When the singularity finally comes and Yudkowsky et al unveil their
Ultimate Solution to Agent Alignment, I will personally, with my own two
hands, shove Bostrom’s vestigial, fleshy, meatsuit avatar through the
Orgasmium machine so he can finally see every one of his atoms
rearranged for Total and Absolutely Maximum Utility, just like he’s
dreamt about ever since he was a weird little boy. Godspeed, you crazy
Swedish bastard!
I think it is pretty nice of the author of this piece to not talk about the crazy AGI stuff and include acausalrobotgod wireheading everybody into constant pleasure machines, becuase that would make the story too unbelievable for normal people to read.
People talking about Boström is always hilarious, since there's a 19th century idealistic philosopher named Boström from my town, and imagining this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Jacob_Bostr%C3%B6m getting all up into the god-machine orgasmium thing is just hilarious.
Fairly normal summer temps, around 20 degrees C. We had a heatwave earlier in the summer, but the european murder-heat doesen't come this far north it seems.
I will drag you into the screaming hell pit of London from sheer raging envy, thanks for reminding me about Bostrom though (your one), I’ve been doing some reading that might benefit from that direction lately
That seems fair, tbh. Our heatwave only got to like 30+ degrees, rather than 40, and that was unpleasant enough.
EDIT: There's a statue/bust of Boström in one of the town squares, that I walk by almost every day, hence why I remember him.
although there are good reasons for believing that Martian colonies
could result in catastrophic interplanetary wars that will probably
destroy humanity, as the political theorist Daniel Deudney has
convincingly argued in his book “Dark Skies.”
Damn, thought they were about to say “The Expanse.”
Also, damn, this article took a sharp turn from “haha Mars fantasy
silliness” to “oh wow extremely gross eugenics”. But then it just dips
into this bonkers shit where a guy takes utilitarianism to goofy
extremes.
On the face of it, a guy saying “eh, the Holocaust and world wars et
al. aren’t that big a deal in the scheme of things” doesn’t shock me -
plenty of people say things like this, and many of them don’t need to
twist their brains into pretzels to do it. But since Bostrom decided to
undertake the exercise, it’s incredibly transparent the way he’s
essentially rebuilt religion from first principles - a utopian future
universe that has shed all the material indignities of our own humble
lives, where all suffering will be banished, is plainly religious, no
matter how you dress it up - and then managed to come to the
opposite conclusion of most religions - suffering right now, no
matter how horrific or vast, doesn’t matter, because it’ll all be
cancelled out by the quadrillions of quadrillions of people having
nonstop cyberorgasms millions of years from now.
It’s not too difficult to bring traditional religion around to the
same conclusions - ie “suffering on Earth doesn’t matter because it’s
just a blip compared your eternal life after death” - but that’s always
been primarily just a position of the wealthy, comfortable, and
privileged (as is Bostrom’s bonkers cyberorgasm religion). For the poor,
suffering, and deprived, these religions were intended as a source of
comfort, not an excuse to not care about the suffering around you.
> then managed to come to the opposite conclusion of most religions - suffering right now, no matter how horrific or vast, doesn't matter, because it'll all be cancelled out by the quadrillions of quadrillions of people having nonstop cyberorgasms millions of years from now.
You should maybe look more deeply into what the New Testament actually promotes. Apocalypticism in general, and the specific theology espoused by the NT in large part, are centered on the idea of an imminent coming of the kingdom of god, wherein evil is finally defeated and death is destroyed. Taking the right actions now, to ensure inclusion in that kingdom, is all that matters. Jesus preached forsaking all earthly possessions, putting out one’s on eye if it offends you, etc.
Of course, the various different authors of the books of NT each had their own theological take, so nothing is absolutely uniform, but this is the broad message of the NT. And we certainly see this strain of a requirement of earthly asceticism, and disregard to the suffering of others, echoed in many churches today. Hence the “They care about babies right up until they are born” hot take.
You're leaving out a pretty important bit of the "forsake all your earthly possessions" instruction, ie, what the rich were specifically instructed to do with them, which is to sell them and give the money to the poor. Of course afterlife-focused religions can be used as an excuse to ignore suffering on Earth, but I don't agree that it's inherently baked in. I don't see any reasonable reading of the parable of the sheep and the goats, for example, that just says "ensuring your inclusion in heaven is all that matters."
