Corpse Planet: Chapter 1

Chapter 1 : The C-Class Technician

The Behemoth Class strider, the Hecatoncheir, groaned its way across the Great Pacific Wasteland. Grapho-Adamantilum feet, several kilometers across, crashed into the barren landscape, sending grey-black ash spiraling into the air. Thick poisonous smog shrouded those feet, a blanket of gaseous death that rose a third of the way up its legs. The strider bore on its back about a million souls, ponderously conveying them across the surface of the hellish world in search of elusive pockets of survivability. It superficially resembled an enormous tardigrade, a squat metallic beast resting on six legs, its surface jagged and irregular, a patchwork of centuries’ worth of eclectic repair with scavenged materials. At the center of its back, in the center of the city, rose a command tower, ever so slightly tilted, that served as the brain-center of the Hecatoncheir. There resided the Kee-Ose, clad in blue-black, the council of eight whose decrees directed the behavior of countless tons of metal and flesh. The Hecatoncheir went left if they commanded it to go left, right if they commanded it to go right, and if they so ordered it the colossal beast would throw itself into one of the numerous volcanoes that speckled the surface of the earth like weeping sores.

One Eustace Morris, C-Class technician, was tucked away in a sweltering pocket inside one of the feet of the strider. It took the better part of a day for the strider to take a single step, so while Eustace technically spent most of the day entirely in motion, that motion was slow enough and gentle enough to not cause him too much discomfort.

Course it's not comfy for the sake of my comfort, he mused to himself.

I suppose that’s the way of it: what comfort comes our way is incidental like.

Eustace was wedged in a small void amongst the network of pipes and conduits, a hiding place he had found some months ago that enabled him to evade the eyes of Supervisor Reg. By the light of a miniscule flashlight he had fished out of a pocket a moment ago, Eustace attempted to corral small bits of crumbled leaf onto a tiny piece of discarded paper, a shred of paper from an advertisement for a now defunct DreamScape business. The paper was hardly the right sort to be smoking out of, and the burning ink would cause his eyes to water and his lungs to sting, but Eust hadn’t been able to find any proper rolling papers in months. His kid sister Maurem had begged him to stop smoking entirely, and especially with such suboptimal materials, but Eust knew the truth of the matter: he was gonna be dead from something else long before his smoking habit caught up with him.

The fragments of plant matter were carefully arranged with monk-like patience. The top of the makeshift cigarette was daintily pressed against a nearby exhaust pipe, igniting it as Eustace took a small puff. His lungs tried to reject the poison but, with some effort, he managed to inhale…hold…

A violent coughing fit overtook him at this point, rattling, phlegmy, barking coughs emanating their way from Eustace’s chest. But the drug had found its way home, the soft warm buzz of nicotine settling in behind his temples. His lungs quieted and he risked another puff. This one tickled but didn't trigger the same coughing attack. Now he could watch the smoke from his mouth mingle and merge with the smoke and steam coming from dozens of poorly maintained pieces of machinery.

Can't be any worse than what I was breathing in anyway.

Secure in his hiding place, safe in the knowledge that Reg wouldn't be bellowing “WHERE THE FUCK IS EUSTY?” for at least ten minutes, Eustace committed the sin of uselessness. He smoked, and he stared -mostly thoughtlessly - at the smoke. For ten minutes, he could exist for himself.

Six minutes later the world lurched. Not by much, but Eustace had been down in the leg for long enough to know that the step was a few degrees off from where it should be. A sick thrill of panic shot through him. He stamped out his makeshift cigarette with a whisper of regret and squeezed, weasel like, through a tangle of pipes to get to the access shaft. A sudden drop of many meters loomed beneath him, but the terror kept him brave enough to swing out and down, feet finding the rungs of a ladder. He scrambled down the ladder as quickly as physics would allow.

He’d seen a fall once, or at least the aftermath. He had been eight years old, pressing his eye up against a shoddy telescope. In the distance he saw the wreckage of the fallen strider, the Daidarabotchi. The Hecatoncheir had only been in brief radio contact with them a few days prior, but the connection had been extremely poor. Only a few words had managed to get through, “sinkhole” and “avoid” among them. The Daidarabotchi had been smashed to pieces, and if any had survived the fall, they would have quickly died from the toxic smoke.

As he neared the bottom of the ladder Eustace simply let go and let gravity take him the rest of the way, crashing into the steel floor directly in front of Overseer Reg. Glancing at Reg’s face told Eustace everything: Reg wasn’t furious, and that meant everyone stood a good chance of dying.

“EUST! Panel 18-Delta! 4800 psi, twelve degrees outward! Hold for the call, then throw your goddamn life into it!”

With a nod of acknowledgement, wanting to save his breath, Eustace sped past Reg toward the designated panel, weaving his way through a labyrinth of metal and rubber and wire. Halfway there he snatched a crowbar and a wrench from a depot nook. Sammy ran by in the other direction clutching her own tools, but he wasn’t at all sure that she even registered him. Barely a minute later he was slamming the wedge of the crowbar into the crack of the panel, bending and buckling metal that he would have to replace later if he was alive. He spotted the valve control he needed, placed his wrench appropriately, kept an eye on the gauge… and waited.

Shit shit shit shit shit. Come on man make the fucking call…..

Ten seconds crept past.

Maurem is in class now ya? The school is in sector D level 25. So if we fall she…fuck fuck FUCK FUCCCKKK

Abruptly, every speaker in the lower part of the leg gave voice to Reg’s bellow.

“THROW IT YOU FUCKERS!”

Eustace whipped the wrench a precise half turn, his back muscles creaking with the effort. The gauge hit 4800 psi, or as close to it as Eustace could keep it. The wrench fought him, pulling him back, but if he used too much force he’d shoot past his target pressure. He clenched his entire being, and focused on the wrench and the gauge as the only two points of focus in his universe. He had to hold it long enough for the adjustment to be made. The foot was coming down at a bad angle, and it was about to make contact. Somewhere in the bowels of the strider, in a control center near to the joint at the main body, an A-Class technician was making an emergency adjustment. Said adjustment required roughly a hundred other smaller adjustments to the system to ensure things didn’t explode or implode or short circuit or corrode or spew radioactive gas everywhere. Eustace was making one such adjustment, and he would need to hold it until the A-Class was done. Needed to hold the wrench at exactly this position or his kid sister would die.

Seconds moseyed by, then minutes. The temperature in this part of the machine was always sweltering, and sweat poured down every inch of Eustace’s trembling body as he did his best to keep millions of people from dying. The sweat distracted him. He felt the drip from his armpit down his torso, down his back, down his pants, down his leg. The sweat stung his eyes horribly, but he hadn’t a free hand to wipe it away, so he blinked profusely.

The wrench slipped a fraction of an inch and his heart stopped briefly.

Maurem. Maurem. Maurem.

The wrench moved back to its appropriate position. His whole body was numb from the effort. He held. He held. His bowels gave out and he soiled himself, but he was glad that he wasn’t wasting any additional energy holding back his shit.

Another minute.

Maurem. Maurem. Maurem.

The heat started to properly get to him and he felt his thoughts get muggy and slippery. He started to see stars.

Maurem. Maurem. Mau-

“RELEASE RELEASE RELEASE!” screamed Reg over the loudspeakers.

