Rationality is good, but overrated

     Rationality. The tool of philosophers and mathematicians, the mother of Renaissance and Enlightenment, the cradle of advanced civilization, and the reason why they no longer behead you for insulting a deity. 

    No doubt rationality is generally way better than the lack of it. We can imagine a society where complete rationality prevails (well, sort of) , but we can't even begin to imagine a society where reason and logic are completely absent. Such a society would most likely not even be formed in the first place, and if it did, it wouldn't go far. Hence that modern western cultures give so much importance in it, that it is almost an insult to accuse someone of being irrational -sort of calling them nonsensical or plain dumb.

    We often disregard a (political, philosophical, professional, etc) opponent's views or suggestions  by associating them with feelings, conspiracy theories, guesses, matters of taste, and in any case irrationality. A form of anathema for quickly dismissing something -since if something is or seems irrational, then according to the implicit assumption of our culture, it is not even worth discussing. 

    Yet the last few years we tend to overdo it with being rational, and it actually starts to seem a little bit overrated. Treating rationality as the only compass towards the better has more profound ethical, political, economical, legal, and social implications than one initially thinks. And after a certain point, it doesn't really make much sense.

 

Justice and dignity are fundamentally irrational

    You are waiting at the bus stop. A guy randomly walks up to you, insults your family, and punches you in the face for no reason. He is at least as big and strong as you are. No one saw you, so there is no reputation at stake, and no witnesses in case you want to sue him.

    If you are completely rational, you will realize that hitting back will not undo his punch and insult. You will also calculate that there is a probability of you ending up severely beaten up if you hit back, and that even if you successfully beat him up, some witness may come from around the corner and perceive you as the attacker, so you'll end up sued by him instead. The completely reasonable choice here, is to let the person walk away without any consequence. 

    But would you do it? Would you be proud of yourself if you chose to act so? Would you be happy with your daughter marrying someone who chose to let such an offender walk away? If the answer to any of these questions is no, well, congratulations! You are irrational, and your irrationality is nothing to be ashamed of. 

    The example above rings two bells: dignity and justice (perhaps even manliness, but that is another story). Both are fundamentally irrational. You can't really put down in words why it would be shameful for you to let the offender go away, and if you attempt to do so, you'll realize that your explanations are completely irrational and made-up. No one ever gave you a lecture on how it would be shameful to the person randomly punching you at the bus stop to go away; it just feels so.

    Why it feels so depends on our sense of dignity, and that in turn depends on a  combination of evolutionary and cultural influences, both of which are irrational and flawed too.

    Justice is irrational as well. Can you even define justice? Why is it fair to hit back a person that hit you? This sounds like a eye-for-an-eye justice, and according to many if not most rationality fanboys, it is wrong! In fact, if we want to be completely rational, we should leave a murderer unpunished if we know for sure that he will never harm another person again, and just ignore the cries of the victim's relatives. We only care about logic, not about feelings, don't we?

    I perceive it as self-evident that justice and dignity are irrational, just like our everyday behavior, or even altruism. No one really disagrees that these forms of irrationality have even positive aspects. Even rationalism hools like Steven Pinker recognize that the irrationality of our social behavior has good aspects as well (e.g. running in a building on fire to help a stranger). But! When it comes to politics, the economy, and the law, rationality is the only way to go! Right?

    Well, I doubt it.

 

Do we really want a completely rational economy and legal system?

     Imagine an economist giving a lecture. He is a highly intelligent and academically successful technocrat, with years of experience in finance, and working experience in banks, off-shores, universities, and ministries. As you expect, our economist is extremely rational and mathematical, and has come up with a plan for powering up our economy.

    "By legalizing child prostitution, we will bring billions to the state! Pedophiles from all around the world will travel to our country for its' services, and this will propel up tourism as well. Thousands of new jobs will be created, and criminality will be reduced too, since no one will have to abduct a child and rape her! We will drug the children to prevent the psychological impact, and this will increase the profitability of pharma-corporations too!" 

    How does it sound? Rational, ain't it? Our economist described an actual method of growing the economy, -so why not follow it? Since it makes us richer, reduces criminality (for some definition of it), and provides a way to avoid the psychological impact to the children, what are your objections then? That it is not "right"? Says who? Elaborate. Give our economist a rational argumentation. He and his friends can always come up with rational counter-arguments.

