Shortly after the three of us finished our first collaborative essay, 20 Questions, we had discussions about the process and the results. We agreed, everything about it was interesting, from the complexity of the questions to the varying lengths of the answers provided. We concluded that the exercise provoked a sense of intellectual stimulation in a communal medium. It was a conceptual landscape we had yearned for and rarely got the opportunity to engage with. There is something genuinely exciting about getting to compare your ponderings with friends, especially when those friendships are deep and meaningful. Through some effort and luck, we’ve contrived an ecosystem built on a triad of respect, admiration, and enjoyment. This exercise is an expression of that ecosystem through the lens of curiosity, thought, and discussion. Without further ado, here’s 21 More Questions from Alpha Beta Gamma.
Table of Contents
Question 2 What will be the major challenges for humanity over the next 200 years?
1.
What does the
ideal state of human-AI interaction look like?
Quinn: Ideal state is certainly different than forecasted state, and in order to best pick an ideal state we must first look at the available options for future states. The way I see it, there are two future states, AI Complementation and AI Supplementation. I do believe that both end in singularity, but that it well beyond a future state that is a hyper-future state (Singularity for the sake of this discussion is the state in which humans and AI fully merge, which either could be achieved by AI wiping out humans or humans becoming fully integrated). Many scientists, billionaires, and public figures have expressed deep concern pertaining to AI Supplementation. This is the state in which AI supplements humans in all forms. This is the route most commonly associated with Universal Basic Income and nihilism. When Gary Kasparov faced Deep Blue, the fears of AI Supplementation arose in a very real way. When Elon Musk and Google unveiled self-drivability, Andrew Yang sprang into action and ran a failed presidential bid based on UBI. But, there is another route, AI Complementation, one that has its basis in history and precedent. This is the true approach of the Pay Pal Mafia, ie: Thiel, Musk, and Hoffman. AI Complementation posits that AI technology will augment our life as have previous forms of technology ranging from the basic TI series calculators to ‘smart’ rings, watches, phones, and appliances. Neuralink is a great example of this. Its intention is to surpass bottlenecks in our interaction with the internet such as having to type with our fingers, or manage a device to gain access to the internet. The smart phone was a great leap forward, but Neuralink will be the next iteration in a series of future iterations. To me, this idea of complementation is the ideal state, in a binary set of two future states. And in my opinion, the way in which we guarantee we don’t obtain the alternative, is by venturing out into the cosmos. Exploration and progress are the safeguards against supplementation. Supplementation is the result of humans automating known processes. It can only occur in stagnated industries. We cannot automate (supplement with AI) what we don’t know.
Mike: History has shown that human civilizations' success
depends on the advancement of human intelligence. Hunter-gatherer to an
agrarian culture, the industrial revolution, and the new-age technology boom
are some examples. These advancements have been fueled by creativity. Humans
rely on creativity because it works to establish an ideal civilization through
the questioning of societal practices and the effectuation of change. This is
what has caused the disparity between first-world and third-world societies.
For civilizations to survive and succeed, they must evolve. And AI is deemed
the next quintessential creation that will advance human civilization. Like the
industrial revolution and the new-age technology boom, AI will benefit society
and will inevitably harm certain classes of that society. For the most part, AI
will increase productivity due to supercomputers, automated machines in
factories, automated transportation, and more. This increase in productivity
would likely lead to increased earnings and higher pay for people. However,
advancement in society is usually not all-inclusive, so this increase in
productivity will lead to many people losing their jobs. It appears that the
advancement of human intelligence and human civilization is subject to Darwinism
– Survival of the Fittest. The question then becomes one of eugenics, is AI a
form of eugenics in the world? AI will force people to be creative because the
simple jobs that automation can perform will be taken away from people and will
force people to either be creative or fall to the wayside. There are two, maybe
more, thoughts of what the ideal AI-human interaction should be. The first
ideal is one where AI advances societies, including third-world countries, to
create opportunity for almost everyone. This opportunity would include
work-life balance, adequate pay, and a well-functioning society. The second
ideal is one where AI grows the disparity between intelligent people and
unintelligent people, which allows evolution to create a human species that
only includes intelligent people – both the creative and analytical humans. It
would push the unintelligent people out of the evolutionary process.
Additionally, AI poses threats, but those threats are associated with AI being
a supplement to humans and possibly gaining conscientiousness or being
controlled by the wrong person/group. The threats topic is a discussion for
another question. Additionally, I did not go into how AI could possibly produce
essential pharmaceutical drugs for treatment and could possibly use an
algorithm to detect future illness or disease, which can then be prevented
prior to its development.
2.
What will be
the major challenges for humanity over the next 200 years?
Quinn: In 2012 I had a teacher who taught a European History course who arranged my thinking on this subject into first principles. The result is this conclusion: The major challenges for humans have and always will come in three forms - Social, Political, and Economic. Starting from these first principles and escalating up to the centuries that will populate the 2000 millennium, we can extrapolate the various specific challenges that will arise in these three categories. Socially, we are seeing the beginnings of the problems that are not going anywhere. Misinformation, groupthink, the truth about history. These are tools being used by prominent ideologies to propagate tribalism and arrangement by fabricated group identity. With the open source nature of the internet, these problems are bound to remain. Politically, we’ve seen throughout history a big bang – big crunch phenomenon occur before, and it is occurring again. In the beginning of recorded history, humans expanded outwards across the globe. Around antiquity, consolidation occurred, into nation states, albeit some were more democratic than others. In the middle ages, consolidation peaked into monarchical structures which lasted many hundreds of years and resulted in the Dark Ages. The renaissance brought to the surface the problems with this consolidation which ultimately resulted in the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the various expelling events that broke feudalism and colonialism. We saw this renewed expansion last until about WW2, when consolidation once again created political strife, culminating in the cold war in which two superpowers almost destroyed the world. Although mass consolidation has been staved off three times in recent history by Churchill, Reagan, and Trump, we have reentered a period in which consolidation is speeding up. Communism, single party systems, and totalitarianism will become major problems politically in the next 200 years, exacerbated by the social problems I spoke about a minute ago, as we arrive at a major “big crunch”. Finally is economics; energy, resources like clean water and food supply, automation, monopolies, and yes, even pandemics. To touch on a few of these, first is resources. Resources will always be a problem, so long as we have finite sources. Expansion into the universe removes this problem. Second is monopolies. A major part of what allows misinformation, group think, and single party systems to occur is because monopolies exist. The end result is stagnation. And this stagnation leads to the third and final economic problem which is pandemic. You see, pandemic cannot occur in decentralized, free market societies. And only the free societies can defeat them if they do occur. Touching on point one, we’ve seen pandemics in large form, twice throughout recorded history, once in the Middle Ages in the form of black plague and again recently with COVID. In both periods of time, we were admits what I referred to as big crunches – heavy consolidation of political nations and power centers. And on point two, what defeated both? Well the first time it was the decentralization and opening of thought that occurred in the renaissance. This second time it was America. Through Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, the United States developed the world’s major vaccines in 6 months to one of the deadliest pandemics in history. And finally, I said something earlier, that in truly free societies, pandemics cannot occur, which is why they are an economic problem. The reasoning here is not that nature will cease to produce viruses in free societies, but that free societies would never allow it to become out of hand and escalate into a pandemic. History confirms this to be true.
Mike: “Soon the science will not only be able to slow down the
ageing of the cells, soon the science will fix the cells to the state and so we
will become eternal. Only accidents, crimes, wars will still kill us but
unfortunately, crimes, wars, will multiply.” This quote embraces the dichotomy
of human existence: good vs. evil, life vs. death, happiness vs. sadness,
etc. Sigmund Freud furthered this
concept in his discussion of Eros and Thanatos. Eros stands for the will to
survive and the desire to create; whereas Thanatos stands for dissolution – the
desire to kill humanity, civilization, and even the self. Humanity has always
been strung between these two concepts, and no matter how advanced society has
become, Eros and Thanatos have been ubiquitous. As humans push forward towards
eternal life, the existential threat of death will push back with equal force.