The apocalypticism of the New Testament is not a message of "fuck the world, it's going to burn down anyway." It's a message of hope and comfort to people living in a hostile world - "the sigh of the oppressed creature," as Marx put it. It describes the cycle of conquest, liberation, and reconquest suffered by the Jewish people, which John of Patmos sort of sneakily blends in with the oppression of the early Church under Rome, and offers hope that that cycle will be broken. It's very much steeped in the suffering and mundanity of the world, not a tunnel vision squinting at heaven.
I personally don't want to give too much ground to fundamentalist Christians by accepting their nonsensical interpretations of the Bible as canonical.
It’s hardly restricted to fundamentalists, just look at Mother Theresa. Or just read Paul, who says that even married people should refrain from sex. He’s promoting a message of asceticism, not “live simply so that others may simply live”.
I agree that the message isn’t “fuck the world”, but it is a message of “the suffering in this world is not what matters most”. Slaves be obedient to your masters, render unto Caesar, etc.
Jesus and the early Christians thought the world was about to end, and that final judgement was to come literally any day. The most important thing to them was that they convince as many people as possible to accept these teachings so that they would be a part of the kingdom that was to come. The message is not “make the current world the best place it can be”, but rather “Get right with God because you only have a short time to do so.” Sure, you can say that the teachings are highly concerned with the poor, etc., but this isn’t a message that says that the suffering of the people is the world is a problem that needs to be actually solved. Because God is about to solve it. There is a big difference in reasoning that leads to similar positions.
Similarly you see plenty of statements of concern for the those who are suffering in rationalism. What is the EA, after all? Why do they promote UBI? But they are always quickly consumed by the desire to make sure the glorious future is secured, which will then solve all these problems.
Both of these are mindsets that are interested in perfection, an ultimate resolution, rather than incremental progress.
Is that take hot, or is it an apt description of the views-in-practice of an Evangelical/Catholic complex of voters, lawmakers, propagandists, lobbyists, and judges in America today who have put aside their many differences and made common cause on the single issue of abortion?
Porque no los dos?
I'd say it's a hyperbolic statement that captures an essential truth. I agree that the abortion issue is mostly a drummed up political issue that had been hammered on for 50 years. But I don't think it's correct to say that, writ large, they literally don't care about children.
Of course, the whole Christian doctrine is fundamentally incoherent anyway. The transition between the God of Genesis and the current triple-omni God leads to far too many logical contradictions. So, I'm not sure it makes sense to expect it to be completely logical in application.
Not exactly sure why you are irritated with me. First you take exception that I offhandedly referred to a snarky summation of the conservative positions on abortion as a hot take. Now you seem irritated that I'm not being charitable enough to them, or something.
My only point in the beginning was simply that western religion, robot god or not, shouldn't really get much credit on the "suffering right now" issue.
My two replies are to two different things, not a pattern indicating what I think or feel about you personally
To be honest, I don’t even know what your original bit about the New Testament was implying, I just thought it was a bit fatuous to implicitly criticise references to the factual disparity between religious-conservative policy responses to unborn and newborn babies as a “hot take”
After that I took exception to the lazy jab at the trinity (although I am not a Christian in the slightest) but more importantly the “of course” that you opened it with, because I don’t happen to agree with you about the inherent “logical contradictions” you take as obvious: I don’t like being matily roped in like that
Fair enough.
My original comment about the NT was really just to point out that the nominal interest in the welfare of the poor within Christianity is far in the background compared to the interest in whether one will achieve eternal salvation or damnation. This maps nicely to the rationalist view of super AI.
“Hot take” wasn’t intended to imply criticism, just a reference the hyperbolic nature of the claim. I can see one can take it that way, and it was less than carefully worded on my part.
My statement about the changing nature of the God of the Christian bible has nothing to do with the trinity. But, as you said, that’s not particularly relevant to this forum.
If you are at all interested, at core, I think that the primary incoherence is simply that God in Genesis is not portrayed as a triple-omni God. God is consistently unaware, deceived, selfish, most powerful but not all powerful, etc. He most resembles other Gods developed in antiquity, with very human traits. Whereas God is received as all powerful, all knowing and all good by the time we are done with the primary development of Christian doctrine.
