-humanity-institute-closes

Probably a number of you people are already aware of this, but I just
learnt of this through a review of Bostrom's latest book "Deep
Utopia".

I had heard of the FHI closure, because a close friend of mine who had
contracted with them, tried to visit the on his recent trip to the
UK. But I hadn't heard about Bostrom effectively being cancelled for a
stupid comment he made on a mailing list back in 1996 at the tender
age of 22, one that he has publicly apologised for and
repudiated. Jeez! It was a stupid comment then, but who hasn't made
stupid comments, particularly when young.

We know now that you should never put anything in email that you don't
want to appear on the front page of a national newspaper - in 1996,
that wasn't so obvious though.

Cheers

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ilsa]

Disasterly Sad

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/Z1I9RcGenvABSnXx%40zen.

[John Clark]

That sucks! I've already purchased Bostrom's new book "Deep Utopia" and intend to read it as soon as I've finished reading my current book which is about the making of the H bomb. I tend to get nervous if I don't have three or four books in the pipeline. 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

2cr

 

[Terren Suydam]

It does seem like the punishment for his youthful display of bigotry is over the top. But I'm going to push back on this a little. 

Without having read Bostrom's apology, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to wonder if he still holds racist beliefs. What he did say when he was 22 was pretty bad. Casual use of the n word, to me, suggests it was not just a one-off lapse of an otherwise unprejudiced mind.

I haven't read his apology, but in general a sufficiently weak apology is evidence that one is just trying to make the right noises required to make the problem go away. Further, actions speak louder than words. Has he demonstrated through his actions, especially as someone in a position of influence, that he has reformed?  I don't know. But if doubt remains, I can understand an institution not wanting its reputation to be tarnished especially in such a punitive culture.

And of course part of the problem is that there are too many for whom no amount of penance or action is enough. I assume that's the spirit of Russell's comments here. I do wonder though if Bostrom has done the work on himself since.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 6:54 PM Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:

[John Clark]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 8:56 AM Terren Suydam <terren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I haven't read his apology, but in general a sufficiently weak apology is evidence that one is just trying to make the right noises required to make the problem go away.

I don't understand why people even bother to apologize for a casual remark they made 30 years ago because it never does any good. Even if they got on their knees and tore their eyes out they would not be uncancelled. Murder can be forgiven but uttering a politically incorrect word never can be. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

bsf

[Terren Suydam]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 9:06 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 8:56 AM Terren Suydam <terren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I haven't read his apology, but in general a sufficiently weak apology is evidence that one is just trying to make the right noises required to make the problem go away.

I don't understand why people even bother to apologize for a casual remark they made 30 years ago because it never does any good. Even if they got on their knees and tore their eyes out they would not be uncancelled. Murder can be forgiven but uttering a politically incorrect word never can be. 

I wouldn't characterize that email as a "casual remark". He was trying to make a point about being provocative, and boy did he make it.

For anyone interested, here's his actual apology which contains the original email, and for what it's worth, I think it's a decent apology, but probably not enough. Good apologies are about accountability. They consider and own the hurt caused and this apology does not. (I should note that his use of the n-word was not the casual conversational usage implied by articles like the one Russell linked to, but rather used as a part of an "example sentence". I should have read it before posting. Regardless, it was really poor judgment for him to use it the way he did, but ok. It's not necessarily the utterance of one who uses the term casually.)

Back to the apology, beyond not owning how it may have hurt people, it doesn't do much to address his current beliefs around what I consider to be the most offensive part of the email:

... Take for example the following sentence:

 

Blacks are more stupid than whites.

I like that sentence and think it is true. [emphasis mine]...

Here's the rub: Does he still think it is true?  That is a categorically racist thing to say and believe. Here are the relevant parts of his apology that purport to address it:

[the email] does not accurately represent my views, then or now.

 

... I also think that it is deeply unfair that unequal access to education, nutrients, and basic
healthcare leads to inequality in social outcomes, including sometimes disparities in skills and cognitive
capacity. This is a huge moral travesty that we should not paper over or downplay.

Are there any genetic contributors to differences between groups in cognitive abilities? It is not my
area of expertise, and I don’t have any particular interest in the question.

To me, he seems to be going out of his way to avoid addressing the heart of the matter - does he still hold that belief? Here's what I think he should have said - I would have thought it brave and honorable to offer a more nuanced, intellectually honest take, something like: "as one who believes that we should not be afraid to face what science and data tell us, and not be afraid to talk about facts even when they're politically dangerous, I think we should be able to acknowledge that different groups of people have different genetic predispositions. It would be very strange if that were not true! Every group is going to have some attributes that are above average and some that are below average, relative to the whole of humanity. Does that mean one group is better or superior to another?  Absolutely not!  The difficulty lies in that we may be forced to confront these uncomfortable differences on occasion. My email was a clear example of how not to do that."

