Comments
Those who dig up old messages with offensive content to expose to millions of people want to ruin reputations. We cannot empower these people to influence conversations about the future of humanity.
Nick Bostrom might be one of the most important people alive today. Bostrom has brought attention to topics like existential risk, astronomic waste, anthropic bias, human enhancement, and superintelligent AI. Threatening his influence over trivial issues is beyond wrongheaded. If Bostrom’s views on existential risk are correct, attacks on the people working on the survival of humanity are unfathomably harmful. Unfortunately, Bostrom has been under considerable scrutiny for an email he sent in the mid-90s. After learning that someone was searching archives for embarrassing old emails, Bostrom preemptively released an apology.
In an email discussion about offense in communication, Bostrom used a particularly offensive example. He said he likes repugnant but accurate statements, providing the example sentence, “[b]lacks are more stupid than whites.” Bostrom then discussed race differences in IQ. He said people would interpret his view as disliking black people, but he doesn’t. Bostrom invokes the n-word to describe how people interpret his example statement. He goes on to say that unabashed objectivity in communication may be less effective. He warns those using this communication style, saying they should “be prepared that [they] may suffer some personal damage.”
The reaction to this email lends credence to Bostrom’s point. Although there was pushback, there was substantial criticism of Bostrom from the Effective Altruist forum community. Many thought the original email was incredibly offensive and the apology was inadequate. Some found the unwillingness to reject the possibility of a partially genetic explanation troubling. Others found the inclusion of a defense against the accusation of being a eugenicist as an indication that this was merely a defensive maneuver to protect his reputation rather than an honest admission of remorse.
I do not think Bostrom needs to apologize, even if he inadvertently upset quite a few people. First, this took place decades ago, and it is a minor transgression at most. It is hard to imagine that the original email group members care about it over two decades later. What does an apology now do but remind people of the offensive speech, thus triggering an emotional response again? Second, I suspect the person searching for this content was intent on reputational harm and that heaping more criticism is not beneficial to society nor fair to Bostrom. Third, tabooing a subject to the extent that you cannot even use it as an example of something taboo in discussions among intellectuals is excessive.
It is undoubtedly possible to unnecessarily upset people, but these kinds of discussions are supposed to be where you can talk about controversial topics. Bostrom’s case is one example of an unfortunate widespread phenomenon in contemporary political discourse. Critical Social Justice advocates have taken a widely-held desire to respect the feelings of others and exploited it to serve their ideological ends. They often bolster their arguments for censorship with language that blurs the line between emotional and physical safety to the extent that pushback appears to be trivializing a person’s fear of violence. Attributing motive is common, and the benefit of the doubt is rarely given. These behaviors are often unintentional and well-meaning, but they must be discouraged if one wants to maintain an intellectually open culture.
Are these criticisms of Bostrom mostly about the offensive content itself? Or are they about enforcing taboos and harming Bostrom’s reputation? I believe that most honestly think Bostrom did something wrong by being offensive, and they feel genuine emotional difficulty because of it. But it is hard for me to understand why it is not the person rummaging through old emails to bring attention to Bostrom’s comments who is not the focus of the criticism or the contemporary Bostrom for releasing the email to a much larger audience. If it is about offense, Bostrom offending the email group is extraordinarily minor compared to disseminating the email in 2023. And if the email is upsetting, then spreading it around to condemn it will upset even more people. It seems odd that this receives little consideration.
If I were a person that thought explicit content was genuinely harmful, then it would be odd for me to scour the web to find the most disgusting film possible and share it with my audience, along with a discussion of every detail. This would make much more sense if I were agitating for bans on explicit content. People’s disgust would be a valuable tool for persuading others to accept censorship. It is hard for me to imagine that reputational harm was not the original intent of searching for offensive content in decades-old emails and that the offensiveness was mostly a tool rather than the primary concern.
One could argue that the actual issue is that it is dangerous to have someone believe there are differences in average IQ between groups, but that largely depends on one’s moral framework. Many progressives fully acknowledge gaps in college entrance exams like SAT and ACT and advocate for eliminating their use to benefit underrepresented minorities in college admission. Other progressives believe in differences in cognitive ability but attribute it to unfair access to education. Heinous moral views do not necessarily follow these empirical beliefs. If IQ differences exist, then believing the truth should not be regarded as immoral. If Bostrom did something harmful and racist, that would be the topic of conversation rather than an old email. It even appears his belief may have motivated charitable giving. In his apology, Bostrom says:
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. Much of my personal charitable giving over the years has gone to fighting exactly this problem: I’ve given many thousands of pounds to organizations including to the SCI Foundation, GiveDirectly, the Black Health Alliance, the Iodine Global Network, BasicNeeds, and the Christian Blind Mission.