It is not an apt description - most pro-life policies are linked to higher abortion rates, so it is not accurate to say they care about children before birth.
Additionally, many of the most aggressively pro-life churches used to support forced abortions, back before abortion became a woman's choice.
although there are good reasons for believing that Martian colonies
could result in catastrophic interplanetary wars that will probably
destroy humanity, as the political theorist Daniel Deudney has
convincingly argued in his book “Dark Skies.”
I can't speak for the book itself as I haven't read it, but there are very real, possibly unsolvable, problems that arise if you develop convenient, economical interplanetary travel, in that pretty much all of the technologies involved would also give you convenient, economical planet-killers. The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs hit Earth at about 0.006% the speed of light. If you can accelerate large masses in space, you can kill a planet.
Or, more imminently, you can kill a planet by burning fossil fuels, which is what we are doing now. Or, you can kill it by releasing fusion energy quickly, which is simple enough to have been done 70 years ago - all while scifi fusion space drives required to actually steer an asteroid into a collision course in any relevant timeframe, are still just that, scifi. With all due respect for Expanse series, it is an idiotic, entirely scifi inspired idea that spaceships which we can't even build yet are going to somehow be a bigger regulatory problem than h-bombs that we've already had for 70 years. This is not even considering all the advances we'll have to make in how the society works, just to survive that far into the future without reverting to cavemen.
Note also how they had to throw in an impossible stealth tech to make it more workable. Stealth tech. On a rock that has to be propelled away from its original orbit, with a fairly huge expenditure of energy. Just add that up for a second.
I see "longermism" of various kinds as basically anti-environmentalism with a different angle; rather than boldly proclaiming that climate change isn't real, they proclaim that it isn't a big deal compared to some issue that we may very well not even advance far enough to face.
It is funded by the usual suspects (huge intersection with Thiel-o-sphere).
Obviously any discussion of sticking big engines on space rocks is entirely academic compared to the current, ongoing threat of climate change. But there are plenty of angles from which to approach the same point of "no, space won't save us from the consequences of trashing the Earth." I think many Musk cultists genuinely do believe that "oh we'll just go colonize Mars" is anything but nakedly absurd, and that is a huge problem when Musk, who has a proven track record of drinking his own Kool-Aid, is in a position to greatly influence public policy.
I don't see how that helps redirect anything into more realistic problems, though. It's not like he's going to be less into mars colony and more into global warming just because of possibility of war between Mars and Earth.
For what its worth I think robotic partially autonomous self replication on asteroids is a lot more attainable than a mars colony. Having readily available iron-nickel alloy, silicates, high vacuum, and microgravity, would make a lot of processes simpler, although pretty much all basic devices like electric motors would have to be re-designed. Electrostatic motors are probably more practical if you have to make a motor up there. The point being, there's some unique shortcuts in space that you can take, which you can't on a planet.
Mars is insufficiently Earth like to enable you to just build a regular farm and live there, and yet also insufficiently "in space" to enable any other approaches than just regular old remote colony with colonists and farms. So on mars you just have an incredibly difficult to build and maintain farm. There's just enough atmosphere for said atmosphere to be a huge pain in the ass. There's enough gravity for it to be a pain in the ass, and yet probably not enough to keep you healthy; if you want 1 G it's easier to get in space (by spinning the habitat) than on Mars.
It's not big enough that you can avoid having to have meters of rocks over your head for radiation protection, and yet big enough that said rocks can fall on you. Etc etc. Probably not enough past water action to separate out particularly dilute chemical elements into useful ores, yet enough separation that you are going to actually have to have a bunch of distant mining facilities.
Most manufacturing processes need lots of different chemicals, so you're probably better putting your self-replicating factory on a carbonaceous chondrite asteroid that has lots of different volatiles plus nickel-iron, rather than a nickel-iron asteroid. I doubt any industrial advantages of space would outweigh its disadvantages in the short to medium term; all our manufacturing processes are designed for Earthlike environments and it took centuries to figure them all out. Off the top of my head, gravity and atmosphere give you mechanical damping and thermal management that's pretty advantageous compared to space.
