The Evil of Action

I was reminded by none.rip to think about stuff, and am still working it out. At some point I am afraid I will have written a manifesto, but here I am just spitballing.

I am a crappy anarchist. I don't appreciate governments for the mass-scale murder and suffering (and to a lesser but tangible degree, corruption and lies) they cause and participate in. But I also don't feel a strong need to fight the State, as another and possibly worse State will take its place. As bad as things are where I am, I have personally witnessed much worse.

And so I say I am an anarchist because I am anti-state, but that is not really it. Also people think I want to throw Molotov coctails and protest, which is absolutely not what I want to do. Mostly I just don't want people to die by force and brainwashing.

Action Leads To Suffering and Death.

And that is all I think about lately.

Thinking of my personal life, I can solidly say that any firm plans I had tried to make and follow through on were abject failures. I am not talking of generalities like broad goals of happiness and family and wealth, but of specific quests to do something in a planned fashion.

Now that I am oldish and not invested in appearances, I can say that. I had tried to be smart and think ahead, but life had always found a way to do something unpredictable to thwart my efforts. It always worked out in the end in some way and I would handwave over the differences between the plan and the outcome, as one does.

On the other hand, major unplanned events, things that happened spontaneously were the key parts of my life. I can't help but think of them as mostly positive, with some exceptions. A few terrible things, sure, but hey -- I did not plan them!

And all great things, coincidences that lead to life-long relationships (or casual but strangely meaningful conversations with strangers in the street), stumbled-upon obects leading to careers, and temporary, almost forgotten-about investments that had ballooned into unexpected retirement plans (while carefully planned ones, some requiring much time and effort, tank)... And even children! All those and many other, unplanned things are the most wonderful parts of my life.

And I have to admit that in spite of good intentions I had contributed to the terribleness that we seek to escape here. Needless to say, these efforts were planned and ended up sideways. And I watch others, smarter and far more determined people, who, through action, cause even more pain, suffering and death.

In the end, everything requires some action and choice. I do not advocate for digging a hole and sitting there until the obvious end. And evading actions of others requires something like action, but it is somehow different. I have to think about that some more.

But I am certain that not doing is better than doing in majority of cases. Until I figure things out, I will try to move slowly and disrupt nothing. I will grudgingly invest in most unproductive assets possible and gently remind people that trying to save the world may end it.

---------------------------------

I've been searching through various philosophies for some answers. Taoism is close with Wu Wei, but not quite what I am looking for. Buddhism is more focused on desire, which is different. Schopenhauer is possibly close. There are many dead ends.

🚀 stack

Feb 20 · 2 months ago

31 Comments ↓

🚀 ingrix · Feb 20 at 21:25:

Thanks for the thought-out post, @stack.

I'd like to throw my perspective into the ring here, because some of your observations are similar to some I have been making recently. The fact that you mention Taoism is the cherry on top of that.

I have some background in the sciences, and when I was at university I had the privilege of taking some intro-level quantum mechanics courses. I've been brushing up on these lately (^1) because I have been thinking about questions similar to what you have posed, and the strange things that happen in quantum mechanics seem to pop up in the world that we actually interact with day-to-day.

The one parallel that's probably most relevant here is this: the more you interact with a quantum system, the more you fundamentally change it. Physicists usually talk about this with respect to "measuring" something, in the sense that if you bump an electron enough to know something about it you end up fundamentally changing its character and any information you had about that electron beforehand you basically just have to throw away as irrelevant. Note that this seems to be a *fundamental feature* of the universe we live in.

In meatspace a similar thing seems to be true, that the more force you put behind some effort the more you fundamentally change how the world works around you. It is very difficult to actively make a decision, especially one designed to e.g. benefit you, without obviating some of the things you knew about the world from before you made that effort. It doesn't actually mean that the planning was incorrect at the time you made the plans, but that the information that you were using to make the plan fundamentally shifted underneath you once the plan was put into place. I find that predicting the way that these shifts happen is pretty difficultt, probably because being able to make the prediction also fundamentally changes how the shift happens too. Based on how I see most other people living everyone else finds this to be a problem too.