And Eustace collapsed, lying awkwardly on the grate floor. He was distantly aware he had shit himself. Distantly aware that searing hot pipes had stolen a few patches of skin from him as he had brushed past them while rushing here. Even distantly aware of the almighty crash of the foot of the Hecatoncheir making contact. Distantly aware of everything except the fact that his kid sister probably wouldn’t die today.

********************

Eustace luxuriated in the tepid water spraying down his back, even as it stung him terribly when it encountered one of his many recently acquired burns. He was in the unit showers, a little makeshift room with valves crudely attached to part of the water system. It was a tiny room, barely large enough for 4 people to decently shower, but since there were six shower heads it was usually crammed tighter than decency would allow. This was the case at the moment, forcing Eustace to occasionally dodge an elbow as he scrubbed himself clean. No space for dignity when you worked in the legs, and the four men and two women in this shower had gotten plenty used to each other's bodies by this point. When he had first been assigned he would sneak peaks at Samantha when they showered together, but the charm had worn off almost immediately. Hard to be even a little lecherous in a place that smelled as bad as this. The job had a strange ascetic effect: everything that wasn’t work or survival got stripped away.

The close call had come only halfway through his sixteen hour shift. After briefly passing out he wiped himself down in a latrine, thrown on new pants, and shakily worked his way through another eight hours. Six days on, one off. Off at 7AM; he would have to report to Reg at 7AM tomorrow. This shower heralded the start of his day off and Eustace was planning to do as little as possible for the next 24 hours. 7:15 AM slipped past just as he turned the handle and shut the water off. 1425 minutes of freedom left. He squeezed past five of his coworkers, the grate floor hurting his wrinkled feet as it always did.

Minutes later Euastace was on a rickety elevator up the leg. It would take the better part of an hour to get up the leg. You could only take the elevator when your leg wasn’t in motion. Eustace was shoved into a corner of a rusty steel box, buzzing and flickering greenish lights dimly providing light for twenty people crammed into a space meant for fifteen.

Always doing the sardine bit. Whole damn strider is stuffed to the gills.

Not everyone aboard had decided to shower after their shift and it smelled like it. There was a unique, primordial scent created by six days of hard labor in humid conditions. The scent that had been conjured beneath the coveralls of his fellow leg technicians had a penetrative quality, and only long exposure to it had given Eustace any kind of a defense. A newbie a few feet to his left was clearly suffering. Eustace had only a handful of times endured the fascinating combination of vomit and work stench on his ride up the leg, but they had been memorable moments. And there was no stopping once this ride was initiated.

Trapped in a box. Trapped inside Heccy. Trapped on a fucked planet. Trapped in a twice fucked universe.

Eustace laid his head back against the graffitied wall of the elevator. He was lucky enough to get a wall to lean against, although folks sort of all leaned against each other to various degrees during these trips.

Two of the old heads were huddled - even more huddled - a few inches to Eustace’s right. Jed and Krissy were their names as Eustace recalled, two of the longest serving techs in Leg Alpha. Bits and pieces of them had been claimed by the job over the years. Jed was missing two fingers on one hand, most of his right ear, and rumors persisted about his left testicle. Krissy had had an eye taken by a steam burst on her first day on the job, now forty years ago, leaving her with an angry mass of scar tissue on her face.

“Second close call in six months Krissy,” muttered Jed.

“Goddamn KOs got us wandering here like we ain’t been over this area a hundred goddamn times,” Krissy replied.

“What you think we’re looking for anyway?” Jed said, dipping his mouth closer to Krissy’s ear.

“Fuck knows? Not like they know what the fuck they’re doing.”

“SSSHHHH, jeezit Krissy.”

Trying to keep the conversation one shade away from danger. Hope it works.

“Fuck em!”

Krissy turned to the elevator at large and raised her voice an octave.

“Fuck. Them.”

“Krissy, jeezit, settle the fuck down,” Jed begged her, and he tried in vain to move himself between Krissy and the rest of the room.

Krissy disgustedly pushed him back, but she did indeed stop talking, choosing instead to glare at the floor.

Jed continued to chat at the woman, opting for less contentious topics.

The elevator shook ominously, something in the centuries-old machinery slipping by a few fractions of an inch. That shut everyone up, ears straining to catch another indication of impending doom.

The elevator rumbled on. The twenty of them wouldn’t die this minute it seemed.

Lucky us.

********************

It was 7:58 AM when the elevator doors opened, letting in a blessed rush of relatively fresh air. Down a short access tunnel, a right turn, another set of sliding pneumatic doors.

Eustace stepped out and blinked in the sunlight. Stretched out in front of him was the city proper, a mad assemblage of buildings and tunnels and arching highways twisting and crashing into one another. If there had ever been anything approaching city planning in the distant past it had long since ceased to be a factor. For most of the city there was little enforcement of anything like building codes, although as one approached the central spire that rose up from the city they would notice increasingly safer and more sturdy construction.

The sky was shrouded with a nearly ever present layer of dirty orange smog, sunlight filtering down to the planet below as a sickly glow. It never really got bright anymore, but after being in the leg for days even this was enough to force the technicians to frequently turn their eyes to the ground. It would be a stretch to call the air up here clean, but it beat the hell out of the air on the inside of Hecatoncheir.

The replacement crew stalked past, no thoughts behind their eyes. Thinking would crush you on this job.

The trick is to be one with the machine. To give up your will, who the fuck you are, to old Heccy. Merge. Blend. Pipe. Gear. Valve. Femur. Gallbladder. Parts of the whole.

Eust shook his head.

Look at me being a goddamn poet. Maurem’s waiting.

Eust set off at a brisk pace. It would take him exactly 42 minutes to reach the tiny apartment he shared with his ten year old sister. He glanced at the decaying city about him as he walked, clutching a small knife in his pocket. He had been mugged on a number of occasions, the last time by twitchy hollow-eyed fume addicts. It’s not like he had anything on him to steal, besides the knife that is, but the last time they had cracked him over the head with a length of pipe and he didn’t want a repeat of that incident. Everything around him used to be something else. The small grocery store selling assorted flavors of meal bricks used to be a restaurant, from back when there were restaurants. Painted along the side of the building, now nearly gone, the paint peeled almost all away, was a jolly man offering up some kind of circular yellow-white food, laden with smaller red circles.

Wonder if that was tasty?

The owner, Charles, was out front, engaged in the sisyphean task of sweeping dust and debris away from the entrance of the shop. He smiled, mostly toothlessly, at Eust as he approached, and waved him over. Charles was good people, and Eust had bummed many a makeshift cigarette off the man over the years, and in return Eust had put his repair skills to work on Charles’s plumbing and electrical as the situation needed.

“Eustace! Eustace! You’re looking worse for wear my boy!”

Charles was a hunched man, miraculously fat, with a bushy black mustache and receding salt and pepper hair. He unsteadily lurched toward Eust, closing the distance.

“A few days in the leg will do that Chuck. How’s things been topside?”

“Oh it’s all bullshit, but what else is new? Comm network went down for a day or two, had to haul my ass all the way to Heccy’s ass just to check on my order for next month,” Charles coughed out. He laughed shakily after coughing, a defiant laugh.