    Legalizing child prostitution is wrong mainly because our gut feeling says it is. The gut feeling in turn depends on a combination of cultural and evolutionary influences. The argumentation to justify our gut feeling is made up after contemplation, and only when explicitly asked for it. The example above is far-fetched, yet makes the point quite clear: square rationality disregarding feelings and instincts may not be the proper path towards a better tomorrow.

    We would end up with monstrously inhumane economic and legal systems if we were to use pure rational reason to build them. Hospitals would deny treating you for being too old, and the cost of the treatment exceeds the benefit. Even killing non-productive people (e.g. persons with disabilities) might be an option now, since there often is no actual benefit in helping them. 

    The root of the problem is that much of what we take for granted in the Law and the Economy is irrational in the first place. Human rights, for instance, are not only a very recent social construction, but an irrational one: if we take all human rights one by one, there is no path of purely logical reasoning leading to them. Most of them actually just sound (and are) good.

    One might claim that they are like axioms in mathematics, but mathematical axioms derive from facts (e.g. you can actually draw a euclidean line from any point A to any point B on paper), whereas cultural "axioms" such a human rights and the value of human life... well, they are more related to feelings than mathematical axioms. And there is nothing inherently wrong about that.

    Our imaginary economist is not wrong about his "method" boosting economy. He is wrong for not taking cultural tamboos and human rights in the equation. Being rational is generally a good thing, but being too rational can make you weird, disgusting, or monstrous.

  

Where can we draw the line?

     So, what is the case then? How logical should we be to avoid becoming weird? Is there a magic percentage of irrationality allowed in argumentation on politics, economics, and the law? Or should we just advocate opinions based solely on "because that's how I feel"-a soft-sounding alternative to "because I said so"?

     Finding a magic percentage of irrationality allowed in is out of scope for this post. To be honest, I wouldn't bet my $5 it even exists. But we should sit back and think a second time before rejecting an  opinion altogether because it seemingly lacks clear, reasonable justification. Complete rationality is unsuitable not only for our everyday behavior (helping a stranger is irrational too), but even in political and legal debate.

    Our opinions are based on a combination of logical reasoning and gut feeling, and nothing is inherently wrong about that. It only becomes wrong when the illogical opinions of a minority make the life of the majority harder, but this can only be solved with more (actual) democracy, and not more rationality. Otherwise we will end up doing meaningless, never-ending debates, seemingly trying to find out who has the most arguments, but actually trying to sound smarter.

 

Things that right-wingers have a tough time understanding

 There was a similar post on this blog, but it was a translation of an older post with argumentation adjusted to Greek politics (and some awful imitation of my writing style when writing in Greek). This was written in English in the first place, and pretty much adjusted for an American audience (though the argumentation is pretty much valid for European politics too).

There will be some updates with extra points.

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

1. Capitalism is not a meritocracy.

    According to the right-wing mythology, capitalism is a system where wealth is accumulated by the most capable, talented, and hard working.

    It doesn't take much thinking to make this myth fall apart. In most countries (e.g. India, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc) no matter your IQ and willingness to work, the probability of living a decent life is very small, let alone becoming a multimillionaire. Right wingers typically get around this small detail of our world by attributing this situation to non-western cultures, and claiming that it isn't so in the west (or the USA in particular).

    Now, let's get our facts straight.

    Imagine someone who is extremely skilled and intelligent, has studied for decades, works hard, and saves lives. Any doctor could be that, and especially a neurosurgeon.

    Yet bother taking a glance on the forbes' list of billionaires: you will not find a single neurosurgeon there.

    Just like you will not find a phd mathematician, or a rocket scientist, or a kernel programmer, or a nuclear physicist. You will only find the people extracting surplus value off the rocket scientist (e.g. Elon Musk), the kernel programmer (e.g. Bill Gates), etc.

    Capitalism is exactly what the word says: an -ism (i.e. sociopolical model) where the most powerful are the ones that own the most capital.

    Gaining capital has barely anything to do with being skilled and hard working, especially if we take in to account the non-western countries (no matter the culture, most are capitalist too). If the fact that Kim Kardashian makes more than a nuclear physisist or that the forbes list does not comprise of neurosurgeons and phd mathematicians, does not convince you, I don't know what will.