This can be in the form of natural disasters, political agendas to engage in
war, crime, and more. Earth will become overpopulated, which will cause a
disruption in the ecosystem of both nature and mankind. Nature will be
imbalanced, and this will lead to more natural disasters because of changes in
oceanic water temperatures, more CO2, and other factors that will
inevitably create these natural disasters. Mankind will be imbalanced because
there is only so much land available for the people inhabiting Earth. Tensions
will rise as natural resources will be scarce, and this will cause people to
become desperate. Desperation fuels immorality, which means people will commit
more crimes against each other and even commit horrific acts of violence to
survive. Mankind is also subject to exclusive membership of a tribe and group
think. This will create more wars, because tribes will face differing opinions
of other tribes on the same land, which will disrupt the freedom of those
people. Freedom is not a means to live without boundaries, rather it is a means
to live within boundaries that go undisturbed. These boundaries will not go
undisturbed, so people leading their tribes (political leaders) will find ways
to live a free life, which will mean an engagement in war. War is the means to
wipe out any actor that wishes to disrupt that freedom. All of these
disruptions are a natural means to create balance, as balance creates order
through the management of chaos. So, humans will have to deal with both
overpopulation and disruptions in the ecosystem, which will be detrimental to
the lives of many. There is no humane/moral way to control populations except
for the creation of new land or establishment of life on another planet. There
is a way to reverse or slow the effects of climate change. Humanity will be put
to the test, but as history has shown, we are resilient and can weather any
storm.
3.
What does the ideal future of
transportation look like? Low earth/supersonic, hyperloop, high speed train,
flying cars?
Quinn: I actually think there is a question behind the question here which is, what does the ideal living state look like? Transportation is ultimately just a way for humans to get from living state 1 to living state 2, like home to work or home to vacation. Diving deeper than just transportation, I’ll offer a holistic view of living. It’s a shame that all the major jobs and corporations in America are located in 10 cities or less. If you’ve driven across America, you’ve seen the rolling hills of West Virginia, the ranches of Montana, the crystal blue lakes of Washington, and the red mesas of Arizona. You wonder as you drive by, why can’t I live here? The answer is not simply, “because there’s no jobs here,” the answer is actually, “you cannot live here because there is no major metropolitan area here which means there’s no jobs here, and since transportation isn’t effective enough to get you from a non-metropolitan area to a metropolitan area, you must live in the following cities in order to earn enough income to live happily.” At the fundamental level, this must change and transportation is the catalyst. If we have high speed transportation, we can live well outside the confines of a city. We can avoid urban sprawl, which is a result of malnourished transportation networks. In my view, cities would be mixed living centers where you could live, work, and play in a single domain. Where you can walk everywhere and where you can live comfortably if space is not something you desire. Then through the effective implementation of Hyperloop’s and high speed trains, people from all over can commute into cities to work and then leave, but if the city is designed for mixed living populations you won’t get the financial vacuum associated with singularly commuting populations. You could have scattered boroughs that span hundreds of miles, giving people space and comfort, all connected by high speed transportation networks to allow people to collect for work, if they and their companies choose to locate there. I also think low earth, supersonic flights have a role to play here. That takes it to an entirely new level. It creates competition for quality of life between nations and states, not just within counties and regions. An individual could live on 50 acres in Utah, take a high speed 20 minute train ride to Salt Lake City and catch a 25 minute supersonic flight to New York where he could be a successful businessman or doctor. An individual could live in Ireland because of the tax policy and access to healthcare but work in North Africa by taking a 30 minute supersonic flight every morning and evening. If we wanted true globalism and real wealth distribution, transportation is the key to getting there.
Mike: There are two schools of thought I have for this
question. The first is that transportation is not necessary for the most part
except for in limited circumstances, so EVs or gas engine cars will suffice for
the most part in those rare situations. With the implementation of augmented
reality and virtual reality (VR), travel may not be necessary. People will be
able to feel like they are physically at a certain location. The idea of
traveling, for the most part, is more satisfying to people than the physical
act of traveling. So, people will accept this new idea of traveling from the
comfort of your own home. The need for physical travel will only be necessary
for groceries and medical visits, otherwise you can stay in your home and meet
with friends, travel the world, or work from home. Normal life outside of VR
can be supplemented, for the most part, with life inside of VR. Life could
become a digitalized without much disruption to normality. As a disclaimer, I
hope this won’t be the case. The second
thought is by making travel faster and safer. Regarding faster, we live in a
world of instant gratification, and having to travel somewhere can take hours
or even days. So, by creating some type of high-speed transportation that can
get us anywhere and be environmentally friendly would be the most ideal
situation. And hopefully this would create a means of travel that is virtually
accident free. This world is a magnificent place with many wonders for everyone
to enjoy, and travel impedes the ability to indulge in these wonders. How many
times do people only travel to the places that are convenient or cost
efficient? These people never get to experience the world. By creating a
high-speed, virtually safe means of transportation that won’t cost an excessive
amount is the most ideal way to travel in the future. It will allow people to
be taken away by just how amazing this world is.
4.
If you ran
for President, what would your slogan be? (For example Obama’s was Hope and
Change)
Quinn: My campaign slogan would be “First Principles”. I think this accomplishes multiple things with regards to what I’d run a campaign on altogether. Reasoning from first principles is actually a scientific concept of breaking down complicated problems to generate original solutions. It was popularized by Aristotle, in book 8 of Physics he examines that the mere supposition of before and after require a first principle. So the slogan accomplishes three things. First, it tells the constituency that we will run a campaign focused around solving complex problems through reasoning and basic fact, not emotion or identity politics, but factually what works and what is objectively true. Second, it signifies that we will break America down by her first principles in order to accomplish this. We will assess America’s founding principles and we will work up from there to solve our current problems. America has first principles; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Finally, combining numbers one and two, First Principles applies to the very structure of the nation and the psychology of a governing body. A nation is a collective society built around commonly agreed laws and values. A society is a group of individuals which work together under the pretenses of those laws and values. So at the lowest level of a nation is the individual. This is what Jordan Peterson talks about. If you want to have a better society, have better individuals. You cannot make other individuals better, but you can make yourself better. And if everyone makes themselves better, we will have a better society. So, this third aspect of what First Principles accomplishes is that it works in the pretext of the individual as the lowest, most baseline principle for a nation. As her most important element. In total, the slogan summarizes the main focus of the governing body; “The pretense for the best America possible is one in which, the governing body applies reasoning and fact to enact laws and govern, according to America’s first principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in an effort to allow for individuals to be the best version of themselves.”
Mike: My campaign slogan would be “Stand Strong.” The reason I
would use this, even though it may not bode well with the public, is because
leaders in this country are bending over backwards for every little demand of
the people. America has turned into a divided landscape, because of leaders
trying to appease the one percent of one percent of Americans. Countries need
to be run on what is best for the majority of the people living in the country.
My campaign slogan would portray strength. It will mean that my cabinet leaders
will stand for what is right and not bend to appease every group. It also
portrays strength to other countries. We Americans will not bend to the powers
of other countries; we will stand and defend our people’s rights and our
allies’ rights. We will not coward in the face of adversity. Without a
structured government, people will revert to their natural selves, which leads
to tribalism and anarchy. Of course, we will take into consideration people’s
concerns for their communities and other topics, but ultimately, we will decide
the best course of action. We will understand that people’s feelings will be
hurt no matter the decision you make, but you must have discernment in decision
making. We will not waiver to this cancel culture or the far-left socialist
pressures. Many people in this country are afraid of voicing their opinions
because if they differ from the outspoken far left, then they will be attacked
and cancelled. So, I will be the voice for those people, hence “Stand Strong.”
5.
What other
universal disrupters, like cryptocurrency, should happen, that could happen?