“Jeezit fuck. Any new flavors?”

Charles nodded sagely, “Yeah yeah, that’s why I’m bothering you actually. Here, one minute.”

Charles waddled back into his shop for a brief moment and emerged with a plastic crate with a cloth wrap inside of it. Charles twitched the cloth aside, revealing shiny red gelatinous cubes, about an inch on a side, much smaller than a standard nutri-block.

“Cherry flavor they say! Whatever the fuck a cherry is. They gave me a buncha these tiny ones. For sampling purposes they said. SAMPLING!” and now Charles was roaring, “WHO THE FUCK WANTS SAMPLES OF THIS SHIT!”

Eustace rocked back a step, Charles sudden rage overstimulating his weary nervous system. He held a hand up weakly, signaling agreement but also a plea for gentleness. Charles settled down.

“Anyway, I got more of this shit then I’m ever gonna sell. You and Maurem want it?”

Eustace nodded. Food was food. In fact, his stomach growled as it was reminded how long it had been since he’d eaten. Eustace’s fingers snaked down and plucked one of the cubes, unwisely placing the whole of it between his teeth.

A distinctly chemical flavor hit his tongue, artificial sweeteners and some kind of vaguely fruity taste. He bit down, teeth slowly, laboriously, sinking into the dense block.

Gonna take me forever to get this down.

Profusely nodding his thanks, making promises to look at a small leak in Charles’s bathroom next week, Eustace resumed his trek to his apartment, now bearing a package, and therefore more of a target. His eyes darted this way and that, awkwardly holding the crate with one hand while holding his knife loosely at his side with the other.

Slowed by his encounter with Charles, Eustace arrived at his apartment building 48 minutes after getting off the elevator.

8:46. 1334 minutes of freedom left.

Eustace had become an expert in calculating the minutes till his life wasn’t his own again.

The three story building was a dismal grey concrete affair. Once upon a time it had been some sort of municipal building, but now the innards of it had been chopped up into dozens of cramped apartments. Eustace took the stairs two at a time: no reason to waste his day. Down hallways with dim, buzzing lights, he finally arrived at a steel door with a few fragments of ancient green paint still lingering. Before he could turn the handle, the door was flung open, and a scrawny girl with frizzy brown hair and enormous eyes stared up at him as if he was King of the World. Eustace’s world softened.

“EUST!” the girl shouted as she flung herself at him, hugging him tighter than her frame would suggest she could.

“Hey Maurem,” he said, as he hugged her back.

Guess I made it another week.

On Purpose (as in the topic of purpose. Not like, the phrase "on purpose" in the sense of "he tripped me on purpose")

I find myself perplexed at the preoccupation with one’s purpose.

I think when humans speak of purpose we are usually getting at one or both of two ideas.

The first is how something is currently (maybe right this very moment, or perhaps recently and up until now and continuing into the foreseeable future) being used. I wouldn’t speak of the purpose of a rock up until I take it home and use it to hold open my door. Then its purpose is to hold open my door. I might say at that point that it is a rock AND a door stop.

The second is something’s design (what did the person who made this thing have in mind when they made it? How did they imagine it being used? What was the goal of their efforts? Presumably the person designing a microwave - the plan for one at least, not necessarily this microwave - had a goal of making a device that could heat food up) or perhaps something’s intended function (and intentions can supplant each other, or perhaps overlap. A number of medications were supposed to do one thing but were later discovered to have other uses, and at that point we might say the intended function of the medication is that new purpose). And of course how something is in fact used might be quite different from what it was designed for (I can use a microwave to hold open my door. And so I might say it is both a microwave - with respect to its design or originally intended function - and a door stop with respect to how it is currently being used.)

I’m not sure which of these two senses folks are preoccupying themselves with they worry about their purpose.

If the first sense then, how you’re being used varies a lot. We try and not use that language, but it must be said that we do it nevertheless. When I asked my friends to help me move recently I used them to load a moving van, and I am very grateful. When the lady at the grocery store asked me to get a can off a high shelf she used me to get food down from a high shelf. We are constantly being used by our bosses. When I was a warehouse worker the owners of the company I worked for used me to load trucks. In that sense my purpose was to load trucks. Many people’s purposes are to make complicated coffee drinks, or to drive trucks, or to pilot airplanes.

Do we necessarily give a shit about this? I mean you might, and I’m not here to take that from you, but I’ve never cared a lot about the purposes my bosses use me for. Perhaps If I was a heart surgeon or something. But at that point it must be said that the caring probably has little to do with the fact that the bosses want me to be doing heart surgery and more about the whole “saving lives” bit. Which I think gives away the fact that we probably have some kind of innate evolved inclination to serve a function in the context of a community, to provide something of value to our community. We don’t necessarily mind being used by the community, as it were. I don't mind being used by my friends when they ask me for favors. Few of us are eager to be used by our bosses. In this sense however one needn’t wonder what one’s purpose is: you know if in fact you volunteer at a soup kitchen. You might be searching for purpose then, but you wouldn’t be wondering what it is.

In the second sense, this will basically come down to your theistic or spiritual or metaphysical beliefs. These are the questions of what God designed you for, or what the universe intends for you. You will have to investigate those on your own. It should be said of course that I think what you really are interested in is how you can be happy, or at peace. After all, if your purpose sucked, and you hated it, you wouldn’t care. So in this sense “what is my purpose?” is downstream of “how can I be happy?”

The Trouble with Pascal's Wager

As has been pointed out by many others, a difficulty with Pascal’s Wager is that it has no real way of dealing with multiple exclusive beliefs, each threatening hell for failure to adhere to those beliefs. Since each belief is threatening an equivalent amount, the Wager results in a stalemate.

What I haven’t seen pointed out before is that this works even within the context of the sects of a religion, and how the existence of these sects creates a kind of nesting system with strange implications for the Wager. Take the Westboro Baptist Church, or one of the innumerable tiny denominations that are scattered throughout the world that have similar enough beliefs. Since the Westboro Baptist Church preaches the typical Protestant Christian soteriological schema (forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ crucified and resurrected) most Protestants would believe that members of the WBC will enter into paradise when they die (even if they belief them to be horribly incorrect in many other ways). At the same time, members of the WBC would say that nearly every other Protestant will enter into perdition when they die. Given this, the Wager would suggest that nearly every Protestant should join the WBC in order to hedge their bets. Which I would expect to be wholly unpalatable to nearly every Protestant (or at least I really hope this would be the case), and so they must reject the Wager as a sensible way to make decisions.

Indeed, the basic premise of the Wager seems odd when you spell it out explicitly: whoever is threatening the worst afterlife should be who you join up with, and then within that group whomever makes the most exclusive claim (this isn't necessarily explicit within the context of the original formulation of the Wager but it is where the logic leads) The implication seems to be that if ever a religion cropped up with a more horrific afterlife than hell as part of its beliefs then Christians should jump ship. You might protest that hell is already, by definition, the worst possible afterlife (since that’s usually how it's defined). But suppose a religion crops up called the Heartbonders, who believe in a similar paradise/perdition schema, and that adherence to the beliefs of the Heartbonders is necessary to avoid perdition, but with a twist. The Heartbonders believe that every human has a soul twin, and the only way to enter into paradise is for both soul twins to enter into paradise. Which is to say that if your soul twin is a member of the Heartbonders they will still enter into perdition should you fail to join up. So not only will you condemn yourself to hell for failing to join, you condemn another. The Wager seems to suggest that Christians should join up with the Heartbonders, since their afterlife beliefs are more threatening (not to you mind you, but if we consider harm to others to be sufficient for a “worse” afterlife then it all works out).