Mars isn't a nice place to colonize, but it's probably one of the best in the solar system for a first attempt; the atmosphere provides much more protection against radiation and meteorites than is commonly appreciated. Putting 3 feet of dirt over the hab and not going outside too much would largely deal with the radiation risk to the best of our knowledge, at least for a research base. Comparisons with the radiation levels on the ISS are instructive. The effect of the 1/3rd gravity on human health is a big unknown. From the materials perspective, Mars should have about the same composition and availability of elements as the Earth, even if they aren't in as convenient ores, which is a leg up on basically everywhere else we might go.
Whether Mars, the Moon, asteroids, O'Neill cylinders, whatever, the problem is that you have to build and maintain everything that on Earth the environment provides for free. Everybody can envision technologies to recycle air, or grow hydroponic crops, or refine ores and turn them into all the products of a technological civilization, but your colony needs to build and run all of them at once, which means either each colonist has to have 100 PhDs and be able to work 10,000 hours per day, or you need automation (like the self-replicating robots you mentioned) so good that it's basically magic from our current perspective.
In another 3 centuries or whatever, considering historical rates of productivity growth, it's perfectly plausible we could have automation that good, but right now we have no idea how to do it. The technology of basic colony survival on Mars is the stuff of post-scarcity utopia if deployed on Earth. Anyone who claims they can start a thriving colony on Mars in the next few decades should have to explain how they're building that automation, and why it isn't making them a multi-trillionaire already.
> Most manufacturing processes need lots of different chemicals, so you're probably better putting your self-replicating factory on a carbonaceous chondrite asteroid that has lots of different volatiles plus nickel-iron
Yeah, that's the point. There's free iron&nickel everywhere.
>All our manufacturing processes are designed for Earthlike environments
No they aren't. They are designed for Earth. Step away from Earth, nothing whatsoever works. Step onto another planet, and not only nothing works but you don't even have readily available vacuum or constant sunlight, your siderophile elements sank to the core, etc.
> the atmosphere provides much more protection against radiation and meteorites than is commonly appreciated.
Mars atmospheric pressure is about 6/1000 of Earth's, radiation protection equivalent to about 6cm of water (edit: maybe more like 15..20cm, on second thought, since it's thicker due to lower gravity). The kind of meteorites it stops are the kind you stop with a Whipple shield.
Bottom line is, you're piling up dirt on the habitat; a thin atmosphere saves you less than a dozen centimeters of dirt, at the expense of the associated gravity requiring you to bring an entire excavator.
Let's put it this way. Venus is extremely similar to Earth in some ways, but it would be incredibly difficult to build self sustaining habitats there (to the point where we haven't got a foggiest clue how that could possibly be done), are we in agreement about that? The same applies to Mars to a lesser extent; it is not quite as difficult as Venus, but still Earth-like in all the ways that only make everything harder.
edit: and the idea with asteroids is that there could be at least some shortcuts available for electronics which are not available on Earth. Look at making semiconductors (like solar panels) or 3d printing in metal on Earth. Half the steps are in a vacuum chamber, a good fraction of the rest use an inert gas atmosphere to avoid the cost of high vacuum. A plenty of steps are hindered by gravity (e.g. zone melting), although of course zero g variations would take a while to develop.
We never go out of our way to imitate Mars for an industrial process, but we do imitate space.
edit: a prehistoric case in point, early tools made of meteoritic iron. Iron age; the time when we figured out how to undo the oxidation of iron on Earth.
Being on the surface of Mars means you have gravity, even if weaker than Earth, which means you have convection, which numerous industrial processes depend on. The atmosphere acts as a heat sink, which means you don't have several hundred degree temperature differences between heat and shade, and you don't need all your machinery covered in pipes full of ammonia leading to football-field sized radiators just to keep it from melting from its own waste heat. The atmosphere also means that exposed metal surfaces develop oxides, keeping them from partially welding together just because you left them in contact for too long. And it means that the surface has been under the influence of erosion for millions of years, which means the dirt is just dirt grains rather than tiny sharp little glass shards that strip all bearings and seals and give your astronauts silicosis. Fuel and oxygen can be made by collecting atmosphere in gas phase,
liquifying it to get pure feedstocks and processing it, which dramatically simplifies the industrial process compared to the alternatives.