Quinn: What is cryptocurrency at its core? It is decentralized, deregulated, digital currency. Currency, as an element of Finance, has historically been highly centralized and highly regulated, by banks and governments. Using this mental model, what other major aspects of human life could be decentralized and deregulated to increase access and decrease interference? Information. One would argue that the internet did just that. And originally it did. But now the internet has gatekeepers, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon. These gatekeepers control access to which information we do and don’t see (search engines). They even control who gets to be behind the door (database access). The next universal disrupter that should be created is universal access to universal information. Neuralink and Starlink are major steps forward for access, but ultimately something must be done about search engines and database storage. Perhaps a decentralized search engine that works in a similar manner to block chain as well as legislation for database access. Neuralink represents both a technological innovation, removing bottlenecks like physically typing and potentially mental storage, as well as a universal disrupter, decentralizing access to information. As far as other universal disrupters that should happen, four that I can think of are reliable, potentially portable power sources, access to genetic data and modulation technology, affordable mass scale desalinization and non-capacity binding trash disposal. My vision for a reliable, portable power source would be some form of fusion reactor. This comes with intensely dangerous consequences but maybe one day in the future we could use a fusion reactor at our disposal to power our house, our vehicle and any need to connect to technology. My vision for access to genetic data and modulation technology is a decentralized source of hundreds of millions of individual genetic lines that can be analyzed with a program like Palantir’s Foundry or Gotham to produce actionable items for supplementation or modulation. That modulation could come in the form of a digital CRISPR or smart technology to modulate your genes. On mass scale desalinization, this simply has to happen if we are to get access to water in expanding parts of the world that have little access. Even in America, the southwest is sucking fresh water from the Colorado River ignoring the oceans within a day’s drive, whilst trying to build a cross-continental oil pipeline. If we can transport oil from north Canada to Texas in a safe manner, we could do the same from the Gulf of Mexico to Sedona. Lastly, non-capacity binding trash disposal. The fact that we bury our trash in the ground in the year 2021 is a disgrace. We could have non carbon producing incinerators in every household. Or trash shoots that vacuum into space. Or a chemical compound which converts trash to fertilizer.
Mike: For there to be a universal disrupter, there must be a
flaw in a system currently in place. Cryptocurrency is gaining traction as a
universal disrupter because of the decentralized platform that is taking out the
middleman (banks), which gets rid of transaction costs to the buyer and seller.
This system is attractive to buyers and sellers because of the control that is
given back to these people. Also, it is alleged to be a more secure way of
buying and selling because of the transactions being placed into a blockchain.
This question, however, is asking about the other types of universal disrupters
that should or could happen. So, examining the world as it is, there seems to
be something that should happen and something that could happen. The disrupter
that should happen is some new invention in the medical field or pharmaceutical
field. First, there is a certain flaw in medical practice and pharma practice
because certain treatments or drugs don’t work 100% of the time. The disrupter should be some type of
preventative treatment that would be nearly 100% effective in its use. One thing that comes to mind is a treatment
for Alzheimer’s or cancer. Cancer and Alzheimer’s takes the lives of so many
people, and they have been unsolvable for so many years. Treatments to cure
these two diseases would change medicine forever. The disrupter that could
happen is a one world leadership. Whether it be through a treaty or war, I
could envision the world’s most powerful leaders creating, in a sense, a board
of directors that oversees the actions of each country. This consolidation of
leadership would be viewed as a way to create transparency with the people and
a means to accomplish various objectives. Power is desire for many corrupt men,
and the way to have ultimate power without war is to create an entity that
oversees the actions of the world.
6.
If you could
get a PhD, free of charge and in any subject you wanted, what would you get?
Quinn: I wrote this one and I don’t actually have a good answer for it. I wish I could live 5 lifetimes and each time I’d do something entirely new, Immunology, Neuroscience, History, Astrophysics, Philosophy. If I had to choose just one, I’d probably say a PhD in Theoretical Physics. Besides being a Formula 1 driver, my ideal life would consist of sitting in rooms across the globe having my colleagues blow my mind on various subject matters that they were investigating, from gravitational waves to dark matter to multiverse dimensional theory. Then I would go back to my lab and receive the latest data from the probe currently in the Ort Cloud gathering data on hydrogen concentrations. The fun thing about that field is that it is so vast. With something like neuroscience or immunology you may spend your entire life studying a single organ or single type of cell. Yes, you may make advancements but it’s hard to think big in such a domain. With Theoretical Physics, you could spend a lifetime looking at the Universe as a whole, hypothesizing about the structure of the entire thing. The two barriers are obviously my intellect, and the current technology we have to study the universe. Both these things make the hypothetical scenario, purely hypothetical.
Mike: When I think of getting a PhD, I think of getting a PhD
in a field that will help me leave my mark on this planet forever. I put a lot
of thought into social psychology, engineering, economics, and neuroscience.
All of these fields would me to make an eternal imprint on human history.
Ultimately, I would choose neuroscience, because I would have a chance to
invent something or learn something new about the human brain or nervous system
that could change the world of medicine forever. In economics, you may create a
new economic model that may last for many years until a new model is created.
In engineering, you may create a new structure that revolutionizes engineering
until a new structure is created. All of this to say that neuroscience allows
you to invent something that would be eternal, not temporary.
7.
Who was/is
the most impactful figure in human history?
Quinn: I’ve heard various answers to this question in the past. Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave an interesting answer on the Joe Rogan podcast, citing Christopher Columbus as the most important figure, given that he discovered the new world, which led to America, the most influential nation for peace and prosperity in the history of Earth. Historians have also often considered Genghis Khan the most influential figure since he fundamentally changed not only the geopolitical landscape of humanity but also potentially its gene pool, if the accounts are correct. Many have hypothesized that, all things considered true, Jesus would have been the most important figure, if he was indeed the son and embodiment of the God of all creation. Something recently I thought of was perhaps, the scientist that leaked COVID-19 is the most impactful figure in human history. As the virus continues to kill and spread and even mutate it may wind up being the deadliest virus in history that was leaked by a human. Note here I said deadliest virus leaked by a human. Although the deaths of something like HIV (30+ million) far eclipse the deaths of COVID (~3 million), HIV wasn’t leaked from a lab. My real answer to this question, is that the most influential figure in human history is Abraham. The question here states “impactful figure”. Given that 55.5% of world’s population, or roughly 4 billion people, are followers of an Abrahamic religion, then it stands to reason that Abraham is the most impactful figure. He is the binding figure in three religions that have warred for centuries. He is the common link in the three religions that dominated the Western World since roughly 1000 AD. In the Book of Genesis, which is common to all three Abrahamic religions, Abraham makes direct contact with God. In Judaism, this contact results in the covenant of pieces, in which Abraham becomes the direct father and lineage creator of the Jewish progeny. In Christianity, Abraham is regarded as the spiritual father of all Christians. And in Islam, he is considered the first pioneer of Islam, essentially spreading monotheism.
Mike: It almost has to be Jesus Christ, and this is from taking
a neutral stance. Believer or non-believer, Jesus has been the center of
billions of people’s lives and the person of debates throughout every day of
every century since his life on Earth. Now impactful can be narrowly drawn
depending on the person. Someone may think of the cosmos and who had the
greatest discovery, someone may think of e-commerce and who had the greatest
impact on it, someone may think of an invention and who had the greatest
invention that impacted humanity, etc. There are way too many ways to consider
this question, which makes it difficult to answer. When you think of
electricity, it opened the door to the modern world, because of its
functionality in everyday life. It even created opportunity and provided many
benefits impoverished areas. One may think of Alexander Fleming and his
invention of penicillin. This was revolutionary and still impactful today; it
has saved millions of lives and opened the door to new inventions in the realm
of pharmaceuticals. But, when I think of impactful, I think of impactful to the
individual self. Jesus Christ has created hope and provided guidance for many
people to live by and live for. People are constantly looking for meaning in
life and how to live a better life. Jesus provided a means to accomplish these
goals or at least a belief that these goals are attainable. More than ever,
people are looking for meaning in life, and this, I believe, is in part because
of desire to focus on yourself. Regardless of whether you believe or not, Jesus
has sparked the desire to be a part of something bigger than yourself, because
Christians find meaning not in the work they do, but rather in the desire to
become “like God.” This creates a self-nature of being kind, sacrificial, etc.