So I don’t think Pascal’s Wager is a sensible way to make decisions for yourself.

Quantiverse

I’m going to the Quantiverse.

It’s all numbers there. Everything else isn’t.

I’m here. I land, alighting on 1. It’s the only thing I can see at first anyway. Gotta start somewhere. The source of the rest of it at first glance.

As soon as I touch down, 2 lights up, and oh, actually there’s the rest of them anyway. At least in this direction. 3 and 5 and 395832583529 x 10^3434367112 and so forth.

0 is behind me. Not gonna look at it yet. It’s upsetting. Except it isn’t behind me because it isn’t anywhere. Or I guess really it’s everywhere something isn’t, which maybe is most of it. I glance around. What percentage of this place exists? Is there more nothing than something?

That’s a bit too much to take in. I look over at 2 to ground myself.

I decide to take a step from 1 to 2. +1 they call it.

Ah. Ok, easy. Forward we go. 2 to 3. 3 to 10. 10 to 150. Woah, big one.

Wonder how big I a step I can take?

From 150 to a 1,000,000. Easy. 1,000,000 to 1,000,000,000. Just as easy. Ok, from 1,000,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 ^ 1,000,000,000. Yup, still easy, here at least.

I think there isn’t a biggest step I can take.

Can I go back? I think so.

I retrace my steps. Subtraction they call it. Same idea I think, just in the other direction.

How small a step can I take? 1,000. 10.

Can I go smaller?

I glance around to make sure no one is looking. Hope I don’t get in trouble.

I tentatively reach out to reach 9 but I pull short. Is there anything there to put my foot on? Hope so. Dunno what happens if there isn’t.

I hit 9.5. Oh, look at me. There was something there.

Holy shit the gaps are filled in.

Actually, hold the phone… (I’m borrowing this imagery a bit from Berlinksi’s A Tour of the Calculus now.)

There aren’t gaps. Weird. No matter how closely I look.

It’s weird. There’s no gaps, so it’s continuous like, no parts. Except it’s all parts? I mean 3.43 is just what it is, not 3.431. Perfectly discrete, but with no gaps. Wild. It splits forever.

I take a .01 step. I take a .001 step. I take a 5 x 10^-33859667 step.

So there isn’t a smallest step I can take either.

I keep walking. Ah, seems I’m about to reach 0.

My Brain is a Strange Drug Dealer

So I want certain emotions, happiness and such yeah? Gotta get the right neurons firing, the right hormones flowing, etc. Less cortisol, more dopamine or whatever (I’m not a neuroscientist if you can’t tell). Mr. Brain controls all that, decides when to make with the good feelings and such.

The brain doles out happiness. Little packets of joy, sometimes big deep hits of peace or tranquility, sharp short hits of excitement and pleasure.

The metaphor isn’t perfect. Unlike most plugs, the brain doesn’t accept cash. Imagine if the local weed guy (does that age me now in the age of legal? Not yet I guess. How quickly that guy feels like the past though) made you run a few miles before he gave you an eighth? Consider unhinged Wall Street guys who could only acquire coke if they first proved to their dealer they were in therapy. Picture a world where the price of a bottle of vodka was adequate vitamin D levels.

The metaphor falls apart further: dealers usually can’t willy nilly decide to inject you with bad time chemicals either, whereas the lump of miracle behind my eyes gets to do as it pleases. The dick.

It’s an odd relationship, you and your brain. Cuz it’s also sorta you. I guess it’s not exactly original to suggest that people have complicated relationships with themselves. Strange to be your own drug dealer.

Conspiracy Theories as Selective Radical Skepticism

I tend to think about conspiracy theories in the context of epistemology. How do we know anything? How do I know the Titanic sank? Or that Finland exists? Or that germ theory is true? Or that the Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776? What sources of information are reliable? How would I know?

Most conspiracy theories require that many trusted sources of information are compromised. Flat Earth conspiracy entails that NASA, and indeed every space agency everywhere, is lying to you. Vaccine conspiracy theorists require that the CDC and the WHO and every health agency in every nation on earth (many of whom are antagonistic to each other) are lying to you.

Now, there are very good reasons for believing that large-scale long-term conspiracies can’t happen, but that’s not critical to my argument here.

Instead, my point here is that if we decide that these institutions are being manipulated by some shadowy entity that coerces or manipulates them into deceiving us, then there is simply no good reason to trust any information from anyone who claims to tell us the truth on these matters.

Which is to say: I can have a degree of understanding for someone who says “I don’t know if Earth is round”, but I cannot at all understand how someone would say “I know Earth is flat.”

I can see, with some charity, how someone might believe “I don’t know if vaccines are safe.” But if that same person proclaims with confidence “Vaccines aren’t safe”, I am bewildered.

Any entity, the Illuminati or whatever, that has the power and resources to control NASA would absolutely have the power and resources to control Jimbo’s Flat Earth Truther channel on YouTube. We have no reasons to think that Jimbo would have a greater degree of moral heroism than the thousands of people who work at NASA. We have no reason to think he would be less susceptible to being bought off. Fundamentally, we have no reason to trust Jimbo over NASA, at a minimum.

I’m constantly seeing videos on TikTok or YouTube where the content creator has some lines to the effect of “This is what they don’t want you to know.” I am constantly being asked to believe that random channels on the internet are somehow poking their fingers into the eyes of the most evil and powerful people on the planet.

Well why aren’t they being black bagged? Why hasn’t Russel Brand fallen down some stairs yet? If the goddamn Illuminati can control the fucking WHO they sure as hell can control some crystal mommy healer on TikTok.

The effect reminds me of someone who began Descartes’s project of radical skepticism but stopped halfway. If you are unfamiliar, here’s the short version. Dude wanted the truth and thought that the best way to start would be engage in a thought experiment where he discarded every belief that he could be wrong about. He thought he was eating some cheese but he realized he could be dreaming or hallucinating (in modern terms we might say something about being a brain in a vat), so he could be wrong about the belief he was eating cheese so, for the purposes of the thought experiment he would assume that he was wrong about that belief he was eating cheese. And it got worse! To really strengthen the thought experiment he would assume that an incredibly powerful magical entity was deliberately trying to deceive him and manipulate him.

Now, that last bit parallels, in a more mild sense, the shadow organization that is manipulating the big organizations (you need that shadowy organization or entity because otherwise it wouldn’t make sense that every space agency in the world is on the same page about Earth being round.). It’s the powerful, albeit not quite magical (eh? I mean according to some conspiracy theorists….) entity dedicated to deceiving you.

AND YET, they selectively carve out cases where they assume said shadowy entity is somehow ignoring certain sources of information. Somehow RFK JR is immune to the Satanic Council. Somehow Joe goddamn Rogan is safe from the talons of the Blood Sorcerers of the Third Realm.

