June 2nd, 42 After Fall
Somewhere in the Colorado Mountains

They first caught sight of the man walking a few miles from the compound. At least it looked like a man. Faded jeans, white t-shirt, light jacket, rucksack. White skin, light brown hair. No obvious disabilities. No logos.

They kept him under surveillance as he approached. In other times they might have shot him on sight, but not now. They were painfully aware of the bounds of sustainable genetic diversity, so instead they drove over in a battered van, rifles loaded, industrial earmuffs in place. Once he was on his knees, they sent Javid the Unhearing over to bind and gag him, then bundled him into the van. No reason to risk exposure.

Javid had not always been deaf, but it was an honor. Some must sacrifice for the good of the others, and he was proud to defend the Sanctum at Rogers Ford.

Once back at the complex, they moved the man to a sound-proofed holding room and unbound him. An ancient PC sat on the desk, marked “Imp Association”. The people did not know who the Imp Association were, but they were grateful for it. Perhaps it was a gift from Olson. Praise be to Olson.

With little else to do, the man sat down and read the instructions on the screen. A series of words showed, and he was commanded to select left or right based on various different criteria. It was very confusing.

In a different room, watchers huddled around a tiny screen, looking at a series of numbers.

REP/DEM 0.0012 0.39 0.003

Good. That was a very good start.

FEM/MRA -0.0082 0.28 -0.029

SJW/NRX 0.0065 0.54 0.012

Eventually they passed the lines the catechism denoted “purge with fire and never speak thereof”, on to those merely marked as “highly dangerous”.

KO/PEP 0.1781 0.6 0.297

Not as good, but still within the proscribed tolerances. They would run the supplemental.

T_JCB/T_EWD -0.0008 1.2 -0.001

The test continued for some time, until eventually the cleric intoned, “The Trial by Fish is complete. He has passed the Snedecor Fish.” The people nodded as if they understood, then proceeded to the next stage.

This was more dangerous. This required a sacrifice.

She was young – just 15 years old. Fresh faced with long blond hair tied back, Sophia had a cute smile: she was perfect for the duty. Her family were told it was an honor to have their daughter selected.

Sophia entered the room, trepidation in her head, a smile on her face. Casually, she offered him a drink, “Hey, sorry you have to go through all this testin’. You must be hot! Would you like a co cuh?” Her relaxed intonation disguised the fact that these words were the proscribed words, passed down through generations, memorized and cherished as a ward against evil. He accepted the bottle of dark liquid and drank, before tossing the recyclable container in the bin.

In the other room, a box marked ‘ECO’ was ticked off.

“Oh, I’m sorry! I made a mistake – that’s pep-see. I’m so sorry!” she gushed in apology. He assured her it was fine.

In the other room, the cleric satisfied himself that the loyalty brand was burning at zero.

She moved on to the next proscribed question, with the ordained level of casualness, “Say, I know this is a silly question, but do you ever get a song stuck in your head?”

“Errr, what?”

“You know, like you just can’t stop singing it to yourself? Yeah?” Of course, she had no idea what this was like. She was alive.

“Ummm, sorry, no.”

She turned and left the room, relief filling her eyes.

After three more days of testing, the man was allowed into the compound. Despite the ravages of an evolution with a generational frequency a hundred times that of humanity, he had somehow preserved himself. He was clean of viral memetic payload. He was alive.

What if Regulation was a Finite Resource?

Alternative Title: Conservation of Regulation

Think of the fuels that have provided the energy for human civilization so far – coal, oil, gas. They existed for thousands of years, largely inert. A small part of them (mainly coal) was used by humans for forges and the like. But then we discovered them during the industrial revolution. We put them to good use, but there’s only a limited supply.

What if regulation was the same? There’s only a finite amount available. For most of history, this existed in a largely inert fashion, regulating the atmosphere, evolution, and so on. A small part of it was used by humans to regulate their habits and bowl movements.

But then during the industrial revolution regulation was discovered by socialists and paternalists. They started using it on a massive scale, trying to regulate all of society.

Unfortunately, there’s only a finite amount of regulation available. We’ve been using so much over the last few hundred years that there’s not enough to regulate the climate – hence climate change. It caused a breakdown in virtue when people’s ability to regulate their habits was reduced. It also caused the obesity crisis because we can no longer regulate our bowl movements properly.

Now, leading scientists are warning about an even greater threat: we might be using up so much regulation that the earth’s orbit will cease to be regular. This will have dramatic consequences, ranging from disruptions to the seasons and day-and-night cycle, to the earth crashing into the sun.