It has also pushed the individual thinkers further from church, which in turn
has pushed those people to creating their own version of religion. In a sense,
religion is a belief in something greater; something greater may be a political
party’s beliefs or a company’s goals. This type of hierarchical structure is
something that is seen throughout the Bible and is constantly permeating
throughout societies across the world. The push to find and grow self has
inevitably pushed people into hierarchical structures within society. So, I
think both directly and indirectly, Jesus Christ has influenced people’s
individual lives because of the desire to become “like God” and pursue faith,
or the denial of that path to follow a path of individual desire which ends up
becoming a hierarchical structure through conformity (becoming “like-God”).
This correlation may be specious, but it makes sense in my mind.
8. If humans can figure out life extension, would you want to live forever?
Should humans be immortal?
Quinn: In his book, Lifespan, David Sinclair makes very matter-of-fact claims that we have cracked at least part of the code to life extension. Through the discovery of Sirtuins, humans have gained access to the signaling proteins which regulate metabolism and ultimately result in our lifespans. And through compounds such as resveratrol and NMN, we can extend our lifespan. Indeed much work has been done on this topic, considering the discovery of our own mortality is essentially the cornerstone of consciousness, and in a sense, the revelation that is granted to human beings in Genesis. Dr. Rhonda Patrick has done significant work to also prove lifespan extension and mortality reduction through the aid of heat shock proteins, stimulated in high heat/high cold environments. Pure O2 therapy, stem cell injection, and even youthful blood transfusion have all shown varying degrees of promise with regards to lifespan extension. But no one has cracked the code on indefinite lifespan. We can grow organs in petri dishes, we can replace those organs with older ones in our body, and we can even survive in a vegetative state on iron lungs and feeding tubes, but no one has yet to discover how we can live forever. How do we stop the unraveling of our genetic material and the fraying of our telomeres? I do believe one day, it will be cracked. And I agree with the late Larry King, when asked if he wanted to live forever, “you bet your ass!” Should humans be immortal? If you are religious, the answer is “we already have the opportunity to be.”
Mike: This is difficult to answer for me because I have already
accepted the reality of death. I may not want to live forever, but I would want
to live until a good age like 82. There are already discussions on how to
prevent the shortening of telomeres and how to prevent cells from aging, so the
ideas are there. However, I don’t know if I would want to live forever. But I do
know that I don’t want my life to be cut short, so instead of stopping the
aging process altogether, I would rather have a way to keep me alive until late
life. Although, to be immortal would allow me to experience all of the world
and any new space exploration humans take. But I don’t think humans should be
immortal. I don’t think humans would fare well if they lived forever. It would
create no incentive to start young and work hard, because if you’re going to
live forever, then why rush life. Nevertheless, I think it is something that
shouldn’t happen, and I know I wouldn’t want to live forever.
9. What is the ideal number of friends for you? Dunbar’s number suggest the
cognitive limit is 150.
Quinn: I’ll first offer up my understanding of Dunbar’s number, with a modern critique as well as modern support. Then, I’ll offer up my own answer, and why it fits the question of ‘ideal for you’. Dunbar’s number refers to a very specific metric for cognitive limit, “stable social relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person.” The modern critique for this would be social media, a given person can have ~1000 followers/following. Let’s say your graduating class at high school was 400 and you knew roughly 25%, that’s 100 people. You knew how each one related to the other, and had interactions with all of them from classes to sports to social groups. That’s not unreasonable. Then let’s say you formed another 100 connections with humans in college through extracurricular activities, fraternal organizations and group projects. Finally let’s say, in your first 5 years of working, you established relationships with another 50 people through various jobs. Between those three groups, plus neighbors and family, you may have approximately 300 social connections, and if they were neatly organized in a social media catalogue in which you were reminded of each, and had access to the current lives of each in blurbs throughout the last decade, I could see it being feasible to double Dunbar’s Number. Now let me offer up more of a supporting argument for Dunbar’s Number. I would argue that friends are not the same as social connections, and social media has proved this too. As Dunbar’s number states, part of this cognitive limit is “stable social relationship.” Although you may have a social connection to someone and they may fit the parameters of “how that person relates to every other person,” you may have no other commonality with them other than that fact. Friendship is based on commonality. ‘Social relationship’ to me means consistent communication, and ‘stable’ means if the commonalities were discussed, the relationship would be stable because they are plentiful. On our social media, we may consistently DM 25 people. We may consistently text and call another 25. We may interact with 15 at work, and we may have stable relationships with 20 family members. All in all that doesn’t even break 100. I’d say Dunbar’s Number is accurate based on this analysis. But I think at the end of the day, the question relies on the person. Those with higher levels of openness and extroversion are likely to desire maintaining higher levels of social connections. Those with higher levels of conscientiousness and introversion likely desire lower quantities. I fall into the ladder, and if I were to organize my social network, fitting the confines of Dunbar’s Number “stable social relationships”, I would add another axiom, which would be depth. I have Class A Depth - very deep, roughly 5. Class B Depth – consistent communication and more than surface level depth, roughly 15. And Class C Depth - purely surface level, but stable nonetheless, roughly 20. My total number would be 40.
Mike: I immediately don’t agree with Dunbar’s number. 150 may
be a great number for acquaintances or even people you may do a small favor
for, but those people are not considered friends. Those people are in your
social connections. What I mean by this is that those people are people you
call to get a table when a restaurant is fully booked, need a ticket to a
sold-out game, or exchange general formalities when you see each other. You
harvest those relationships so you can have social connections when needed. You
learn enough about that person to where it doesn’t get too personal, but it
gives off the impression that you care about each other. This number may even
be greater than 150. Ideal number of friends would be below 50, and probably is
even lower for me personally. There are levels to friendship, just like there
are levels to relationships with family. All of those levels are able to be
categorized based on transparency and vulnerability with each individual
person. Transparency is the ability to reveal information about you to someone;
vulnerability is the ability to open yourself up to judgment because of revealing
how that reveal information actually affects you. Most people are transparent
with their family and good friends; however, people are not particularly keen
on being vulnerable. I think you can have 30-50 transparent relationships with
friends, and of those, maybe 3-7 of them allow you to be vulnerable. These are
all generalizations of course.
10. Should the primary goal in life be to seek happiness?
Quinn: I’ve been thinking about this a lot in the last few years and I realize that Happiness is not a first principle. There are preconditions to happiness. So, if you want to achieve happiness you must first seek the underlying principles. Jordan Peterson has articulated this best in my opinion, he said, if all you seek is happiness, it will serve you well when your life is going well, but as soon as life gets rough, you will have nothing underneath to support you and keep you afloat. In other words, happiness is not possible all the time. When you are sick and unable to do the things that bring you happiness, you need something else to keep you alive. This brings us to the natural conclusion that happiness is not primary but secondary. It is a byproduct of fulfillment and meaning and therefore shouldn’t be a primary goal. Finding meaning in life is the primary goal. Fulfillment will arrive so long as you act in a way that serves that meaning. And happiness will materialize when the actions that bring you fulfillment are positive. You can feel fulfilled despite being tired and unhappy, but if there is meaning underneath, there will still be fulfillment. Happiness is not pleasure. It is not hedonistic, and it is not reduced to excitement or satisfaction. Happiness is a unicorn zone whereby in that moment, you are fulfilled by the meaning in your life.