    Gaining capital is about extracting it from the ones who actually produce it, not about being talented or hard-working.

    Thinking that the forbes list comprises of the most hard-working persons or capable minds, is almost like thinking that the MTV charts comprise of the most talented artists. "Almost", because sometimes an artist on the MTV charts may actually have some talent.


2. Businessmen/entrepreneurs don't innovate; scientists and engineers do.

    There is some confusion as to who is the actual innovator and mastermind behind modern technologies. Society wants to you believe that it is businessmen and entrepreneurs who are behind your technological advancement, but this actually is far from the truth.

    The ones who innovate are scientists and engineers. Some businessmen may have an engineering degree, but just because you have studied guitar does not mean you are a musician, let alone a composer. Not to mention that most businessmen don't even have an engineering degree in the first place.

    Elon Musk did not design the electric cars his companies sell; the engineers that work there did it for him. Bill Gates did not design or write the code for Windows; the programmers he hired did it for him. The list can go on for ever.

    A businessman only solves the financial problems for his own business, not the technical problems that improve your technology. As a matter of fact and precision, even the financial problems are seldom if ever solved by the businessmen themselves -they hire financial analysts to do the job for them

    Thinking that the CEOs of tech corporations are the masterminds behind technology, is fully equivalent with believing that the CEOs of publishing companies are the masterminds behind literature.


3. When scientists and engineers innovate, they are, more often than not, government-funded.

    Yes, you read that right. The microprocessor, the computer, the internet, and most of your medicine, owe their existence to government-funded research.

    Just like sending humanity to space (USSR) or landing it to the moon (high tax USA of the 60s) were achieved by government-funded research.

    One of the most persistent myths by capitalists to justify privitazing everything is the technological advancement that supposedly was a result of the private economy. The real reason behind it was actually the increase of population (larger population  more hands working & more brains thinking), which in turn can be attributed to a combination of related and unrelated factors, but we are not writing a book here.

    Most of the technological advancement that improved your life can be traced back to government-funded programs like DARPA in the USA, or projects such like CERN in EU.

    No sane investor would invest millions or even billions for a hadron collider (can you even imagine a way it would be profitable?). But the thing is, the HTTP protocol came about when the scientists in CERN needed an efficient way to access data stored on other machines.

    You can find numerous similar examples with details on the internet, but I will encourage you to read "the entrepreneurial state" by the prize-winning economist Marianna Mazucatto.

4. Basic economics only applies to "basic" economies.

    Basic economics is just like basic physics: pretty sufficient to describe a simple system, but falls apart when attempting to describe anything more complex.

    Newton's equations can describe a simple planetary system (e.g. a star and a couple of planets), but fall apart even when trying to describe large planetary systems, let alone star clusters, galaxies, and black holes . Newton's equations have became useless long before coming anywhere near to describe star clusters and black holes, and the infinitely more complex Einstein's equations come into play (though even then one needs massive computational power to actually make precise descriptions).

    Same with basic economics. You may describe a simple economy using them -e.g. a (isolated and self-sufficient) village with a dozen economic players-, but you are not going to describe a chaotic supersystem of banks, states, monetary funds, incomprehensible legal systems, international politics, shareholders, and  tight interdependence between all of them.

    So, before trying to oWn ThE liBz with bAsIC eCoMoMicS, make sure that those economics are actually meant to describe the real world.

    You won't describe or make predictions for a star cluster with basic Newton's equations. You won't describe or make predections for the international economy using basic economics. Fox news "analysts" and PragerU have deceived you.

5. Welfare state is for the "irresponsible" / "weak"? Isn't this the case with the law and the police?
`
    "What?! A welfare state, with tax-funded college, healthcare, regulations, and economic safety nets for everyone?! You want the government to be your daddy?? All these taxes are hurting the economy! And why should the taxpayer pay for your weakness and irresponsibility? *You* are responsible for your economic situation, and no one else! As for the big corporations, they will realize that [*insert bad stuff here*] is non viable and the market will regulate itself."

    this sounds exactly like:

    "What?! A lawful state, with tax-funded police force, a legal system, and juries for everyone?! You want the government to be your daddy?? All these taxes are hurting the economy!  And why should the taxpayer pay for your weakness and irresponsibility? *You* are responsible for your safety, and no one else!  As for the criminals, they will realize that robbing everyone isn't viable and society will regulate itself"

    A welfare state is as much a prerequisite for a civilized society as much as a legal system and a police force is.