Leading scientists say we need to rapidly reduce our regulation consumption if this is to be avoided. They recommend bring our regulation uses back down to 1990s levels by 2020, and 1900 levels by 2050, and 1700 levels by 2100. Unfortunately, it may already be too late to avoid changing the day-and-night cycle by 1-2 hours, in an effect scientists have dubbed ‘daylight savings time’.

Economists are divided on the best way to respond to the crisis. Some favor a regulation tax, where anyone who implemented or enforced a regulation would have to pay a tax equal to the negative externality they caused. Others suggest a cap-and-trade system, whereby rich countries would be able to buy regulation credits from poor countries. Some politicians prefer a command-and-control approach, where they would pass regulations limiting the use of regulations in industry.

Some progress has been made – most countries have signed up to the Hong Kong Protocol, promising to reduce their regulation levels. The US risks becoming an international pariah by refusing to sign; the Obama administration defended its intransigence:

Hong Kong is, in many ways, unrealistic. Many states do not want to meet their Hong Kong targets. The targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon political science. For America, complying with those mandates would have a positive economic impact, with increased hiring by small businesses and price decreases for consumers. And when you evaluate all these flaws, most reasonable people will understand that it’s not sound public policy.

But you too can make a difference! There are many easy steps you can take. Maybe turn off your thermostat – doesn’t the earth need that regulation more than your central heating? Write to politicians expressing your concern. Join a local libertarian group.

Remember, preventing the world crashing into the sun is more important than regulating your heartbeat, so ask yourself: do I really need a pace-maker?

Killing suicides so that they may live

Many suicidal people are eventually grateful they didn’t kill themselves. This is sometimes used as an argument in favor of preventing people committing suicide, as Scott recently alluded to. A few years down the line, the argument goes, they’ll be thanking you for pulling them back from the edge, you should feel justified in doing so now. In the past they didn’t want to commit suicide – in the future they’ll be glad they didn’t commit suicide. Their current mental state is a temporary aberration, which we should not hold them accountable for; rather, we should protect their ‘true self’ from it.

There are many examples of similar arguments being used in different contexts.

  • People sometimes stage ‘interventions’ with alcoholics. In the past the alcoholic did not want to drink such excessive quantities. And post-intervention, the ex-alcholic will appreciate their newfound control over their life – they’ll be glad you took away the rum. Their current mental state is a temporary aberration, which we should not hold them accountable for; rather, we should protect their true self from it.
  • Pro-abortion campaigners often claim that, while abortion is terrible, it is sometimes necessary to prevent even worse consequences for the woman. However, pro-life campaigners point out that most women denied abortions are later pleased to have a child, describing the child they would have killed as being the love of their life – as even pro-abortion researchers agree. In the past the woman didn’t plan on having an abortion, and in the future she will be glad her request to have one was denied. Her current mental state is a temporary aberration, which we should not hold her accountable for; rather, we should protect her true self (and her child) from it.
  • Another application is disability. People generally over-estimate how unhappy becoming disabled will make them. Ought we conclude from this that becoming disabled is not as bad as we thought?
  • Or re-education camps. Suppose some enemies of the state, having been perverted by reading Ayn Rand novels, are sent to re-education camps in Siberia for being evil capitalist enemies of the revolution. The camps are very effective: 100% of survivors become devout believers in Neo-Bolshevism. In the past they didn’t want to betray the revolution, and in the future they’ll be glad for the re-education. Their current individualistic mental state is a temporary aberration, which we should not hold them accountable for; rather, we should protect their true proletariat self from it.

I am not a fan of these arguments in general. Part of what constitutes our identity is our beliefs and values. To the extent that these change over time for reasons we would not endorse, to the extent we suffer value drift, [we have to some degree died.](http://lesswrong.com/lw/2zj/value_deathism/) Dying is bad. Perhaps a heroic sacrifice to save something you care about deeply might be worthwhile – but if it is, being made to abandon your value is all the worse.

And if dying if bad, then murder is yet worse. And yet that is what our benevolent busybodies are doing – destroying some small part of their friend, and replacing it with another.

And yet! – this is not nearly so bad in the suicide case. A large part of what makes murder morally wrong is that the victim does not wish to die. In the case of suicide, (at least part of) the victim longs for the embrace of death. By intervening and turning them from suicide, you are killing precisely the part of them that wanted to die. Since it wanted to die, killing it is presumably significantly less immoral. You are basically allowing the suicidal person to commit1 suicide, and then recycling their body for the benefit of a new (or at least slightly different), life-loving person.

So I think that this argument is significantly stronger in the case of suicide than in other cases.

  1. How strange that one ‘has’ an abortion, yet ‘commits’ suicide. Yet when I try to change the language it reads so awkwardly I have to change it back.