Mike: It all depends on one’s outlook on life. Someone may put
themselves through an unhappy life because they want to make an impact on other
people’s lives. This may be in the form of working long hours and traveling a
lot. It may seem unattractive, but there are many impactful figures throughout
history that have lived an unhappy life (presuming long hours and lots of
travel would make someone unhappy) to better the world and the society they
live in. However, most people are not going to attain or even attempt to attain
that kind of impactful life. Most people will want to live a comfortable life
with limited stressful seasons. Jordan Peterson’s revolutionary take on seeking
meaning is premised with the idea that happiness is futile; one should seek to
accomplish their responsibilities and through that they will find meaning. The
idea is that by accomplishing a task or a goal, it will provide fulfillment –
especially considering the path to accomplish many tasks or goals is not always
easy; it will come with unhappiness. This take has helped many people find
fulfillment. Nevertheless, almost everyone feels happiness when they are within
their tribe – whether that is with family, friends, or significant other. The
moments spent with those people usually involve no tasks to accomplish, so
feeling fulfilled doesn’t seem to apply. Those moments are usually filled with
happiness because of social connection, which is something that is lacking in
today’s world. Both Vivek Murthy and Ian McGilchrist believe that social
connection is seriously lacking within today’s society, so it makes sense that
people are unhappier and constantly seeking the meaning of life. People are now
under the assumption that fulfillment equals meaning. This may be true in part,
but I don’t think it is enough. I think we should seek a deeper social
connectedness with the people we trust, because this will provide the inherent
happiness that life is meant to provide. Overall, I think we should seek
happiness, but it is just one part of a whole in an attempt to find meaning.
11. Is it okay to lie? What about white lies? Is there a grey zone for
acceptable lying?
Quinn: After reading Lying by Sam Harris, my opinion on the issue is altered, in fact, it’s less of an opinion now and more philosophy based on practicality. I think 98% of the time the answer is no. The reasoning behind it is two-fold. Reason one; lying to someone imposes the idea that you know better what to do with the truth, you are either better equipped with its possession and withholding or you do not believe it necessary to them at all. This is morally incorrect in 98% of circumstances because they have a right to the truth, same as you. The second reason is put extremely concisely and brilliantly by Harris, “Honesty is a gift we can give to others. It is also a source of power and an engine of simplicity. Knowing that we will attempt to tell the truth whatever the circumstances, leaves us with little to prepare for. Knowing that we told the truth in the past, leaves us with nothing to keep track of. We can simply be ourselves in every moment.” I thought about this at great length for many months. I realized we are taught not to lie because it is wrong, but we’re never given a practical implication as to why that is objectively, not just morally. It’s objectively simplifying. It makes our lives 100% easier. It reduces potential anxiety. It eliminates the need for a mental ledger. It allows genuine connection. The 2% in which I feel this philosophy may face its constraints are in the case of extremely personal issues between adolescent and adult. The general principle here is that, if there is a moral component to not lying, as fleshed out in reason 1, then there is perhaps also a contradicting moral obligation to your children. Take this example. Your child asks you if Santa is real. Santa is a figurehead for the idea of Christmas, so in some sense it doesn’t matter if Santa is real or not, since he’s just the embodiment of the spirit of Christmas. But that’s not the line of thinking to take here. The line of thinking to discuss is this; are you doing social harm to your child by telling them Santa isn’t real? Then they go to school, to friends houses, to soccer practice, to church, and ruin it for other kids. Parents will be annoyed with them. Teachers will be annoyed with them. Coaches will be annoyed with them. Have you done your child a disservice? Have you put them in a position to be a social outcast? After all, unlike an adult, children don’t ask for the truth because they are capable of cognitive clarity, they ask because they are curious. Adults, with fully formed brains, personalities, and cognition, deserve the truth. You don’t let a 12-year-old drink alcohol. In my estimation this is a very deep grey zone for lying. There are other cases here for discussion. Perhaps the way in which a relative died is traumatic. One of the arguments against lying to a child is that once the child realizes you’ve lied to them, perhaps later in life, they will not be able to trust you. But what if you tell the child, “I don’t want to tell you how grandpa died.” They will not drop it, they will be suspect of you in the short term, even if your rationale makes sense long term. So, I do believe, and have experience with this idea that it may be better to lie and ask forgiveness later on topics such as these, than to explicitly withhold, and reveal later. The damage done in the short term by withholding might outweigh the mistrust you have to contend with in the long term, by lying.
Mike: This question has elicited much thought and debate over
time. Kant believes that people should never lie, regardless of the
circumstance. He believed that lying would corrupt individual dignity, which,
he argued, would take away the ability for humans to make free choices. The
thought behind Kant’s premise is that lying contradicts our morality, and it
takes away our ability to make free decisions because when we lie, we are
making choices and statements that further protect that lie from being revealed
as a lie. So, we are not making choices that are free from encumbrances.
Additionally, Kant believed that our choice to lie affects other’s ability to
make autonomous decisions. The reason is that the other person is now making a
choice based on our lie, which, had we not lied, may have led to a different
decision, so we rob them of truly making a free choice. Nevertheless, Kant’s
argument is a zero-tolerance one, and it is one that many people have used as a
foundation for their argument but with several variations. There are so many
situations in which lying would be appropriate: not revealing the whereabouts
of a Jew during WWII, telling your wife a dress looks good on her, not
revealing information that is a part of an NDA, etc. Putting aside certain
legalities, lying is sometimes necessary to maintain a society and protect the
lives of people. However, there need to be parameters for what type of lie is
acceptable, but this would be too complicated to solve. Lying is acceptable
when you are trying to help someone deal with a mental disorder or severe
insecurity, to protect someone’s life, to not reveal highly classified
information that, if revealed, would harm many people, and more. Lying is
necessary, but it should be provoked. One should not freely lie, but only lie
when asked a question where the truth would be harmful. Kant is correct for the
most part, except for in limited circumstances. One additional thought that can
used for a later discussion, is what about lying to self? Sometimes we use this
as motivation to change our thinking, example: when I’m super sore and about to
go workout, I’ll tell myself that I am not sore to get a better lift in and
create a better mentality when attacking each set. In this case, lying has
benefited me, but at what cost?
12. Are the human body and brain optimal? If we are able to harness CRISPR
to modify our genes, would you partake?
Quinn: In one of my favorite shows, Fringe, the main characters discover that there are these bald males in black suits who appear across time and location in many pictures, virtually simultaneously. In almost every important moment in the show, you will find one of these figures. They refer to them as Observers. Spoiler alert, in the long run they find out these observers are human. They are from the future. They are learning about history in real time because they’ve mastered time travel. As the show progresses, we learn that these observers are emotionless. They don’t feel pain either. They are computational beings. They have a device implanted in their brains which removes human characteristics and transforms them into more robotic creatures. Story telling is important for this reason, ala Jordan Peterson, because it gives us examples of extreme cases, and humans are quite good at reducing down to normal circumstances and extrapolating themes, especially universal themes. This is one such example of where my mind goes when I think about things like CRISPR and Neuralink. It’s a dangerous game. And while I do see immense upside, I also see the red flags. Truth be told, I would most likely partake if I felt that the data was strong enough and the downsides were minimized. It’s interesting to me that our own biology is still so up for interpretation. For example, scientists have still not nailed down the exact genetic flaw(s) that causes Crohn’s Disease. They also don’t know what causes the disease to flare, to go into remission, or to remain in a moderate state. If you’ve done 23&Me’s genetic data testing, you’ll know that even with very distinct traits, like being able to smell asparagus in your pee, can only be given to you as a “likelihood.” Let alone, more extreme cases like Parkinson’s. Again, you can only know a likelihood. I would only engage in something as permanent and impactful as CRISPR if the baseline knowledge about the genetic malfunctioning and the interaction of that gene(s) with ALL the other genes was concrete. Given that we sequenced the entire genetic spectrum back in the 90’s and have yet to solve basic asks as it pertains to genetic interaction and causation, I believe we are a long way off, perhaps not even in my lifetime.