Atmosphere and gravity means if your mining and manufacturing operations kick up dust, or shed parts, that debris falls to the ground and stops, rather than floating along in a cloud with the facility or slowly diverging trajectories only to shotgun into it or other ships months or years later as space debris at the equivalent of mach 40. Small oscillations in your structures actually get damped, rather than simply oscillating continuously. You will still need a powerful excavator on an asteroid as rock still has inertia in zero g, and still may need high shear forces applied to separate it from the surface. On Mars it can be just a regular excavator, on an asteroid it will need rocket jets or spider legs or something. The atmosphere may not offer the meteorite protection of Earth, but it's still burning up little impactors that would otherwise be sandblasting your solar panels and giant, exposed radiators. I'm not sure about the ore availability on Mars, but from what little skimming I've done it (like Earth) has an unexpectedly high level of siderophile elements in the upper mantle, probably due to later impacts. I would be very surprised if any individual asteroid or easily accessible collection of asteroids had better material availability for our purposes than a properly surveyed entire Earth-like planet with past vulcanism and hydrology, that hasn't been cooked off like Venus.
Venus would definitely be a terrible place to colonize, because you'd have to live in zeppelins with no resources but what chemicals you could take out of the air. Asteroids and space stations would be much better. Mars would be best, at least for the foreseeable future. This doesn't mean I think any of it will happen in our lifetimes.
Well, for all the difficulties on the asteroids, you do have constant sunlight (and you can concentrate it with mirrors since you can maintain alignment with the sun), so if your model of economic growth is using solar energy from solar panels to make more solar panels (and other stuff), then at least the asteroids allow faster "doubling time", and therefore have a plausible economic advantage to exploit, comparing to Mars.
The bottom line is that Mars is a *much worse Earth*, while asteroids are something very different, with unique difficulties but also a potential for unique opportunities.
> Being on the surface of Mars means you have gravity, even if weaker than Earth, which means you have convection, which numerous industrial processes depend on.
Those industrial processes won't work as is on Mars because its gravity is about 1/3rd of Earth, resulting in slower convection. They could be *adapted* to Mars, and depending on the specific process it may be easier or harder to adapt to Mars than to space. This is assuming you don't have to almost entirely reinvent that process because the inputs for it are not available.
edit: also the usual solution to not having enough convection (e.g. as a process got optimized and became faster than convection allows), is mechanical stirring, even on Earth.
What kind of industrial process are you thinking about here?
> The atmosphere acts as a heat sink, which means you don't have several hundred degree temperature differences between heat and shade, and you don't need all your machinery covered in pipes full of ammonia leading to football-field sized radiators just to keep it from melting from its own waste heat.
Mars has an atmosphere that is 50X less dense than on Earth, though. And even on Earth it is very costly to dump significant amounts of heat into the air (without relying on e.g. evaporation).
This also goes for damping structures. Even on Earth we don't just leave damping of large structures like say power lines, to air. Ever noticed [dumbbell shaped things hanging off a high voltage power line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockbridge_damper#/media/File:Morning_Mist_in_Barnsley.JPG)? Those are vibration dampers. (Not that you would be able to have a power line like that on Mars though, it would arc over because the breakdown voltage is dramatically lower).
edit: and of course, we've been doing vibration damping for solar panels on the space station and such, for a long time. What we hadn't been doing, is damping vibrations caused by martian high speed, low pressure winds.
> The atmosphere also means that exposed metal surfaces develop oxides, keeping them from partially welding together just because you left them in contact for too long.
Oxygen is only a trace gas, CO2 is practically inert at room (or especially mars) temperatures. If natural oxidation is not enough, then you have to use some kind of coatings, if you want to do chemical vapor deposition of said coatings, you need high vacuum... bottom line is, a little of wrong atmosphere can be worse than no atmosphere.
Regarding dust etc etc, dust behaviors in micro-gravity are complicated - electrostatics, solar wind, etc plays a huge role. An asteroid isn't a moon either, small dust does get blown off, larger pieces settle down (it's not zero gravity, things still fall down, on the timescale of minutes).
Regarding Kessler syndrome in solar orbits, not a very realistic concern - the chance of collision per orbital period is inversely proportional to the square of the size of the orbit, the orbital period is, say, a year... something like 10^12 less of a problem than in Earth orbit.
> You will still need a powerful excavator on an asteroid as rock still has inertia in zero g, and still may need high shear forces applied to separate it from the surface.
I was thinking "small" asteroids, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubble_pile . Presumably most of material at least somewhat magnetic (due to nickel iron content).