And so I have to conclude that conspiracy theorists are largely being inconsistent with their radical skepticism. They are overwhelmingly confident in certain beliefs that are derived from sources that they have no reason to think are more trustworthy than other sources of information they deride.

And many of their other beliefs are grounded in sources that would be just as suspect if they were consistent.

Does Finland exist, people of the US? Have you been there? Have you even met a Finnish person? If you did, how did you know they aren’t an actor? After all, if every astronaut is an actor, why couldn’t that person? Have you seen footage of Finland? Well, if the footage of the round Earth can be fake, so could that footage. I submit that if you don’t know that Earth is round, you don’t know that Finland exists. Even if you flew there, how would you know where your airplane landed? (Sorry Finnish folk for dragging you into this.)

Was the Declaration of Independence adopted in 1776? Is is 2024? Did the Titanic sank? And are the sources of information you use to determine that any more trustworthy than the sources that tell us that Earth is round? And are they any less trustworthy than Chakra Lady Sybil with her singing bowls that tells you that gout is caused by not drinking enough raw milk?

Why would anyone bother to lie about Finland being real? I dunno, why would anyone go the trouble of lying about Earth being being round? I’ve seen some folks try and claim that it’s some sort of anti-Christian plot to convince people the Bible is wrong or to try and trick humans into thinking they’re insignificant or something, but that makes no sense. Humans have known Earth is round since the Greek city-states. Christianity flourished and spread in the context of a world that knew Earth was round. Earth being round was never an inhibitor on the popularity of Christianity, and it would be ridiculous to expend the colossal resources necessary to pull of this con just to fuck with Christianity.

If you’re going to be some kind of Pyrrhic radical skeptic that doubts the CDC and NASA then all I ask is you be consistent and apply an equal level of doubt to literally every other source of information.

A Tension in Contemporary Masculinity

I will be discussing heterosexual men and women.

To what degree men have had to be likable to women to get romantic or sexual partners has fluctuated throughout time, but to my knowledge right now that degree is higher than it's ever been before. Yadda yadda context, yadda yadda outliers. You get my drift.

And that’s fantastic. That’s a healthy development. Be deeply suspicious of anyone trying to affect society so as to make it easier for unlikable men to get sex or partnership. There’s a reason why things like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 74 matter: prior to this banks could refuse to allow women to open bank accounts. If women are reliant on men for economic stability, for housing and medicine and access to financial systems, then their ability to be selective in their partners is substantially reduced. Consent becomes constrained if legal or social factors require them to prioritize things other than their preference when it comes to choosing partners.

Not that long ago, men could rely on their ability to provide economically (and other social factors) to make up for their lack in other areas: morals and hygiene and humor and looks and charm and intelligence.

Now women can have their own bank accounts and pay their own rent. So now women, to a greater degree than ever before (at least in the West broadly), can choose their partners based on preference.

The degree to which men have cheerfully adapted to this change varies. I would say most men, not having what you might call sociological insight, didn’t think about so much as accept it as the way things are. The wise among them are glad for the change. The weak chafe against it.

But there is a tension here, and it's one that can be present even for the kindest among men.

Men also want to be likable to men: and what makes one likable to men can be in opposition to what makes one likable to women.

Being overly concerned with one’s hygiene can get men mocked by men. At the same time, I have seen it happen numerous times that a girlfriend or wife plead with their partners to shower more often, or to wash their hands after using the restroom, or to brush their teeth more regularly.

A failure to be aggressive can get men mocked by men. But women frequently prefer men who are not aggressive in their day to day manner. I will say, however, that women do frequently desire a man who is theoretically capable of violence on their behalf even as they are not demonstratively aggressive on the regular.

Spending time on one’s appearance, one’s wardrobe and grooming, can get men mocked by men. But women frequently want a man who spends some effort on his appearance.

Being open with one’s emotions, being vulnerable, can get a man mocked by men. But women frequently prefer a man who is open with his emotions, who can be vulnerable (again, variation, heavens knows there are plenty of women who mock openly emotional men).

Let’s be honest: the guy at the gym with muscles the size of boulders is, if they’re doing it to be impressive to anyone, doing it to be impressive to other men.

And so we have tension. How shall we resolve it?

The foolish will attempt to change society back. Kindness by itself would, I hope, be enough for men to seek to improve the lives of women. Knowing humans, however, I will also mention that the current state of affairs is, despite what some might think, also much better for me. The benefits of feminism for men is an enormous topic, and beyond the scope of this piece.

So what else will we do?

I am hardly the first to point this out, but I would suggest that an embrace of healthier models for masculinity is a potential strategy. In the long term I would like to see a world where we no longer shackle ourselves to these categories, but in the meantime I think this is the trick.

Men who can be boisterous without being boorish.

Men who can get their hands dirty and also write poetry.

Men who can be protectors without being masters.

Look I dunno, just be like Brennan Lee Mulligan or the Green brothers or fucking Hasan Piker, I don’t fucking know. Don’t make me do all the work here.

On Pain

You could take everything I'll say here and mirror it to be “on happiness” but I'm in a mood so you'll have to do that work yourself.

Pain is fascinating.

Because we have preferences about it. Which is FUCKING INSANE.

Look you might not have done a bunch of reading on consciousness, but if I can highlight a point about it it's that it’s unexpected. So far there's basically zero reason we have to predict that it would have existed in our reality (consciousness that is, and pain is downstream of that).

We can easily imagine a reality without it. A world of rocks and volcanoes and waterfalls and no mind. No “what it is to be like x”.

I mean there's no reason evolution would have prioritized it. Or even how it could explain it. My brain and rocks are both made of quarks. Why my brain should, in the words of Tom Nagel, have some property of “there being something like what it is to be my brain”, is shocking at least and bewildering at most.

And even more specifically pain. You could imagine consciousness without pain. And neverthess pain is.

And I immediately hit a wall. What else is there to say of pain? It sucks? Why? We seek to avoid it? Why?

Maybe just because we do. Dreadfully simple, but perhaps all explanations end up either simple or silly or both.

Pain and happiness (oh, I guess maybe I'll bring up both myself, seems to be working out that way ).

Presumably magnets don't suffer when you press North Pole to North Pole, even as the physics resist it. (Fuck I hope not).

But we suffer. And we feel happiness. Does it stop at preference or are there more layers down? Do we dislike pain because of reasons beyond that dislike, or does it stop at the brute fact We Dislike Pain ?

And that quality is so unlike everything else. Things are red or fast or intelligent or spicy or unlikely or solid or transparent or numerous or antiquated or…..

Painful or pleasurable. And how different that is!

Welcome to the Game

“Welcome to the game.”

“Who the fuck are you?”

“Call me -unpronounceable- , I’m here to introduce you to The Game.”
”Who am I?”

“You’re going to be named Isaac.”
”I don’t get to choose?”
”No.”

“What kind of game is it?”

“Are you asking what genre reality is?”
”I guess?”

“I guess you might say it’s open world. But not because invisible walls prevent you from entering places so much as people will feel negatively about you being in certain places and they might physically remove you. There are combat mechanics, vehicle mechanics, romance mechanics, it’s basically all roleplaying, there are skills…. honestly even calling it a game is a bit of interpretation, albeit the subject of this current thought experiment.”