    Abolish the police and the law, and you will end up with groups of armed bandits breaking into your house while you sleep, murder you, rape your wife, and take everything valuable. Theoretically, you will be able to defend yourself with your guns, but 1. they are more than you, 2. why should all this happen? Can't we just have a police force and a law?

    Abolish the welfare state and deragulate everything, and you will end up with the big corporations buying up everything and forcing you work from dawn to sunset for pennies. Theoretically, you would be able to survive by "starting your own business" and working 90h/week, but 1. Google and Amazon are way stronger than you are, 2. why should all this happen? Can't we just have regulations and an economic safety net for everyone?

6. You have been lied to in your whole life about the communist regimes.

 

    "Communism only ever brought famines, suffering, and destruction!1!". This is what we have been told about communism. And we have been told that this much, that is has become a part of our culture -pretty much in the same sense that worshipping Kim Jong Un has become a part of North Korean culture.

 

But bother checking this out:

 

 

 

    This is the life expectancy in China before and after the communist revolution, as found on Statista.  A similar pattern is noted in the USSR.

 

    The so-called communist regimes of China and Russia did not have as good living standards as the West, but they were very very better than what they replaced. Statistical facts such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and literacy, speak for themselves: life was even more awful in the Tsarist regimes and pre-communist China respectively.

 

    Yes, there were famines in the beginning, but they were the last to ever happen in those countries. Famines were a routine in Tsar's Russia and Imperial/Republican China. If famines were the rule or even frequent Mao's regime, how come and the Chinese population grew that much under Mao? Would the population more than quadruple under Mao if the Chinese were indeed starving?

 

    Some of the so-called communist regimes had a standard of living that was somewhat decent even by the Western standards -namely Tito's Yugoslavia (which you, more likely than not, have not even heard of) and Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam. The average citizen there lived like a low-to-middle-class westerner; not enviably well, but definitely not very bad either.

 

    I don't know if implementing communism in the West would be a good idea, but I can assure you of this: communism did not only bring "famines, suffering, and destruction". China's population would not have increased that much under communism; and Russia would not become an industrial superpower that sent humanity to space under communism, and all this despite the WW2 casualties and material destruction.

 

    You have been lied to in your whole life. Bother asking who lied to you and what was the purpose.

 

Was the USSR a nice place to live? No. Was the USSR a hell on earth? Also no.
The percentages of USSR nostalgia are more than clear.

 

 

7. Not everything depends on your choices, never did, never will, and that is the case with everyone else too.

 

    Most of your life is determined by three factors that are completely our of your control: the country you were born in, the year you were born in, and the income of your parents. Being born in Danmark is different than being born in Botswana, being born in 1950, 1980, and 2010 are different, and being born to a CEO is different than being born to a janitor.

 

    Each and every of these three factors largely determines the career choices available to you (would I have been able to become a programmer if I was born in 1830?), your probability of getting an education and its' quality, your possibilities of seeking a better life abroad, and even your personality traits (unless you believe you would be equally peaceful if you were raised by the Taliban). 

    Another factor that plays too much of a role is your gender, but if we go into this you may dismiss my argument as "woke", so let's pretend it is not on this list.

  

    Then there is other stuff our of your direct control but have a huge impact on your life. The stock market, international politics, bank policies, environmental issues, and the choices of everyone else. You simply don't exist in a vacuum. The 2008 recession, the covid-19 outbreak, and the war in Ukraine should have washed away such delusions.

   

    The "you-control-your-own-life" narrative is the narrative of the oppressor. It serves him in multiple ways: by making you feel guilty for your situation as if it all was your mistake, by giving you vain promises that you can just stop being poor by trying a little harder, and by making you bowing down to him because he somehow deserves being in power thanks to his supposed right choices. This form of propaganda works, because you love believing life is fair and everyone gets what they deserve. Well, they don't. Ask the parents of any child with bone cancer.

    International politics, stock-market fluctuations, wars, diseases, health issues, pre-existing socioeconomic conditions, your parents' wealth and debt, your country, all are completely out of your control, yet form your daily life and define your fate.