I mention that Taoism was the cherry on all of this because I have been interested in the Tao te Ching for some time and I also see parallels to these same principles in its text. There's some translation in the first part of the text that goes something like "the way that can be told of is not the true way." I see that parallel in that the more you're able to gather, understand about, and interact with the universe, the more you fundamentally change its nature and so you cannot ever truly know what is going on. I understand the Wu Wei part as something like how pieces of the universe evolve in the "indeterminate quantum foam" before some other piece of the universe bumps into them - if you force things you break out of that quantum foam and shifts start happening.

I'm not sure if this helps give any clarity (and I'm not sure I was trying to give you any) but maybe it'll be useful food for thought. Ultimately I guess I wouldn't call "action" bad as a general statement, but it does complicate predictions and can sometimes give that appearance.

Links

— 1. Leonard Susskind's Theoretical Minimum lectures on QM

🚀 stack [OP] · Feb 20 at 22:19:

@ingrix - thank you. I lack the math skills to truly follow quantum mechanics (and of course, intuition fails here) but I worked through QED and aporeciate the similarities you bring up.

I generally avoid the topic with laypeople as woo-woo magical new-age QM stuff just frustrates me.

At our scale, lack of information and biases are probably more at fault. And our brains' terrible desire to lie.

👻 darkghost · Feb 21 at 00:23:

We're terrible at perceiving things as they are. First, there is a several millisecond delay so that your perception is always offset in the past. The brain forms patterns for shorthand which is why optical illusions work, you hear voices in static, and feel creepy crawlies where there is nothing. And that's before you overlay bias and thought onto what you perceive.

I wish I had something more thoughtful to contribute. But my only observation is there is a difference between action and ambitious action. Action is swerving to avoid a turtle in the road. Ambitious action is when you stab people in the back, exploit them for personal gain, or try to enact change bigger than you can predict. I believe the thrust of the discussion concerns mostly ambitious action.

🚀 stack [OP] · Feb 21 at 00:47:

@darkghost, that is absolutely correct. It gets ambiguous fast -- swerve to save a turtle and kill an innocent family...

🚀 lars_the_bear · Feb 21 at 08:19:

The problem is that _inaction_ leads to suffering and death, too. "Duḥkha", the buddhists say. Sometimes plans don't work out; sometimes not planning doesn't work out. My grandmother used to say: "If you want to make God laugh, tell Him all your plans." I generally think it's better to take action than not to, knowing full well that sometimes it will all turn to shit. We don't control very much in this world, and my life has generally been better since I realized that. Oh, shit -- I think I've become a Stoic ;)

🚀 stack [OP] · Feb 21 at 14:35:

I used to be outraged at US lawyers advising people, even doctors, to not intervene by trying to resuscitate people at accident scenes, due to potential liability. I am not sure how I feel about it now (not for legal/financial reasons, of course). Life is infinitely precious and infinitely replaceable. Some suffer the loss of loved ones, others thank god that a predator was removed from this planet. I don't want to make decisions anymore -- if someone dies from my inaction, I can live with that. Living with having killed someone through misguided but deliberate action is harder.

Would I let a child drown if I could do something? Of course not. There are simple situations where there is no ambiguity. But it gets complicated fast in real life.

🚀 lars_the_bear · Feb 21 at 17:18:

@stack : This is why the 'trolley problem' is so intractable. Anyway, I'm pleased to say that in the UK we have legislation that prevents folks being sued after a good-faith effort to save live and limb ends badly.

🚀 stack [OP] · Feb 21 at 18:38:

Yes, the trolley problem... But I'm considering beyond the simple dilemma; I suspect that perhaps both choices are bad and you just don't know why or what will happen.

And what the f... are you driving a trolley for anyway. Consider all the damage the trolley had already caused from the extraction of metals, refinement of fuel. And so on.

🚀 lars_the_bear · Feb 22 at 14:16:

I guess we're postulating a kind of 'random trolley problem' . Whether you pull the lever or not, a random thing happens :)

🐐 boringbbsuser · Mar 04 at 15:26:

I think it shows wisdom and introspection to be so concerned about actions. Even the ones you may be convinced of today, you might look back at and regret.

And even aside from that, as you say, you can save the turtle and kill the family (at times.)

Though I can relate to what you wrote, I also feel that it's perhaps a bit simpler than you might expect to ensure actions are useful, or at least not harmful.