Also, I don't believe him when he says "I don’t have any particular interest in the question". That comes off as disingenuous, especially given his baffling trip down a rabbit hole on eugenics and genetic enhancement, which comprises at least half of the total apology. It appears to be some kind of an attempt at nuance and intellectual honesty but it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. It comes off as a defensive attempt to firewall future attacks on other controversial positions he holds.

Wokeism sucks, I'm sure we can all agree, but we shouldn't allow the pendulum to swing too far in the other direction and dismiss any attempt to hold people accountable, especially when their attempt to hold themselves accountable falls flat.

Terren

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

bsf

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2%3DLO5i%3DQNwmQbJTtU5kM%2BB10Om3wYuEMwpKM73za8Mrg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 10:39:11AM -0500, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> To me, he seems to be going out of his way to avoid addressing the heart of the
> matter - does he still hold that belief?

If he still held that belief - and acted upon it - then he wouldn't
have been sanctioned for a comment made 30 years ago, but rather for
something he said and did in more recent times.

As for sanctioning someone for something they might believe but never
acted upon - we don't have "thought crimes", for good reason.

I'm tempted to agree with JC that the apology was unnecessary, and had
little effect to change the outcome. But it probably helped save his
reputation amongst more moderate people, perhaps for whom a lack of
comment or apology is considered tantamount to an admission of guilt.

[Terren Suydam]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 4:30 PM Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:

On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 10:39:11AM -0500, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> To me, he seems to be going out of his way to avoid addressing the heart of the
> matter - does he still hold that belief?

If he still held that belief - and acted upon it - then he wouldn't
have been sanctioned for a comment made 30 years ago, but rather for
something he said and did in more recent times.

As for sanctioning someone for something they might believe but never
acted upon - we don't have "thought crimes", for good reason.

I'm tempted to agree with JC that the apology was unnecessary, and had
little effect to change the outcome. But it probably helped save his
reputation amongst more moderate people, perhaps for whom a lack of
comment or apology is considered tantamount to an admission of guilt.

Russell, you and others here keep dismissing that email based on how long ago he wrote it, and how old he was, and so easily accept his assertion that it "does not accurately represent my views, then or now." Not even then? That doesn't pass the smell test - why would someone take such a reputational risk in order to say "I think it is true that blacks are more stupid than whites" if they didn't really believe it?

Having evidence that someone holds racist beliefs - which that old email surely counts as - is important even in the absence of evidence of acting on those beliefs, and you don't have to invoke thought police to get there. I'm sure you're aware that acting on prejudiced views is possible without producing damning emails - it's often about not acting when one ought to. For instance, not hiring someone who is qualified.

I'm not saying he should be cancelled. I'm only calling out that his apology fell flat, and I can understand why the kinds of bureaucrats that decide who gets funded and who doesn't wouldn't feel like Bostrom has done enough to settle the issue. And that the excesses of wokeism shouldn't stop us from expecting better of people who make these kinds of mistakes - especially when they're in positions of privilege and power.

 

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish                    Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders     hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
                      http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/Z1Ns5DGdzjB71xF2%40zen.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 4:56 PM Terren Suydam <terren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not saying he should be cancelled. I'm only calling out that his apology fell flat

Can you give an example of an apology that did NOT fall flat and as a result caused an un-cancellation?  

>  expecting better of people who make these kinds of mistakes - especially when they're in positions of privilege and power.

27 years ago Nick Bostrom was not in a position of privilege and power, he was just a guy on the Extropian mailing list who wrote some stuff. I was on that same mailing list at the time and knew nothing about him except that he seemed pretty smart. I recall debating with him over some things, but I don't remember that particular email. 

Incidentally, have you read Bostrom's entire apology? If not you can read it below, I thought it was about as good as an apology can be but that's not good enough;  I could've told him it wouldn't cause an un-cancellation. Even if Bostrom found the cure for cancer tomorrow some people, some very loud people, would still say because of that 27 year old email he was as evil as a Nazi concentration camp guard.   

Apology for an old email

If I was running for political office today I'm sure somebody would look through the Extropian List archives and find something that I wrote that would cause me to lose votes, but I wouldn't apologize for them because, although some of the things I said turned out to be incorrect, given what I knew at the time I don't think anything I said back then was particularly stupid. And besides, an apology wouldn't do any good, I still wouldn't get elected. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

an5