Mike: No, the human body and brain are not optimal. Optimal
means “best,” and human bodies are constantly evolving, so it is hard to say
when human bodies will actually be optimal. We have continually gotten
stronger, and possibly smarter, as time has passed. Records are constantly
being broken in the Olympics, making someone continually question the limits of
the human body. And people are constantly creating more advanced technology,
always better than before. We are not optimal beings yet, but we are constantly
getting one step closer – closer to what is the question. There possibly may be
no limit to human abilities; it is just time that prevents us from achieving
these results today. However, if science successfully uses CRISPR to make
humans optimal, that may be something I would partake in. I think I would wait
a little bit to see the success rate and if there are any negative consequences
that come with it. I would want to modify my genes to get rid of any gene that
could lead me to develop any type of disease and other things like that. I do
not believe everyone should partake in CRISPR, however. As bad as this sounds,
the world needs unintelligent people. There are jobs that an intelligent person
wouldn’t take because they know what their ability is. Unintelligent people
will settle for certain jobs, mind you, that are much needed in society, but
jobs intelligent people wouldn’t “settle” for.
Maybe with humans operating at optimal efficiency, we create ways of
technology taking over those jobs that don’t require high IQs. Additionally, if
my brain is operating at optimal efficiency, I may be able to spend less time
learning because I will grasp the concept of something faster than normal, so I
can spend that time doing something actually useful.
13. What environment do you have in place, and what steps are you taking to increase
your productivity and well-being?
Quinn: As I write this, I’m freshly moved into my very own apartment in Charlotte. I’ve effectively set up my life exactly the way I wanted to within the constraints of money and opportunity. This took me 3 years of hard thinking and experimenting to nail down, but I finally manifested into reality. I own a lot of the things that I want to own. I engage in activities I want to engage in. I live in a city I desire to live in. I have things in proximity that I value. My routine is mostly set up to my liking. The environment is 90% perfect. There are three main things, that if I had them, would make up the 10%. Although these are things that may be impossible to achieve. One, closer proximity to friends and family. Although I’ve improved upon this by great strides, it may not be possible to have all my best friends, my brothers, and my parents in the same city. Two, more free time. If I could work 40 hours on the dot, I do believe I could enhance my well-being to an even greater extent, but this comes at the cost of money, which I also like. Third and final, solutions to genetic flaws. I would love to figure out a sustainable way to sleep 8 hours deeply every night, to add and retain muscle mass more effectively, and to minimize the constraints of my J-Pouch. Maybe there is room to be made on this front. I have opportunities and wins when it comes to increasing productivity and well-being that are well within my control. My wins are as follows: prioritizing sleep and deprioritizing television, eliminating the need to cook, implementing reading in to my weekly schedule, living near the gym and grocery store, owning valuable technology, and vacationing often. My opportunities are as follows: searching for and finding love, correcting my jaded attitudes about particular aspects in life, eliminating wasteful time sucks, being kinder, being more truthful, and being less black and white.
Mike: The environment I create to increase productivity and
well-being is one of routine. I try to wake up at the same time every single
day, including weekends. I do this so I don’t throw off my circadian rhythm,
which will disrupt my sleep and subsequently affect my productivity for the
day. So, my sleep/wake routine is quite important to me. I eat the same meals
around the same times throughout the days; this includes chicken, rice, and a
vegetable for the most part. I also workout around the same time at night. Our
bodies are constantly updating based on the new information we are feeding it,
so I want my body to update as little as possible because this will create more
efficiency in my body by being able to recognize a situation, know the
necessary energy output, and produce the optimal performance for that task. If
your body isn’t in a routine, it’ll take longer to adjust, it won’t know how
much energy to exert, and it may even go into some type of cortisol release
because of being an unknown situation, which induces stress. Lastly, I like to
relax the mind and strengthen it through meditation (including breathing
techniques), playing chess, and reading.
14. With Tesla being on the brink of launching FSD (full-self driving),
should we be weary or relieved? Thousands of people die at the hands of other
drivers, how do you feel about much less people dying but at the hand of a
machine?
Quinn: I see FSD as synonymous to the invention of the cotton gin or the robotic arm. It’s a natural evolution in technology. Modern airplanes are 75% fully automated, the pilot is really responsible for taking off and landing. We could create the same environment as it pertains to cars. Granted, automotive driving contains far greater changes for failure due to the number of other drivers and frequency of stops, but we automated flying decades ago, well before we obtained the technology we have today. Like with anything else, anomalies exist. There will still be deaths. But, 1. If the data proves far fewer deaths and 2. We are still given full control of the vehicle when/if we feel necessary then I would feel comfortable existing in an FSD environment. We cannot halt progress because of fear, we must only take it into consideration and prioritize getting rid of the likelihood of failure.
Mike: I say relieved, but lawyers will of course disagree. The
reason we should feel relieved is because humans have too many distractors that
can take away our focus when driving – texts, calls, looking at the surrounding
environment, weather, etc. FSD cars have no distractors and only have one task
. . . drive. FSD have sensors that act like sonar radars and even more complex
technology than I can describe. All is this put together correctly will create
a car that can react faster than a human and act less irrational when driving
on a highway (think of those people that speed like crazy and change lanes
rapidly). FSD, at its best, should be the future of driving because technology
can operate more efficiently and safely than humans usually can. The major
issues are going to be mass production and possible chip malfunctions. If a
whole fleet of cars have a faulty chip that will lead to a malfunction in the
AI of the car, that could be viewed as worse than someone not paying attention
and causing an accident. However, the ability for FSD to take over the air
software updates could alleviate these types of issues. Overall, accidents are
always going to take place, but if we could limit those to a small number each
year, then I think everyone would agree that that would be best. The way to
limit the number of accidents is going to be through FSD cars.
15. Will “social media influencer” as the top career choice in America’s
youth lead to a decline in innovation and technology in America?
Quinn: This question could be answered in a few different ways. One way is in explaining why, to some extent, innovation and technological advancement in certain industries has been declining. I think Peter Thiel’s Zero to One does justice to this concept best. The second way is by looking at the potential alternatives to some large percentage of young adults choosing less technical careers like social media influencer over valuable education. I think the most obvious is that America would import talent from developing nations who would be prioritizing technical education. Third is to look at why kids may be choosing social media influencer as a career path instead of technical education. Like the analogy of being cheated on, “perhaps some of this isn’t your fault, and perhaps some is.” Fault A. goes to the parents. If you become a parent and your child chooses a career with a low probability of success and a low moral bearing, it is most likely your failure as a parent that created the choice. Fault B. goes to the schools, High School and University. High School has become so mundane that kids aren’t engaged. University has become so rote and so expensive that it is not alluring. Fault C. goes to culture. Our culture deprioritizes education and prioritizes materiality and vain behavior. Fault D. finally goes to the individual. If you wish to become a social media influencer at the expense of the rest of the options available, perhaps you are dull and ignorant, as well as influenced by the failures of faulty parties A through C. Fourth is to actually hypothesize whether this scenario will happen and what the consequences may be. I think it’s unlikely that any noticeable percentage of youth will choose to make a career out of internet presence, one because the market demand would be too small and so many would fail, and two because social media is in a metamorphic phase or a dying phase, it’s too soon to tell, but something undoubtedly is happening. Half of the people I know aren’t active on Facebook or Twitter. The other half have Instagram, and half of them complain about how it is toxic, it makes them sad, and they’re unhappy about their activities on said platform. There will be an exodus from Instagram sooner or later. I also think that the recent revelations with regards to how much undue censorship happens on the social media platforms will drive millions away. Maybe even tens of millions. What that means for the alternatives people will choose to spend their free time, I do not know. Overall, to answer the question as directly as possible, no I don’t think social media influencer will remain a top career choice for America’s youth, and no I don’t think it will be a variable in the overall productivity, innovation and technological advancement in America.