🐐 boringbbsuser · Mar 04 at 15:26:

It becomes difficult to make harmful decisions if your life is bound by nature. A few hundred years ago, if someone built a shoddy log cabin, it just decomposed back into the earth. If you built a modern house, with plastic, fiberglass insulation, galvanized nails, and polymer coated screws, even if it falls down it isn't going to readily decompose. It will never be beautiful in its decay, like how a log cabin would.

When you have a garden and you plant poorly, in the long term no one will know or care. But when you swipe your credit card for one Amazon order after the other, financing the creation of materials that will never decompose, you make a stain on the Earth.

🐐 boringbbsuser · Mar 04 at 15:30:

Of course regrets aren't always environmental in nature. Though things like 3D printing, that in ways seems good (less corporate, more local, more DIY) also encourages endless plastic trinkets. Is it sometimes the best option, overall? Of course! But not always. Rarely is a single cause always good or always bad.

I don't think I will ever regret spending more time with my children. I don't think I will look back at my life and wish I planted fewer potatoes. I won't regret telling my wife that I love her.

I know I would regret trying to find meaning in corporate pursuits. I know I would regret travel at the sake of my family.

🐐 boringbbsuser · Mar 04 at 15:36:

To discuss another element to this, I recently joined the local fire department. There are things about this that I know are bad. The suits are very toxic. Fires themselves, with synthetic materials, are very toxic. Not everyone I help will do things that I agree with.

And no doubt, when we test using firefighting foam, there is a negative environmental impact. I have a higher cancer risk being involved at all, both from the suits and the nature of house fires.

🐐 boringbbsuser · Mar 04 at 15:37:

At the same time, I don't know what I don't know. I will learn what was good and what was not as I move forward. Sometimes that firefighting foam is the best option when used on what it was intended to be used. And the whole experience makes me more cautious and more appreciative of life. It is terrible to see people die, though worse when someone lives.

Of course, someone living, leaving a legacy of destruction, is no life at all. I think there's often no easy answers in the modern life, but scaling back reveals more choices that cause fewer regrets.

(Sorry for all of the posts, I am still trying to figure this out. I really enjoyed your post.)

🚀 stack [OP] · Mar 04 at 16:07:

I am definitely overthinking. Most of the time it is fairly obvious. Other times there is little choice. I don't think I could let a child drown for a questionable moral hypothesis.

🚀 stack [OP] · Mar 04 at 16:11:

As firefighting goes. nothing is more terrifying to me as electric cars. For firefighters, occupants, or anyone nearby.

I've never been inside one and hopefully never will be. In case of fire you have seconds to get out, and door locks are guaranteed to fail.

Nothing wrong with multiple replies.

🐐 boringbbsuser · Mar 04 at 16:26:

I've always had a negative view of them, but was a bit shocked with some of what I heard.

They burn for days, if not weeks. Larger departments talk about cutting shipping containers in half to cover the car and try to contain the mess. I guess they would pick it up and drop it into one with some type of crane, like a tub, or they would cover the top of it.

I suspect some chemistries would be better than others for safety, like LiFePO4. I still feel it's a gamble.

I assume you could have mechanical door levers on electric cars, right? Even ones that unlock the locks? Many cars have been like that for a long time.

🚀 stack [OP] · Mar 04 at 17:10:

I was told that 'some Tesla models' have a mechanical override, but how many people know where and how to use it when the car is filling with toxic black smoke?

There are many instances of towed vehicles reigniting as much as a month after collision... Gasoline is terrifying, but lithium is such a bad idea...

🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 04 at 17:24:

The terrible calculus of short-term tragedy against long-term calamity...

Lithium batteries occasional catch fire and kill people, but burning hydrocarbons is slowly destroying the whole planet. Which is worse? Switch the trolley or not ? ;)

I'll stick to my bicycle.

👻 darkghost · Mar 04 at 18:02:

In my experience, people find the mechanical override before they find the button and then the car yells at them for using it.

🚀 stack [OP] · Mar 04 at 18:37:

It is questionable if electric cars offer a net benefit, if you include the environmental cost of lithium and weird metals mining, battery losses/lifespan/replacement cost, and the fact that the lithium battery is _not_ fuel -- you still burn hydrocarbons in a power plant in a poor neighborhood.

Add government subsidies to force abandonment of perfectly good cars for new electric/giant cars... And infrastructure projects to expand the grid and install charging stations...