 

    Instead of pretending that we all get what we deserved because it all depends on our past choices and ourselves only, we should accept that many things are accidental or dependent on others. A world where no one lives a living hell for choices they didn't make is perfectly possible. But the first step towards it is to accept how things are. I understand your need to feel like your life is under your control or that life is fair and just, but this may not be the case.

 

    And whenever you hear someone claim that it all depends on your choices, ask this: what defined the available choices in the first place?

 

8. You are not as politically incorrect as you fantasize you are.

    Being a racist and a homophobe is only politically incorrect in a very limited sense. Most of the world still is openly racist and homophobic, and even in the West, racist and homophobic views are usual or  the rule. Unless you think Greece, Serbia, Albania, Poland, Russia and many others aren't a part of the "West". Still, even if you define "the West" as just the USA, bigotry is still rather usual.

    Wanna really be politically incorrect?

    Try openly supporting Osama Bin Laden. Now, that would be politically incorrect. Just like pedophile advocacy would be politically incorrect. Actual politically incorrect views are more often than not socially incorrect too, and could make you a true pariah in your country, workplace, or even close friends and family.

    Not only you are not a pariah, but your idols like J. Petersson and Ben Shapiro are overly overpromoted by the media. You should sit back and think a second time before claiming that influencers with hundreds of millions of followers whose videos pop up in Youtube's suggested, are politically incorrect and under persecution. 

    Those influencers have made up a narrative in which they are being hunted down like medieval witches -and you have fallen for it. Well, they are not. They just give you more elaborate versions of the same views you held thirty years ago, and present any disagreement (which was completely non-existent until very recently) as persecution. There is no real political incorrectness in what they say, and no real persecution against them either.

     Your views are common and boring. They have been the norm for decades and sometimes for centuries, and still are the norm in most of the world including the West. They are widely accepted, predictable, and tedious. You aren't revolutionary for sticking to the old and boring, and you aren't politically incorrect either. What you call political incorrectness is mostly bigotry.

    Bigotry does not make you as politically incorrect as you like to fantasize, let alone special. It just makes you a bad person.

 

Ο "πολιτισμός" της ατιμωρησίας.

 Με αφορμή ένα thread για τις βαριές ποινές και τις συνθήκες στις φυλακές.

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

    Σκεφτείτε έναν γραβατοφόρο οικονομικό αναλυτή. Μεταπτυχιακά, σερτιφικάτα, εμπειρία σε τράπεζες και εταιρείες, και αποφασισμένος να πολιτευτεί. 

    Ως είθισται, ο γραβατοφόρος αναλυτής είναι ορθολογιστής μέχρι το κόκκαλο, και μιλάει πάντα με επιχειρήματα και στοιχεία -δηλαδή στατιστικές και αριθμούς.  

    Και έτσι, αποφασίζει να αξιοποιήσει τις ορθολογικές του ικανότητες για την ανάπτυξη της οικονομίας. 

    "Νομιμοποιώντας την παιδική πορνεία", ξεκινάει ο οικονομικός μας αναλυτής, "θα αποφέρουμε δισεκατομμύρια στο κράτος. Θα ενισχυθεί ο τουρισμός, γιατί παιδεραστές από όλη την οικουμένη θα επισκέπτονται  τη χώρα μας για τις υπηρεσίες της, ενώ θα αυξηθούν και οι θέσεις εργασίας. Σύμφωνα με τις στατιστικές που κρατάω στα χέρια μου, μπορούμε να αναμένουμε μέχρι και 8% ανάπτυξη μόνο στα πρώτα δυο έτη. Συν τοις άλλοις, θα περιοριστεί η εγκληματικότητα, αφού πλέον οι παιδεραστές δεν θα χρειάζεται να απαγάγουν παιδάκια και να τα βιάσουν! Τα παιδάκια θα ναρκώνονται για να μην καταλαβαίνουν και να μην έχουν ψυχολογικά προβλήματα μετά."

    Συνεχίζει παραθέτοντας πλήρη στοιχεία από κάποιο αφρικανικό κρατίδιο που ακολούθησε αυτή τη... πολιτική, και είδε οικονομική άνθιση και μείωση της εγκληματικότητας.

    Αν είστε στοιχειωδώς φυσιολογικοί, θα τον έχετε διώξει πυξ-λαξ πολύ πριν προλάβει να σας αναπτύξει την επιχειρηματολογία του -και θα είναι απόλυτα υγιής η αντίδρασή σας. 