“What was that last bit?”
”Nevermind that.”
”Oooookkayyy…how do I unlock more areas?”
”Complicated. Money helps. You can buy access to a lot of places. If you’re fast you can evade people who might try and remove you. Or if you’re good at fighting. Or you can sneak in.”
”There are stealth components?”
”Very complicated ones.”
”Is there a manual?”
”Of sorts. All manuals are found in game. They come in many forms. Books. Lectures. Conversations. A lot of what you’ll learn will have to be through trial and error, experience.”
”How long is it?
”You won’t have time to read it all during your playthrough.”
”Because it’s that much to read or because the playthrough will be short?”
”Depends on your perspective.”
”How long would it take to get through it all?”
”Thousands of years.”
”And how low will the playthrough be?”
”Depends on a lot. Average for your server and your starting build is 70 - 80.”
”How am I expected to play a game where I could never even understand 1 percent of its mechanics?”
”Sorry.”
”Are you?”
”Sure.”
”Are there survival mechanics?”
”Extremely complicated ones. Not just hunger and thirst, but a specific diet. You’ll need to access medical attention regularly no matter how well you play. Different kinds of medical professional. And you’ll have to pay for it all. And you’ll be in pain and die if you neglect your medical care and bodily needs.”
”Pain?”
”You’ll hate it, trust me. Thirst and hunger too. No meters, no HUD. Sensation instead. You’ll like some of it, some of it you’ll be neutral towards, some of it you’ll do anything to avoid.”
”So I don’t have flawless control over the avatar?”
”No, you have a thing called willpower that’s an expendable resource. Honestly I’m simplifying, it’s actually really complicated. But there are factors that can cause your controls to begin to fail. Your inputs will be responded to late, or won’t be responded to at all.”
”You mentioned paying for medical care. There’s an economic system?”
”A really-”
”-complicated one, right. Will I be playing with other people, or will it all be npcs?”
”You don’t get to know.”
”You’re fucking with me.”
”Nope. I mean, like, they’re gonna behave mostly like you. So like probably? But I’m not actually allowed to tell you.”
”Are there admins keeping an eye on things?”
”You don’t get to know.”
”This this might not be being monitored?”
"I’m not telling.”
”Cooooool. Can I make complaints? Raise concerns? Give suggestions?”
”Sure. You can put any concerns you want into this bin over here.”
”Does someone go through them and read them?”
”You don’t get to know.”

“How many times do I get to play?”
”You don’t get to know.”
”So this might be my only time through? Is there some kinda post-game?”
”You don’t get to know.”

“Am I allowed to try and answer these questions?”
”Someone might try and stop you, or the answers might be impossible to find. But other than that, you can try all you like.”

“Anything else I should know?”
”I’m not allowed to suggest questions.”
”I guess it’s time to get started.”
”For what it’s worth, have a Good Game.”

Act I: Birth….

On Moral Luck

I have the sense the society I live in doesn’t take moral luck as seriously as perhaps would be sensible.

I’ve seen the term “moral luck” used in two distinct but related senses.

The first is the sense where someone does something, a particular action, and it comes down to luck how harmful that behavior turns out, with all the following consequences. Two people drive drunk, identical circumstances, one makes it home with no problems, the other hits someone and kills them. It would be strange to say that one is guiltier than the other, whatever that might mean. Clearly there’s more social animosity thrown on one than the other (have you ever driven on bad sleep? Or after being prescribed a new med that made you drowsy?).

The second sense is where how decent someone ends up being (whatever that means), or how good someone ends up being (whatever that means), isn’t up to them, at least to some degree. The idea is that who ends up a good or bad person, or virtuous or vicious, or whatever, is outside of the control of that person, or at least that that control is circumscribed or limited in some fashion.

Part of the issue of this discussion is that the language describing choice and free will is hopelessly complicated, potentially wrongheaded. Nearly everyone agrees that some choices are harder than others, I imagine most will grant that the same choice - to the degree that makes sense - might be more or less difficult for different people. Is this difficulty asymptotic? Can a choice get more and more difficult to make while never becoming impossible? Or does that difficulty cross a threshold where it might be reasonable to say that it wasn’t really a choice at all?

Consider alternate timelines, either as somehow real or as hypothetical could-have-beens. For any person, you could imagine a powerful being watching over them from the moment of their birth. This being could influence their lives in any number of ways. Pick them up and place them with any number of potential parents. Pick out the color of their nursery. Their name. The menu of the cafeteria of their college of choice. A traffic light turns green or red a quarter second earlier or later.

Do you think this being couldn’t engineer any number of situations for this person? Given sufficient intelligence and power, I imagine this powerful overlord could take a baby and make them a sinner or saint, murderer or hero, poor or rich, smart or stupid, bad or good, etc.


It’s worth remembering at this point that childhood lead exposure is strongly correlated with criminality.

Indeed, think about what it would mean to say otherwise. You think for any particular person, this was the only way they were going to end up? That no matter what possible presets were altered, they would end up in the same place every possible way? That the monsters are monsters in every possible version of the world? That the heroes are heroic in every possible universe?

And so, to those who end up good or bad, even if their choices played a part in who and what they are, can we say that they are good or bad in every timeline? If yes, then we’re engaging in some strangely confident essentialism I would say.

Consider: imagine as perfect a society as could be (whatever that means). Imagine a society absolutely maximized for producing good individuals. Are there more good people in that society than in our own? If yes, then its perhaps worth thinking about whomst among us would-be-good-if-not-for-X. If no, then it seems we think the fundamental Being of humans is the same across all possibilities, which would plausibly take the wind out of any effort for improving the rate at which society produces good people. If we think the effort to improve society’s ability to produce morally good humans is worthwhile we must accept that the lack of success of such efforts would result in fewer good humans.

For any of us, if we are good, would we be good absent the efforts of others?

I recommend graciousness. Not passive acceptance of harmful behavior, but rather an enlightened perspective that separates a person from their behavior.

Broken Men in a Small Town

They filed into the Wendy’s, one or two graciously holding the door for the others.

Sun browned, smashed fingers, torn joints, well fed but malnourished.

Happy enough. But, maybe it’s just my imagination, holding onto something so very hard. Hope? Or this moment? Or just happiness itself? The moment of shade and sitting down?

Some of them will make it out ok I imagine. Others will be chewed up by the System, their broken bodies left by the wayside, their value extracted, their worth - from the bosses perspective - expended. Maybe they’ll get disability.

Lied to I have to guess. “Sufficient effort guarantees you’ll be ‘ok’”. Or maybe they know the game and they’re playing it as best they can, I dunno.

So many people who put the work in, still left behind, still hungry and sick and poor.

Mind you, I’m not one for saying you need to earn your happiness or your safety or your medicine or your food.

Not just the men of course, though these five or six are what inspired this piece. Humans. Giving it their all, their bodies, their lives. And maybe to bosses who also did something similar in turn, to some degree, for some time. And maybe those bosses are forking cash over to people who did the same?

Would it be more or less comforting to know those at the top of the pyramid are suffering like the rest of us? Would I get some schadenfreude or be driven mad to know the presidents and the CEOs are as miserable as everyone else?

Bit of both perhaps.

Being Human

To speak of life. Life as a human. Being human. 