As a sidenote, I was reading the Expanse series (books), right at the beginning they talk of how a 30000kg block of ice, moving at 5mm/s , crushed some dude's arm. This is merely 0.375 Joule. It's not going to crush anything, least of all a pressurized spacesuit. 38kg weight on Earth, acting over 1 mm distance - it would bounce right off his spacesuit, not squishing it by even a millimeter.
It's curious how our intuitions of inertia of 30 000 kg in space, are still just our intuitions of the 30 000 kg weight and not intuitions of inertia.
Re : martian soil, I heard the soil is also toxic, and the dust also is a massive problem (more so on the moon iirc where the dust is even more abrasive).
https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/martian-dust-is-a-big-problem-for-astronauts-heres-how-nasa-fights-it/
Said asteroid plowed the equivalent of 4.5 billion Hiroshima bombs of energy into the Earth, so wellakshually. This is only academic because nobody is going to have access to big, efficient space engines in our lifetimes, not because of the scale of the numbers.
Then to match that destructive power, our would-be Earth bomber would need to plow on the order of 4.5 billion Hiroshima bombs worth of energy into an asteroid to get it onto the speed and trajectory to hit Earth, and do it without being noticed by the people on Earth even though such a massive energy expenditure would be impossible to hide. Or they would need to find a near-Earth asteroid that is already on a trajectory to almost hit Earth and nudge it onto an impact trajectory, but they would have to do it years in advance, for an impact time years down the road that they couldn't choose, and they still wouldn't be able to hide it (even now) because we already track NEOs and presumably could nudge it back if we noticed early enough (which is why we track NEOs). And dinosaur killer size may not be enough; humans are probably a lot more adaptable than dinosaurs.
The same debate gets had on a smaller scale about the Rods from God idea as an orbital bombardment weapon, and it turns out it just doesn't make sense there either.
Is Daniel Deudney a manchild, or a working academic who has decided to apply his skills to the issue of what will happen if international relations are extended further into space than the ISS? I genuinely don’t know, it’s just that I also don’t think you’ve heard of him before either.
Ah, Deudney's not so bad. I spoke too soon. But even entertaining the presupposition that we can colonize mars within _l_n _usk's lifetime feels like too much of a concession!
Right, I vote we never talk about the future in case something else happens
Again, you and I haven’t read the book: what I read *about* it does not suggest space opera
When the singularity finally comes and Yudkowsky et al unveil their Ultimate Solution to Agent Alignment, I will personally, with my own two hands, shove Bostrom’s vestigial, fleshy, meatsuit avatar through the Orgasmium machine so he can finally see every one of his atoms rearranged for Total and Absolutely Maximum Utility, just like he’s dreamt about ever since he was a weird little boy. Godspeed, you crazy Swedish bastard!
Damn, thought they were about to say “The Expanse.”
Also, damn, this article took a sharp turn from “haha Mars fantasy silliness” to “oh wow extremely gross eugenics”. But then it just dips into this bonkers shit where a guy takes utilitarianism to goofy extremes.
On the face of it, a guy saying “eh, the Holocaust and world wars et al. aren’t that big a deal in the scheme of things” doesn’t shock me - plenty of people say things like this, and many of them don’t need to twist their brains into pretzels to do it. But since Bostrom decided to undertake the exercise, it’s incredibly transparent the way he’s essentially rebuilt religion from first principles - a utopian future universe that has shed all the material indignities of our own humble lives, where all suffering will be banished, is plainly religious, no matter how you dress it up - and then managed to come to the opposite conclusion of most religions - suffering right now, no matter how horrific or vast, doesn’t matter, because it’ll all be cancelled out by the quadrillions of quadrillions of people having nonstop cyberorgasms millions of years from now.
It’s not too difficult to bring traditional religion around to the same conclusions - ie “suffering on Earth doesn’t matter because it’s just a blip compared your eternal life after death” - but that’s always been primarily just a position of the wealthy, comfortable, and privileged (as is Bostrom’s bonkers cyberorgasm religion). For the poor, suffering, and deprived, these religions were intended as a source of comfort, not an excuse to not care about the suffering around you.
Manchild Refutes Manchild
I really have to think Bentham wouldn’t be into this bullshit. Something tells me he’s spinning in his glass case.