    Σε κάποια πράγματα οι ορθολογισμοί και οι στατιστικές δεν βρίσκουν κανένα έδαφος. Δεν έχει σημασία τι επιχειρήματα παραθέτει κάποιος υπέρ της παιδικής πορνείας. Εφόσον είμαστε εγκεφαλικά υγιείς, την αντιλαμβανόμαστε ως τόσο θεμελιωδώς λάθος που δεν θα γίνει καμία συζήτηση επ'αυτής.

    Κάτι αντίστοιχο (θα έπρεπε να) ισχύει και στην αντιμετώπιση των εγκληματιών σαν VIP πρόσωπα. 

    Περίπου όπως ο προαναφερθείς "ορθολογιστής" οικονομολόγος, εμφανίζονται κατά καιρούς διάφοροι αντίστοιχοι στομφώδεις "ορθολογιστές" νομικολόγοι, κοινωνιολόγοι, ψυχολόγοι, εγκληματολόγοι κ.α., που μας αναπτύσσουν με... επιχειρήματα, ότι το να αντιμετωπίζουμε τους εγκληματίες όχι σαν εγκληματίες, αλλά σαν παιδάκια που έκαναν κατά λάθος μια αταξία, μειώνει (!) την εγκληματικότητα.

    Και αυτό δεν ισχύει μόνο για πλαστογράφους ή 19χρονους παπακοκλέφτες, αλλά για βιαστές και δολοφόνους.

    Με μια σύντομη έρευνα στο google  θα βρείτε πληθώρα άρθρων για το ότι οι χώρες που κατάργησαν τη θανατική ποινή είδαν μείωση της εγκληματικότητας, καθώς και για το ότι τα κράτη που έχουν τετράστερα ξενοδοχεία για φυλακές έχουν τα μικρότερα ποσοστά υποτροπής εγκληματιών.

    Πολύ μεγάλη συζήτηση μπορεί να ανοίξει εδώ για την αιτιακή συσχέτιση μείωσης εγκληματικότητας και κατάργησης θανατικής ποινής ("correlation is not causation", που λένε και οι καλοί μας φίλοι και αξιόπιστοι σύμμαχοι Αγγλοαμερικάνοι), όπως πολύ μεγάλη συζήτηση μπορεί να ανοίξει και για το ότι οι περισσότεροι φονιάδες/βιαστές ούτως ή άλλως τελούν τετοια πράξη μόνο μια φορά (άλλο αν το νετφλιξ μας δείχνει τα βιογραφικά των κατα πραγματική συρροή βιαστών/δολοφόνων), και αν μετά εγκληματίσουν ξανά είναι για να κλέψουν επειδή δεν βρήκαν δουλειά. 

    Δεν θα ανοίξει όμως αυτή η συζήτηση. Όχι εδώ τουλάχιστον. Θα σταθούμε σε κάτι αλλο: 

    Πόσο πολύ διαφέρουν οι "ορθολογιστές" νομικολόγοι/κοινωνιολόγοι/ψυχολόγοι από τον "ορθολογιστή" οικονομολόγο του παραδείγματός μας;

     Δεν είναι μόνο η προστασία των παιδιών τεκμήριο πολιτισμού· είναι και η Δικαιοσύνη ένα πολύ σημαντικό σκέλος του.

    Και στην έννοια της Δικαιοσύνης, ενυπάρχει και η έννοια της Τιμωρίας. Άνευ της δεύτερης δεν υπάρχει και η πρώτη -και αυτό κατά βάθος παραμένει κοινώς αντιληπτό ανεξάρτητα από τη πλύση εγκεφάλου ήντινα εξ'απαλών ονύχων δεχόμεθα για να ταυτίσουμε την Τιμωρία με κάτι πρωτόγονο και ξεπερασμένο. 

    Άγνωστο αν κάποιος φιλόσοφος έχει σκεφτεί κάποιον ορισμό της Δικαιοσύνης, αλλά σίγουρα μπορούμε να δώσουμε έναν ικανοποιητικό ορισμό στην έννοια της Τιμωρίας. Τιμωρία σημαίνει στέρηση. Είτε της ζωής σου, είτε ουσιαστικών δικαιωμάτων και δυνατοτήτων σου.