I’ve written quite a few comments on the Effective Altruist forum about this particular topic, and I have received a surprising amount of positive upvotes and agreement votes. The fact that so many effective altruists are sympathetic to my view might even be more surprising to the more left-leaning people in EA. If you harshly condemn Bostrom or think it is acceptable to search old emails to find offensive content, you shouldn’t be surprised that many EAs are sympathetic to what you would regard as unsavory views. Your impression of people’s attitudes is influenced by the fact that people will not feel comfortable speaking frankly with you about controversial issues. Reputational damage makes career advancement in an organization difficult, especially if that organization cares about public relations.
I don’t think the EA forum needs to host debates about all the most controversial topics. That’s probably not smart from a PR perspective. However, I wonder how to address the tension between public image, epistemic integrity, open discourse, and sensitivity about controversial issues. If a sizeable number of effective altruists are going to publicly condemn figures within the movement each time an offensive email, text message, or conversation is discovered, it will encourage malicious actors to find this content. It will also make people unwilling to speak about issues frankly and may degrade epistemic integrity. If you force EAs to answer how they think about population differences, as this user suggests, you will probably strongly incentivize lying. Population differences in IQ exist, and plenty of reasonable and ethical people believe in them, but they do not admit this publicly.
Many might think that we do not need to discuss race openly and that tabooing this topic is acceptable. That is rather reasonable. But if everyone gets treated similarly to how Bostrom was, it becomes difficult even to have private conversations regarding race among Effective Altruists. Not to mention all sorts of other culturally sensitive issues. Unfortunately, there are probably genuine benefits to these conversations left undiscovered because people will be unwilling to discuss them.
I can think of two issues that are likely under-discussed partially due to their controversial nature, namely “dysgenics” and “eugenics.” For a longtermist, these are incredibly important. Selection for higher intelligence in our human ancestors resulted from the less intelligent dying or not reproducing. Thankfully, contemporary humans have created regulations, safety features, institutions, and welfare programs to ensure that the less intellectually capable can live decent lives and have their own children.
This is a triumph for humanity over the harshness of nature. However, there is a negative relationship between fertility and cognitive ability. Perhaps this is not particularly concerning at present. Still, if we are concerned about the future, an unending trend of cognitive decline will be accompanied by all sorts of negative socioeconomic trends. At the extremes, this is obvious; developed countries could not maintain their economic growth and prosperity if they entirely consisted of people who qualify as intellectually handicapped. The association between cognitive ability and fertility will need to reverse sign at some point. We do not want it to be from the reintroduction of natural selection pressure.
This trend can be ethically and humanely reversed with the widespread adoption of genetic enhancement technology. This enhancement is not limited to cognitive ability. Since physical and psychological characteristics are under genetic influence, selecting or editing embryos can improve these traits. Since many traits are highly polygenic, potential returns can be substantial. Humans could have vastly better mental health, physical health, lifespan, and cognitive ability.
While health and wellness are not to be underemphasized, they have fewer positive externalities than cognitive ability. Individuals with higher IQs engage in more prosocial behavior. Perhaps more importantly, cognitive ability is crucial for scientific advancement. If we want to prevent global catastrophes from artificial intelligence, climate change, asteroids, bioterrorism, global totalitarianism, pandemics, and other unforeseen threats, it would be extraordinarily advantageous to take genetic cognitive enhancement seriously.
We are on the verge of a massive revolution in genetic enhancement technology, and it is imperative that we do not let public opposition lead to bans. We must hasten the achievement of in vitro gametogenesis in humans and error-free multiplex gene editing. Unfortunately, these ideas are under-considered among EAs. Will MacAskill has minimal discussion of it in What We Owe The Future, and there is minimal discussion on the EA forum. I want to change that. I have written on this topic on my Substack (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8). But I would like to write more for the EA audience. Contact me if you want to collaborate to add more EA forum posts.
Perhaps the discussion of dysgenics and eugenics is repugnant and offensive. Perhaps it stigmatizes and furthers bigotry or harmful ideas of “genetic determinism.” Maybe I’m using lousy research to inform my view, or maybe I misunderstand evolution and genetics. Perhaps I am wrong. But other intelligent people share my beliefs. And it seems rather crucial to various current and longtermist concerns that we are sure these trends are not actual and these technologies won’t work as well as I am suggesting. If I’m right about genetic enhancement, billions of quality-adjusted life years are on the table, and this deserves considerable attention from EA. That seems worth discussing.
A culture that stifles debate around difficult topics will fail to discover certain important ideas. The wonderful thing about Effective Altruists is that they try their best to be effective. Regulating forums and communities is extraordinarily difficult. I commend the forum moderators for allowing controversial comments. Granted, we don’t need to have every conversation on the forum or at EA events. That could be unhealthy for the movement. But this phenomenon of digging up old conversations to attack people has no place in an intellectually open environment dedicated to truth. That behavior should not be encouraged. I do not think Bostrom has to apologize for anything.