Robin Hanson (part 2): Social Science or Extremist Politics in Disguise?!

My second interview with economist Robin Hanson was by far the most vigorous debate ever on Singularity 1 on 1. I have to say that I have rarely disagreed more with any of my podcast guests before. To be even more clear, I believe that it is ideas like Robin’s that may, and often do, have a direct impact on our future. And so I am very conflicted. Ever since I finished recording my second interview with Hanson I have been torn inside: On the one hand, I really like Robin a lot: He is that most likeable fellow, from the trailer of The Methuselah Generation: The Science of Living Forever, who like me, would like to live forever and is in support of cryonics. In addition, Hanson is also clearly a very intelligent person with a diverse background and education in physics, philosophy, computer programming, artificial intelligence and economics. He’s got a great smile and, as you will see throughout the interview, is apparently very gracious to my verbal attacks on his ideas. On the other hand, after reading his book draft on the Em Economy, I believe that some of his suggestions have much less to do with social science and much more with his libertarian bias and what I will call “an extremist politics in disguise.” So, here is, the way I see it, the gist of our disagreement: I say that there is no social science that, in between the lines of its economic reasoning, can logically or reasonably suggest details such as: policies of social discrimination and collective punishment; the complete privatization of law, detection of crime, punishment and adjudication; that some should be run 1,000 times faster than others, while at the same time giving them 1,000 times more voting power; that emulations who can’t pay for their storage fees should be either restored from previous back-ups or be outright deleted (isn’t this like saying that if you fail to pay your rent you should be shot dead?!)… Merging theater masksSuggestions like the above are no mere details: they are extremist bias for Laissez-faire ideology while dangerously masquerading as (impartial) social science. During the 2007 OSCON conference Robin Hanson said: “It’s [Bias] much worse than you think. And you think you are doing something about it and you are not.” I will go on to claim that Prof. Hanson himself is indeed a prime example of exhibiting precisely such a bias, while at the same time thinking he is not. Because not only that he doesn’t give any justification for the above suggestions of his, but also because, in principle, no social science could ever give justification for issues which are profoundly ethical and political in nature. (Thus you can say that I am in a way arguing about the proper limits, scope and sphere of economics, where using its tools can give us any worthy and useful insights for the benefit of our whole society. That is why the “father of economics” – Adam Smith, was a moral philosopher.) I also agree with Robin’s final message during out first interview – namely that “details matter.” And so it is for this reason that I paid attention and was so irked by some of the side “details” in his book’s draft. The quote that I will no doubt remember, that frankly shocked me and I totally hate and find completely abhorrent: “The Third Reich will be a democracy by now!” (Yes, you can give Robin the benefit of the doubt for he said this in the midst of our vigorous argument. On the other hand, as Hanson says – “details do matter.”) So, my question to you is this: Is Robin Hanson’s upcoming book on the Em Economy social science or extremist politics in disguise?!