    Όταν ένας βιαστής στη Δανία για περίπου μισή δεκαετία τρώει τσάμπα φαϊ σε μια φυλακή-τετράστερο ξενοδοχείο, με δικό του δωμάτιο, τηλεόραση και βιβλία στο κελί, κοινωνική συναναστροφή με άλλους κρατουμενους, πρόσβαση σε ιατροφαρμακευτική περίθαλψη και ψυχολόγους, τι ακριβώς στερείται; Το δικαίωμα να πάει στα μαγαζιά; 

    Αυτή είναι όλη και όλη η συνέπεια για κάποιον που κατέστρεψε ολοσχερώς μια ζωή; Αυτή είναι όλη και όλη η "στέρηση" που έχει; Πού είναι η Τιμωρία; Πού είναι η Δικαιοσύνη; Πού είναι ο πολιτισμός καν; 

    Αδιάφορο αν κάτι τέτοιο θα μειώσει την εγκληματικότητα. Εξίσου αδιάφορο με το ότι η νομιμοποίηση της παιδικής πορνείας θα δυναμώσει την οικονομία. 

    Αν είναι να νομιμοποιήσουμε την παιδική πορνεία για να έχουμε ισχυρή οικονομία, μη σώσουμε και την έχουμε. Και αντίστοιχα, αν είναι να απαλοχαϊδεύουμε τους εγκληματίες για να μειωθούν τα ποσοστά εγκληματικότητας, μη σώσουν και μειωθούν. 

    Το μόνο θετικό που υπάρχει με τον "πολιτισμό" της ατιμωρησίας, είναι ότι αν τυχόν κάποιος μας σκοτώσει το παιδί μπορούμε να περιμένουμε 5-10 χρόνια να αποφυλακιστεί για να πάρουμε τη κατάσταση στα χέρια μας. Το πολύ πολύ να πάμε 5-10 χρόνια σε προπληρωμένο ξενοδοχείο.     

Will AI replace software engineers (or any other professions)?

Written by a software developer with several years of industrial experience, and an academic background in Computer Engineering (including Machine Learning).

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

Introduction

    Chat-GPT replacing programmers -among other professionals. Writers, journalists, academics, translators, help-desk technicians, and even lawyers. In the long term, no profession seems to be safe from chat-GPT-like Artificial Intelligence (AI) -capable of understanding human language and solving our problems within seconds.

    The case with software engineers (or programmers, if you prefer a less fancy title, though the two are not exactly the same) is pretty interesting, because nothing seemed to threaten our profession in the short term or even in the long term. 

    Virtually all low-code platforms were no more capable than delivering complex code, than 2005 Google Translate was capable of delivering accurate translations on more than a few words. Now chat-GPT writes pretty impressive functions, and refactors chunks of code better than most senior devs would. 

    So, what happens with programmers in the future? Or any other profession actually?

 

General assumptions

    Let's begin with something few would disagree with: chat-GPT is bringing a revolution. And when mentioning Chat-GPT, we don't necessarily mean OpenAPIs Chat-GPT itself, but the level of AI that rendered it possible. More likely than not, there are numerous competitors to Chat-GPT coming within the next months.

    Yet like every revolution, the outcome is tough to predict; it may lead to more freedom, like the French revolution, or it may lead to a disaster. In fact, historically speaking revolutions are more likely to have very controversial outcomes (like the Russian revolution), or clearly disastrous outcomes (like the peasants' revolt of 1381 in England, or the 1523 rebellion in Germany), than leading to something good. 

    One could argue that we are now talking about a technological revolution, but this does not make it very different. The industrial revolution has so far a controversial outcome, with some intellectuals regarding it as the beginning of the end for humanity thanks to climate change. 

    No matter the approach, we can begin with two assumptions. Firstly, chat-gpt style AI is bringing a revolution. Secondly, a revolution may have good outcomes, but it happens pretty often that it leads to a disaster. 

    But what disaster could the chat-GPT possible cause? Isn't AI meant to make our lives easier, free up our time, and lead to a better living standard for all of us?

    This sounds very nice and plausible, but in the current economic model, no technology is meant to make our lives easier; they are only meant to increase the profits of the owning class. 