Mike: Probably. We are already seeing it head that way in the
universities. Physics, mathematics, and engineering are seeing declines in the
number of kids attending these types of grad schools and majoring in these fields
in undergrad. For one, kids are seeing how much these fields pay compared to a
youtuber or TikTok star – and it’s not even comparable for the most part. And
schools are not doing a good job of promoting these fields as exciting and
something that will make a difference in the world; schools are making these
fields seem boring and a waste of life. And two, this newer generation
understands life is short and they don’t want to sit behind a desk or in a lab
all day long for the rest of their lives; they want to be out exploring the
world. Well, the desire for that lifestyle could lead to a decline in
innovation and technology. The before mentioned fields are what help create and
invent new technology for companies and people to function daily. Our cars, phones,
TVs, etc., they all can operate because of innovations in technology. So, it is
worrisome because America does not need to fall behind in innovation due to
importing/exporting to generate revenues, potential for data-leaks, and
companies leaving America to be closer to talent-pools. I’m not quite certain
how to make these fields more appealing, but I do know that figuring out a way
to lower tuition cost may help with kids wanting to focus on these fields. Kids
as young ages also need to be taught about the importance of these fields,
because people want to feel as if what they are doing is important. If science
and math don’t feel important, then people aren’t going to go into those
fields. As social media becomes more of a presence in our daily lives, so will
the desire to become an influencer on each platform, which inevitably will lead
a lower amount of kids wanting to go into the careers that lead to new
technology and innovation.
16. How would you define success?
Quinn: In my estimation there is an objective definition of success and my own subjective definition of success. The objection definition of success is, “a location, where the coordinates of that location are occupied by your non-physical psyche and your physical being, in which a set of parameters for Life, defined by the individual, are met, in a manner which can be measured by its duration, permanence, and severity.” My subjective definition of success involves my parameters, some of which have remained consistent and others which fluctuate and change. Measuring those parameters for me involves durations, permanence levels, and severities: short term, medium term, and long term/new, semi-permanent, permanent/low severity, medium severity, high severity. In other words, I can define a present moment as successful in the same manner with which I can define a 5-year vision of success and a 30-year vision of success. I imagine a graph, in which the X axis is “time”, and the Y axis is “space”. There are data points, which are “events” in space-time. And the Line of Best Fit is the “Trajectory of Success”. As long as I’m on that LoBF I am achieving success. As for the parameters which are simple enough in nature to describe, they are as follows: One, financial stability including sufficient discretionary cash to enable frequent travel, low anxiety pertaining to bills, and freedom to purchase and own items that I deem affordable and valuable. Two, confidence and pride in my physical prowess. Three, a career which provides relative stability, potential for upward mobility, intellectual stimulation, and freedom to create the personal life I desire. Four, a network of friends and family that I have deep, meaningful relationships with, and that I am able to see and enjoy the physical presence of on a consistent basis. Five, a partner that I am deeply in love with, who challenges me, who supports me, who brings value and happiness to my life, and whom I can envision or currently engaged in a long term, child-bearing marriage with. Six, the present and future accumulation of experience which brings me fulfillment and informs me about life. Seven, the present and future accumulation of wisdom, which I can share. Eight, good health, within my control. Nine, measurable improvement in aspects of my life. Ten, measurable achievement in aspects of my life.
Mike: Success has so many variations, so it cannot be reduced
to a single definition. I think success depends on how you view your life.
Someone can find success in (1) the amount of money they make, (2) the position
they hold in their career, (3) maintaining a healthy lifestyle, (4) helping
others, (5) maintaining strong relationships with friends and family, (6)
traveling, and more. All of these are not mutually exclusive, so it is possible
to find success in multiple parts of your life. If I had to define success for
me, it would be a combination of a healthy lifestyle, strong relationships,
traveling, and helping others. One, a healthy lifestyle is something I would
find success in because I am a strong believer in the connection between the
mind and body. I want to do my best at reducing the amount of cortisol release
in my body, and I want to stay fit. I notice that when I go several days
without working out, I get more erratic with my emotions, and I don’t think as
clearly. So, this is one because it will help me regulate my emotions and allow
for a more optimal functioning of my mind, and it will help me control the
amount of stress that I allow into my life. The second is strong relationships.
I don’t want to be on my death bed alone. I want to be surrounded by friends
and family. Humans are built to be social creatures, whether that is with 2
people or 50 people. We were built to be within a network of trusted friends
and family that we can confide in and have fun with. I want to have a deep
connection with these people in my life because I want to be able to express my
feelings, thoughts, and have laughter. I want to have a relationship with my
children and wife. The third is traveling, this is included because I want to
visit and take in all of the beauty that surrounds us on this Earth. The
waterfalls, forests, cliffs, mountains, and sunsets. I want to experience the
different versions of all of them across each continent. The fourth is helping
others. This is one I desperately want to get better at. The Bible, Jordan
Peterson, other religions, and other philosophers/psychologists discuss the
importance of helping others as it relates to meaning in life and becoming the
best “you.” Helping others is an act of high honor, because it means you are
putting yourself second and putting your pride down. It takes you out of your
bubble and exposes you to the real world and real issues within it. You become
even more human in a sense, because you’re becoming a part of the entire
society you live in, not just your secluded area of that society. These are
what are important to me in defining whether I lived a successful life. Money
is great cause it gives you more choices, jobs are great cause it gives you
opportunity to earn money and leave your mark in a market, but those won’t lead
to a fulfilled life for myself – maybe for others – but not me.
17. How would you create Heaven if you could?
Mike: I would follow the model created at the end of the Netflix
show “the Good Place.” At the end of the show, they come up with a model which
assigns points to every “moral wrong” and creates a reasonable basis for
getting into heaven or not. My heaven would not be an impossible place to get
into, and I would not create a hell of eternal suffering; it would just be a
place of nothingness. I would still hold high standards for having to get into
heaven, so that quality people were actually getting in. My heaven would not be
open borders. Once someone gets into heaven, I would create a system where
everyone gets to choose their own island and can build it however they want to.
It would always be 70 degrees and sunny with a slight breeze. The streets will
be made of the finest jewels that Earth couldn’t create. I would get rid of
tiredness; people could still sleep, but they don’t have to if they don’t want
to. And while in heaven, there will still be standards for staying. But as long
as someone maintains being a decent person, they will remain in heaven. The
reason almost everyone will remain in heaven is the concept of oneness; each
person will live by a set of principles that allow for peace and harmony within
a society and deviation from those principles will almost be unheard of.
Additionally, human minds are futile and take time to absorb new material. As
the saying goes, “wisdom is much like a fine wine.” This won’t prove true in my
heaven. People will be exposed to truths and will have wisdom immediately upon
arrival. People won’t have to go through the passage of time to learn about
life; people will be able to follow rational principles and live respectable
lives in heaven because they have the wisdom of life. I would also take away
the concept of relationships because there are too many variables in play with
emotions. People don’t always act rationally when dealing with relationships.
So, I would take relationships away and the desire to be in one. Everyone will
be cordial and nice with each other. Conversations about trying to figure out
what life and meaning are won’t take place because everyone in heaven will know
what purpose and meaning is to life. My heaven will be a place of peace,
tranquility, harmony, and fulfillment.