So tremendously difficult. Language. Words to talk about the World. Like trying to throw a lasso around a hurricane. 

Too big. Too deep. Too varied. 

To speak of being human. 

Genocides and ice cream.

Transcendent love and hemorrhoids. 

Final goodbyes and tax documents.

Up and down and all around. 

Is it beautiful? Is it madness? Is it Truth? Is it necessary? Is it cruel? Is it a joke? Can we overcome it? Would we even like the outcome if we did? 

None of us chose to be here. 

Good and evil. Useless I think. An opportunity to puff ourselves up. 

Impulse. Drive. Direction. Chaos and order. 

And I must - must I? - maintain the humility to say that perhaps I know nothing about anything. How could I? 33 years amongst the millennia of us? 

Sensation. Qualia. To feel. To experience. What, if anything, would exist without it? Nothing we’d know of certainly. Nothing we’d care about. 

The two halves of our universe: the feeling and the unfeeling. The experiential and everything else. 

I’m running out of steam to write. The premature ejaculation of the creative. I thought I had so much to say. 


What is a Request?

I find it difficult to express what, precisely, most people are getting at when they use the word “request”. I am tempted to say that a request is simply the making known of a desire, perhaps specifically making it known to one who could fulfill that desire. However, the sentence “I wanted to let you know I want X, but this isn’t me asking for it” seems to make a kind of sense to me.

There is a general, subtle, expectation of certain behaviors towards others within our social circles. How much is expected, and of who, is extraordinarily complicated, and far beyond the scope of this essay. Nevertheless, suffice it to say that your friends will get upset with you if you refuse to grant a certain baseline level of requests, within limits. Correspondingly, your friends will get upset with you if you ask of them too much, or too frequently. The closest analogy I can think of is a term like “social debt”. This is, admittedly, a poor analogy, and one that is likely tainted by my cultural inculcation in the cult of capitalism. Nevertheless, with the acknowledgement that it is a deeply imperfect turn of phrase, we’ll run with it.

So, it seems to me that, within the context of the English language, and I cannot speak for anything more than that, most usages of the term “request” seem to be indicating a kind of linguistic ritual whereby the speaker 1. makes known a desire to someone who, theoretically, can fulfill that desire, and 2. cashes in some amount of social debt, or takes upon themselves some degree of social debt.

Being Less Wrong Requires a Certain Kind of Courage

I will be a little loose with my language here.

I sometimes wonder if any philosopher has had a wise thought yet.

Regardless of ones religious inclinations, atheist or Christian or Buddhist or what have you, it seems that we have to conclude that at least one religion is false. Imagine an old man, a cleric of that religion, who has dedicated his life to his faith. He had spent countless years in service, made innumerable sacrifices, and all for nought. If he is to be less wrong he must be willing to admit the terrible truth that he has wasted his life. He has to be brave enough to face the fact that his life has been dedicated to foolishness. I suppose we could make similar analogies when we consider scientists who spent their lives trying to prove false ideas.

What if that's us? What if that's our species? What if we haven't even begun to learn? What we're philosophical toddlers?

And I'm not saying we are. I don't have any good reasons to think one way or another. But if we are too frightened to consider the possibility, we'll never know. Perhaps wisdom requires us to entertain the possibility.

And if you fear you have wasted your life, don't sweat it. Maybe we all have, or none of us have, or there's no such thing. I certainly don't think less of you.

The Vertigo of Realizing Your Life is Your Life

There's a sensation that sometimes suddenly seizes me, although I think I can manufacture it to some degree, when I am struck by the reality of “Oh yeah, this is my life. I live here. In this body. My parents are so and so. My spouse is this person. I look like this and I breathe and I was born and I will die.” And the sensation can be disorienting, can cause a kind of inward sense of unbalance.

It's as if, in the process of living my life, I get so immersed in the minute by minute of living that I lose the summed perspective of being-who/what-I-am. And when it strikes me it sometimes feels foreign. As if I had forgotten who I was and somehow I was expecting something else. I wonder if my brain knows it's a brain?

Is Determinism Weirder than the Alternative?

If determinism is the case, than everything that has happened since the universe began was inexorably set in motion the moment the universe began to exist. Or perhaps, if we want to zoom out, everything that has ever happened are the only things that could have happened. Reality is what it is, and was always going to be, and always will be. A entity with the right qualities could observe the big bang and, based on that snapshot of the first moment of the universe, infer correctly every winning lottery number ever.

What often gets glossed over is this implies that the Taco Bell Doritos Locos Taco is an inevitable aspect of reality. Physics plus the presets of the big bang initiated a domino chain that, billions of years later, was always going to lead to the Taco Bell Doritos Locos Taco. If the presets of the big bang also could not have been other than what they were, then our universe is -by its nature - the kind of universe has Taco Bell Doritos Locos Tacos in it.

Of course, if things could have been other than what they are, then Taco Bell Doritos Locos didn't have to exist, but we happened to end up in the reality were they do. Of all possible iterations of the world I could live in, the one I in fact find myself in has Taco Bell Doritos Locos Tacos.

Both of these seem very strange in different ways.

The Internet and the Jury of the Mind

I hope you'll forgive some loose language and a certain amount of literary flourish here.

I was reflecting today on the psychological differences between my contemporary self and my younger selves. One factor that drew my attention was that, for some time now, I often don't feel entirely in one place. When I was younger my mind was settled inside the room I was in, or the general vicinity. I recall how much easier it was to forget that someone was mad at me, or upset with me, or that I had done something embarrassing, because once I got away from them physically it became much easier to distance myself mentally. Out of sight, out of mind was much more automatic back then.

But for quite some time now, beginning I don't know when, and plausibly shifting in nature and intensity over time, I have had a jury in my head. Sometimes it feels like the whole human species is in there, all who have ever been and ever will be, moment by moment judging my thoughts and behaviors and inclinations.

I suspect that a contributing factor to this, although likely not the only one, is the rise of the internet broadly and social media specifically. I often liken social media sites to cities, with our profiles being the apartments. Or one could liken the whole of the internet to a massive city, some of it glittering and bright and some of it covered in a foot of the most rancid, putrescent slime you can imagine. It baffles me how casual people are about letting children wander aimlessly about this city without an adult accompanying them, but that's a different post. The point is, and I am hardly the first to make this observation, that we sort of all live in these cities. We live here and there. In the real world other people are separated by distance. We can't always see each other or talk to each other. But the internet allows us to, digitally, always be close to each other. I can talk to anyone at any time on social media. My phone is a window into a massive apartment block where none of us ever really leave our apartments and the walls are thin enough that we hear a lot of what's going on with each other.

This lack of distance creates, in me at least, a kind of sense of the immediacy of the presence of other people. The connectedness is wonderful, in some senses, but it always sort of means that I'm spread out. I'm here and there. I'm in Canada watching the wildfires, I'm in Congress watching bills be voted on, I'm at the houses of innumerable people on Twitter (sorry X) all arguing with them, I'm at the Sistine Chapel and Stonehenge and Machu Picchu, I'm at school with John and Hank Green, I'm at a sketch comedy show with the cast of Dropout. I'm in so many places I'm barely in my living room at all. It is an amazing power to be in all these places and witness all these things. However, the consistency of it, day in and day out, makes me feel like Bilbo, “I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.”