🚀 stack [OP] · Mar 04 at 18:47:

— 8by3.net/~xkcd/3214.gmi

👻 darkghost · Mar 04 at 19:49:

Here's the argument: you're going to mine. You might as well build a durable good from those products. A battery is that. Fuel is disposable energy and the industrial infrastructure produces a single use item. You can mine for more minerals to produce another durable good, such as solar panels. Panels have nearly zero operating expenditure unlike every other kind of power generation. Won't we run out of land? We use a ton of land on corn ethanol, that is corn that is fermented into ethanol to blend into gasoline, and there is enough land there to cover it in solar panels (that exist now) to provide enough power for the US. I'm not taking Arizona sun, I'm taking Midwestern sun.

At end of life for the battery, where is the richest source of more lithium to produce a new battery? It's the old battery and others like it. Economically, it makes sense to recycle. You only need large scale mining if you're growing the numbers of batteries. Solar panels are silica, copper, glass, and aluminum. Some of the most readily available materials, with glass and aluminum being so abundant they're used for beverage containers. Recycle them, sure, when they lose their ability to transfer energy economically in 25-30 years.

If you want your creature comforts and your fast transportation, this seems like a much better way to make use of the resources available. You can live your life using only paper plates, but durable reusable plates you wash make so much more sense in the long run.

🚀 stack [OP] · Mar 04 at 21:46:

I saw a news segment recently. I think it was Australia. People with old (2-3yr) solar panels realized that the promised savings (and profits from selling power back) were nearly non-existant; but new, more efficient panels will save lots, and sell power, and this time it's different. Govmnt. subsidises shiny new panels, no one wants the old ones because subsidies do not apply.

👻 darkghost · Mar 05 at 00:01:

The profits of selling power back are extremely variable and subject to the whims of the service provider. Most don't have long term contacts to sell back out even short term contracts. Even those who can offset 100% of their power still pay a minimum because power line maintenance ain't free.

But I question the motives of the people involved in this story. They're isn't a big efficiency gain between now vs 3 years ago. Maybe a price difference. Maybe better incentives now vs then.

🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 05 at 07:29:

@stack : "...you still burn hydrocarbons in a power plant in a poor neighborhood"

We don't do that round my way. We find the greenest, most unspoiled part of the countryside, and burn hydrocarbons there.

I would imagine that the long-term environmental benefits of electric transportation will only come when we have non-polluting, sustainable energy sources for everything else. Burning oil to charge your car's lithium batteries doesn't seem to make much sense by itself, and that's what we're doing now.

🚀 stack [OP] · Mar 05 at 14:40:

in the US about 20% of electricity is from burning coal [EPA], 60% from all hydrocarbons...

Driving around in electric cars here is like running a hose from your tailpipe to your underprivileged neighbor's house. All while being all smug about environmentalism.

At least my car burns gas. not coal.

👻 darkghost · Mar 05 at 15:59:

I think about efficiency. A small mobile engine must run over a large rpm as dictated by the driving needs. The efficiency of the engine is full of compromises on size, weight, power, and operating range. A power plant can and has be engineered and fine tuned to run at peak efficiency all the time. Rather than heat being a waste product, it is used to boil water to produce the power.

The electric motor itself is very efficient in converting energy to motion without wasting as much energy as heat. This is why you see efficiencies reported as being >100 mpg equivalent. (Equivalency is calculated as the amount of chemical energy in a gallon of gas, about 33 kWh.)

It's such an energy loss in an engine that it's more energy efficient to burn gasoline in a power plant and use that to charge an EV (accepting all transmission losses and electrical charging/discharging inefficiencies) than it is to burn in an engine.

🚀 stack [OP] · Mar 05 at 16:07:

True. But just to argue a bit more I would guess that gain is largely offset by battery inefficiency. And if replacing a working vehicle any comparison is not good.

👻 darkghost · Mar 05 at 16:14:

Batteries are pretty good if they're actually managed (unlike the Leaf). But you're 100% right. Don't get rid of a working vehicle just because there's something else out there. That's the most wasteful thing you can do.

🚀 stack [OP] · Mar 05 at 16:18:

I was surprised to see 90%+ theoretical efficiency! Things are improving. But enough optimism.