Quinn: Cheating is lying. People lie because it is expedient. It is short sighted. It is often the easier thing to do than tell the truth. As discussed in Question 11, it’s a bad idea, plain and simple. Cheating, like deception, is a form of lying. Cheating is expedient. Cheating is often easier than admitting defeat. Take the following example: Rob did not study for his Algebra final because he was playing Xbox late into the night. This is not a new phenomenon for Rob. He hasn’t studied for most of his tests. But innocent pushover Tim always allows Rob to cheat off of him since they sit next to each other and Tim is highly agreeable and non-confrontational. On the day of the final, Rob cheats off Tim, and passes the class. Rob continues this through high school, through college and finds himself a graduate of a decent college with a decent degree because he cheated his way through school. He is hired by a solid company. His first month in the job he is found to be a fraud – he cannot even conjure up solid math formulas for his excel model because he cheated his way through algebra. He cannot compose a solid email or write a white-paper because he cheated his way through English and Business Communication class. He is fired. Suddenly, his years of fraudulent behavior have manifested themselves into his demise. Who is to blame for all this? Well, obviously Rob, he’s a cheater after all, and he made the choice. But his parents are also to blame, they let him play Xbox instead of study, they never saw him do his homework and never asked about it. Tim is also to blame. Tim lied too, as did anyone of the people who let Rob cheat off them. They were accomplices in fraudulent activity. They enabled it. This is the entire reason why Jordan Peterson says, “do what is meaningful, not what is expedient,” and also why he says, “tell the truth, or at least don’t lie.” Back to why Rob did it. In the beginning (short term view), he cheated because it was expedient as we said. After a few successful cheating schemes (medium term view), he continues to do it because turning back at that point is far harder than admitting he knows little and is unprepared. And after a long while of cheating (long term view), after it’s embedded as a habit, he continues to do it because it’s become pathological. He has cheated all his life and thus become pathological about his cheating and lying; he believes himself to be intelligent and competent, not the result of cheating. It is the duty of adults to instill morality and conventional wisdom into adolescents, and punish behaviors that go against those things, so that a single successful attempt at cheating does not develop into a society populated by incompetent frauds. You could say that this happening in many ways currently because we have systematic enablement of deception and propagated lies. A few of the strongest examples are Affirmative Action and Pay-to-Play Ivy League Education. Affirmative action deceives people into thinking they are prepared for upper level courses, by lowering the standards for select groups to enter those courses, which later lead to challenging careers, of which they are equally unprepared for. Pay-to-Play Ivy League Education allows under prepared kids with wealth to cheat the system and obtain Ivy League education when they have not earned it on the basis of merit. This blocks kids who have worked hard from earning a spot and taking a position in a challenging career. The end results of both are economic stagnation, reduction in innovation, devaluation of merit, and often individual suffering on the part of those deceived.
Mike: This is a question I wrestle with a lot because my number
one principle in life is loyalty. I think the reasons can vary based on whether
we are a male or female, but there is also a common denominator between the two
– feeling unappreciated/unloved. Before I get to the common denominator, I will
discuss the many reasons for cheating, which I believe are the effects of
feeling unappreciated/unloved. One is the excitement to do it and not get
caught. Some people get a high when they break rules or laws, it gives them an
adrenaline rush. The next is spending a lot of time with a co-worker or a
friend within a friend group. Initially, this relationship is just an
acquaintance or friend, but as the level of comfort around each other grows so
does vulnerability and openness about your life. This now creates an emotional
bond, which may lead to some type of physical intimacy. The third is
insecurity. A man may cheat with another woman because his wife is someone
important and in a position of power, and the woman he cheats with isn’t. He
cheats because the woman doesn’t threaten his masculinity and pride. A woman may
cheat with another man who is in a position of power and importance, because
maybe her husband is not, and she wants someone who can provide more for her.
The most likely scenario, however, is feeling unappreciated and/or unloved. A
lot of these issues come from lack of communication – both with yourself and
your partner. Communication with yourself allows you to pinpoint what is
bothering you and to determine if it is something you need to fix or something
you would like your partner to fix. Communication with your partner allows your
partner to hear what is bothering you and work at fixing it, and it also can
allow for your partner to help you figure out what is bothering you. When lack
of communication takes place, issues can fester without you and/or your partner
even realizing it. It can create an environment where you don’t feel
appreciated and/or loved, so you try finding that somewhere else. I also think
that a lot of people don’t find the one. Now that sounds cliché, and we have
all heard it before, but it is something very true. When you find the one,
everything in life is so much better; I mean everything. Many people settle for
someone because of not wanting to put in any more effort, because it seems like
the thing to do because of the usual timeline for relationships, or because of
being pressured into it. This already can create an unstable foundation, which
will inevitably lead to issues later on and likely lead to infidelity. We all
crave a partner that will fulfill most of our needs and make us a better
person, but many people never find that person. I believe cheating would
decrease drastically if (1) we stopped creating an individualistic society, and
(2) we had a system (maybe a better dating app) that could pair people together
better than we could pair ourselves.
19. What is your belief for why certain civilizations advanced faster than
others throughout human history?
Mike: I have always been curious about this question; this is
the main reason why I read the book by Jared Diamond, “Guns, Germs, and Steel.”
Throughout the book he notes that geographical differences are what led to
certain civilizations being advanced and others not being advanced. The premise
is that at one point we were all hunter-gatherers, but how long your tribe or
village stayed a hunter-gatherer depended upon how well-suited your climate and
soil were to adopting farming techniques. Some geographical areas have better
climate and soil for developing farming techniques, whereas other areas not so
much. The areas with the better climate and soil allowed for people to develop
farming techniques and domesticating animals, which, he believed, allowed for
more focus on other things that would help your tribe or village. This process
led to certain countries developing more efficient tools, techniques, and
structure, which allowed for expansion of that tribe. He also argued that
farming and domesticating animals created more diseases, which allowed for
those people to be exposed to more types of bacteria and viruses, so their
immune systems strengthened and were less susceptible to plagues or serious illnesses.
All of these factors are what allowed for an advancement in a society. I think this theory carries some weight and
is one we should consider as the reason for disparities between countries. I
have not heard a better argument for why this is wrong, in whole or part, and
how there is a better theory out there. So far, this one makes the most sense
and it is one that I have adopted as the reasoning for the disparity.
20. Will AI push humans towards more creative careers?
Mike: The premise is that AI will push humans towards more
creative careers; however, this is dependent on whether the AI is going to be
Supplemental or Complemental. The reason is that Complemental AI will still
require humans to work and manage the AI and won’t take over as many jobs.
Whereas Supplemental AI will take over the jobs of humans with almost no daily
management of it. AI is projected to replace 800,000,000 human jobs by 2030
across the globe. AI is inevitably going to take-over the jobs that don’t
require creative thinking, sales, etc. Many scientists believe that AI will not
have the ability to be creative. So, because of this, people will be forced
into learning how to be creative or invent jobs that require some type of
creativity and can’t be taken over by AI – at least for the near future. AI is
going to cut down on costs and increase productivity for many companies, so it
is obvious that companies are going to purchase and implement it. Humans will
not be as efficient and productive as AI will be, so some jobs will be gone
forever. This could also creative a larger disparity between incomes because
creative jobs usually require people with higher IQs which will lead to higher
pay; whereas non-creative jobs don’t require higher IQs which means lower pay.
So, if AI takes over the non-creative jobs, people with lower IQs will be
forced either into unemployment or learn how to be creative. But even people
with higher IQs may be out of luck. Think of an accountant’s job, almost all of
it, besides planning, can be automated with AI. Most of a lawyer’s job can be
automated with AI, because AI can draft up basis templated documents that will
be the standard for each industry, so lawyer’s will only act as counselors.
There is no job that is fully safe from AI, but in the short-term timeline,
lower-level jobs are most at stake, which will further exacerbate the
unemployment issues the U.S. is facing today.
21. What are your thoughts on a One World Currency?
Daniel: Economics is not a strong area
for me, but based on what I’ve read regarding a single world currency so far,
is that it would be impractical. It doesn’t allow for monetary policy to be
conducted at the country level which is necessary to meet local needs. A
country’s currency and its policies are tied to things like the housing market,
stock & bond market, and local taxes. But perhaps, something like a
dominant world cryptocurrency like Bitcoin can become the standard for a global
currency.
Mike: As is everything, there are pros and cons. The pros of an OWC are that it would create an easier way to do business, especially international business. The reason is that hedging against currency fluctuations through futures and forwards contracts would no longer have to take place due to the stability of one currency. Another would be doing away with transactional costs to convert one currency into another. This would help many non-developed countries grow, which would benefit many people. The biggest cons of an OWC are the concerns over who will control the central bank and how would the central bank deal with an economic crisis in one country. There would be no way to help a single country out who is dealing with a financial crisis because the change in interest rates or some other measure to help that country would end up affecting all of the countries in the world. I don’t think a OWC is feasible as it stands today. There would have to be some type of fragmentation of the currency in order to help individual countries in times of crisis.
Comments
Post a Comment