I'm doing it right now too. I'm imagining talking to all of you. I'm imagine sitting in a room with you saying all these things. But you’re not here.

Obviously “disconnect from internet sometimes” is hardly groundbreaking as an idea, but I'm having more clarity on exactly why that might be a good idea.

Epicurus Trilemma: Electric Boogaloo

If an omnipotent being attempts to make a creature or entity happy and safe, is it possible that that attempt could fail? 

In the event an omnipotent being did everything it could to make a creature or entity happy and safe, is it possible that that creature or entity ends up not safe and/or not happy? 

If an an entity or creature is not happy or is not safe, can we assume that an omnipotent being is not trying to make that creature happy or safe? 

Potential objection: creatures can choose to not be happy, and an omnipotent being might allow for creatures to choose to be unhappy, even if that entity is doing everything possible other than overriding their free will in order to make that creature or entity happy.

Counter: this leaves the safety aspect untouched. Why should a child ever be in danger of a tornado if an omnipotent being who is trying to keep them safe exists?

Counter: why should any particular action necessarily lead to unhappiness? There seems to be no necessary causal reaction between, say, engaging in same sex sexual activity, and unhappiness. One could imagine a world where this was not the case, and so for it to be the case in any universe would seem deliberate. Why would a being trying to optimize happiness make a universe where so many things lead to unhappiness?

Unless: you don't think same sex sexual activity causes unhappiness in a natural way, built into our reality’s physics, but rather that God deliberate and supernaturally inflicts suffering on those who participate in such behavior? But then, it would seem hard to maintain the idea then that God is always acting to maintain our happiness or safety.

Conclusion: I can think of no reason why there should be danger and unhappiness for humans if an omnipotent being is trying to keep us safe and happy. Unless somehow you think a greater good (good for who?) is preserved by the possibility of danger and unhappiness. But I have heard no argument to suggest that children dying from tornadoes is necessary for a greater good, or why we would live in a universe where so much leads to unhappiness. Even if we wanted to maintain a universe where deliberately standing in fire causes suffering, this doesn't go far to explain most of the Christian religion’s insistence on suffering as the consequences for many behaviors.

Note: there are some who seem to suggest that ungodliness or spiritually rejecting God necessarily results in unhappiness or pain. However it seems trivially true to say that anyone, no matter how much they reject God, who does heroin is happy for at least as long as the high lasts, so we have established that it is not logically impossible for someone to reject God and be happy for at least a time. So, if an atheist suffers strictly due to their atheism that would seem to be a quality of reality that God decided on.

End of the day: the world has a lot of suffering in it. If God is trying to prevent or alleviate suffering, then the Christian has to somehow argue that this is the best an omnipotent being could do (unlikely) OR that God's efforts to alleviate any more suffering than he already is would somehow cost us something we wouldn't be willing to give up OR that God has motivations other than our happiness and well-being that he is prioritizing.

Theodicy, the Bare Bones

Theodicy. We want to know why suffering exists, why it persists.

Classically this issue has been phrased as something like "If God is all good and all powerful, why does suffering exist?". The so-called Epicurus Trilemma is:

1. If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.

2. If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.

3. If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

I will rework this slightly as "If God is all loving and all powerful, why is there suffering?".

To properly engage with this we will need to ask, what is love? Or, more helpfully, within the context of Abrahamic theology and holy text, how is the term "love" used? Except of course, that's an English word, so when these texts use words like ἀγάπη (1 John 4:8), what function is that term serving? Is this term being used in any sense close to how we might use the term "love"?

I think it might be useful to ask a very specific question:

Does God ever do anything that is contrary to what is best for anyone (maximizes their happiness)? Or, does God ever do anything where it is the case that it would have been better for someone, in the long run, if God had not done that thing?

Running alongside side this we might reasonably also ask: is there ever some action that God could take that that would be of benefit to someone (maximizes their happiness)- without harming another - that God does not do? Or is there ever some harm God could prevent to someone that God does not prevent?

When I say that my parents love me, I am communicating, among other factors, that they strive to act in ways that benefit me and strive to avoid acting in ways that harm me (strive to enhance my happiness and decrease my suffering). If someone has no consideration with respect to avoiding behaviors harmful to me, and if they care not about benefiting me, I am not likely to say that this person loves me. And I think this is a very common limiter that most people would place on their usage of the term "love".

So, does God love me, or you, or anyone? You could object that this is not what is meant by love in Christian scripture, or what is meant by ἀγάπη. But it is worth mentioning that, if this is the case, I would call if fair then to say that God does not love humans in any sense even remotely similar to our common usage of the term. I would go so far as to say that in English it would make sense to abandon the phrasing "God loves us" and form some new term to get the job done.

If you wish to maintain that God loves us, and that this is reasonably close to our common usage of the word, then you run into what I think is the central issue of theodicy: it appears to be straightforwardly the case that an omnipotent God could prevent most, if not all, of the harm we humans suffer. Correspondingly, there appears to be much benefit such a God could provide that we do not enjoy. To simplify things, we can ignore examples of humans harming each other (even though I think these are still huge problems that simple appeals to free will don't solve), and just focus on a single example, such as bone cancer, a favorite example of Stephen Fry.

Let's do a little proof.

Premise 1. Bone cancer exists.

Premise 2. God could cure all existing cases of bone cancer and prevent any new cases.

Premise 3. It would reduce harm in humans for God to cure bone cancer and prevent it.

Premise 4. God acts at all times to minimize harm in humans.

Therefore

Conclusion: God has cured all bone cancer and prevents all future cases.

BUT, bone cancer exists and new cases continue to form.

So, if the premises follow through to the conclusion, we have a problem. Premise 1 feels pretty unassailable. Premise 2 seems to be in line with typical Christian theology, although there might be some folks who would go after that one. Premise 4 can't be done away with without trying to insist that God's love for humans is very unlike our typical usage of the term (as discussed above). It seems that the only remaining option would be to go after 3, unless you want to bite the bullet of going after 4.

If one wants to go after 3 you have to somehow argue that bone cancer is good for humans, or at least that God curing and preventing it would be bad for us. You would have to argue that, somehow in the long run, our happiness would be reduced if God were to cure and prevent bone cancer. Someone might also want to discuss the possibility of God selecting among humans: possibly God acts to enhance the happiness of some at the cost of the happiness of others.

Notably, it seems as though some Christians already dismiss 4. It would seem very hard for 5 point Calvinists to maintain that God does everything that could be done to minimize harm to all humans or that He does everything that could be done to maximize the happiness of all humans. To some degree I believe this is why Thomas Talbott ended up embracing universal reconciliation: if the Calvinists believe that a human's final destiny is entirely up to God's decision, without human activity or decisions having any effect, AND God wants to maximize human happiness, THEN God would send everybody to heaven.

At any rate, I suppose one might attempt a response with something to the effect that there are motivations God has that overpower His love, or take priority above it: righteousness or some other factor. If “all loving” were to mean that every act of love that can be taken is taken, and “all righteous” were to mean that every act of righteousness that can be taken is taken and that there are some situations where the loving thing and the righteous thing are mutually exclusive then it could be the case that one could not be all loving and all righteous. Which would be an interesting take.

I think that's everything I have to say.