    We produce way more food than we actually consume thanks to the modern industrial technology, yet a huge portion of it is thrown away without being consumed, while millions of people are starving. The industrial technology that could very easily be used to satisfy the need of all of us, is only used to increase the profits of people investing on a vague notion of productivity.

    The case with housing is pretty much the same, as we build houses easier and quicker than ever, and in many countries the amount of empty apartments far surpasses the number of the homeless. Still, working class people have to pay large portions of their income just to retain the right of living in a house or apartment they will most likely never get to own. 

    There are plenty of examples one can come up with, and they all "converge" to the same conclusion: no matter how technology makes our lives easier too, it is mostly meant to increase the profits and power of the owning class.

    I have no intention of writing (yet another) "lefty" rant here. But understanding that our current economic model is meant to serve only a handful, is vital before pondering our original question: what happens with our professions during or after the AI revolution? 

 

What happens to our professions then?

    Before abstracting and giving a general reply for all professions, I will try to give an answer for us programmers. 

    We can regard it as certain that AI will decrease job postings. It is already known that in many (if not most) companies, there are periods when developers don't have much to do, and spend their time on improving existing code or working on side projects. And of course, like virtually all professions including a desk, pretending to be working (a well-studied and widely known phenomenon we are typically reluctant to openly talk about).

    Now that improving code and even generating it becomes easier, these periods will become even longer. In a completely rational economy following the current economic model, one would expect lay-offs, but our economy is not rational. 

    We constantly invent new professions that barely produce anything just to keep everyone busy on an 8+ hour schedule. Millions of people in the western world spend their days on pointless meetings or editing excel sheets, just to retain the right to live in a house. Book lovers might appreciate the writings of David Graeber on the topic.

    Whoever has worked in a modern company is aware that many people with fancy-sounding professional titles, do actual work less than a couple of hours per day, and spend the rest of it literally pretending to be busy. It is the result of insisting that everyone must work at least eight hours to get access to food and housing, while industrial production and population increase have rendered it unnecessary that everyone works that much in order for society to have such needs covered.

    So, even though one might expect that many developers will now be laid off because they won't have much to do in their 8 hours, our economy is actually irrational and does not lay off professions that do not do actual work in their 8 hours. 

    But there is a vital difference between other office-related professions and ours: our profession was meant to be productive in the first place. The fancy-sounding "digital product  marketing communications super manager" was never meant to be productive all day long; the primary function was for other managers and CEOs to have an audience in their meetings (my apologies to any digital product marketing communications super manager who felt offended). 

    Now that the periods we won't be doing actual work will be even longer, fewer positions will be available. Why hire someone for a technical position if there isn't very much to do there? Why not hire him with a fancy title and use him as audience in meetings instead?

    The need for developers will drastically decrease, though never cease to exist, for the following reasons:

    1. We are often busy debugging and adding features to existing projects, and it is extremely unlikely that AI will be able to do it anytime soon. This will keep us busy for at least several years to come.

    2. Even if de-novo development  is carried out exclusively by machines within 10 years, someone will still have to check if the codes are safe to use. 

    3. Corporations will always need someone to bear legal responsibility for bugs that result in data breaches or lost money. 

    4. Corporations that have human developers too will be de-facto more trustworthy than random startups that just use generated code. 

    5. Someone has to program the AI platforms. Relatively few programmers will be active here, but there will be some.

    But AI will dramatically decrease job postings for developers, not to mention that many of us may switch to other professions literally because of boredom. Checking and refactoring generated code has nothing to do with the creative and joyful process of creating the code from scratch, solving problems, and knowing that the product is your creation.

    This is of course nothing that is very likely to happen withing this decade (not even job positions for train drivers and cashiers are drastically decreased in the last 30 years). But it will happen pretty long before we, millenials, are about to retire.

    You can use your brain's capability for abstraction and use more or less the same logic for all professions. Legal reasons and trust issues will always keep humans busy, so there isn't a danger that we are replaced. Instead, there are the very real dangers of us ending up being the constantly bored and depressed supervisors of the machines, or the equally bored and depressed audience of managers and CEOs talking to meetings. 

    That is the most likely (and best case) scenario. The less likely and worst case scenario is that mass layoffs are coming, and we all imagine the consequences.

    In either case, with the current economic model, AI will not be used to make our lives better.