Some hot takes

Author: Tejretics

Posts

Total: 17
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
Thought I’d post some of my controversial political opinions here and generate some discussion! Also check out my hot philosophy takes on the Philosophy forum. My AMA is also up

  • Factory farming should be illegal. Animal suffering is the world’s most pressing immediate problem. 
  • It sounds weird, but there’s a legitimate risk that artificial general intelligence (AGI) could cause human extinction -- I’d say something like a 1 in 20 chance in the next 100 years. There’s also more plausible-sounding risks like a sharp rise in inequality from being able to automate most tasks in the future. We should regulate companies like DeepMind and OpenAI more carefully, and fund labs working on making AI go safer. 
  • Nuclear power is good, but overrated. The focus of climate policy should be solar, wind, and, more speculatively, geothermal. 
  • Fracking should be legal in the US. It creates jobs and generates economic efficiency. Banning it would make energy sources more unclean and empower Russia and Saudi Arabia. 
  • Gas tax holidays are bad. Gas taxes should be coupled with carbon taxes on corporations. 
  • In general, hiring more police officers is a good idea. Most countries have fewer police officers than optimal. This might require increasing law enforcement budgets. Police over prisons is a good approach to criminal justice reform. 
  • The current government in India has done more harm than good, both by mismanaging the economy and hurting India’s advancements on social justice. It’s quite plausible to me that even the Indian National Congress would have done a better job. 
  • On balance, India’s system of quotas for disadvantaged caste groups has done more good than harm. 
  • Feminism does more good than harm. 
  • Abortion should be safe, legal, and accessible, as should contraception. 
  • Biden is partly responsible for the ongoing inflation crisis in the US. 
  • Developed countries should admit a lot more immigrants, including low-skill immigrants. 
  • The War on Terror was, on balance, a success. 
  • The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was, on balance, a good idea, even with the benefit of hindsight. Biden pulled out of Afghanistan too early, and, by cutting aid flows to Afghanistan, has since been an absolute failure there. 
  • Biden’s response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has been, on balance, pretty good. The same goes for Zelenskyy’s response. 
  • Rent control is a bad idea in most cases. 
  • Excessive zoning regulations, like the Floor Space Index in Indian cities, are very bad. Most coastal American cities are seriously hurt by it. Denser cities are both greener and more efficient. 
  • We should ban gain-of-function research and fund the Biological Weapons Convention a lot more. There’s a legitimate risk of major epidemics or even a pandemic that’s man-made. 
  • Developed countries are underpopulated. The US doubling its population would mostly have positive consequences. Population growth should be driven both by systems that make it easier for people to have kids (e.g., child allowances, efforts to lower the cost of living) and large increases in immigration. 
  • Biden has done a poor job on COVID vaccines. It’s time to invest in creating cross-variant vaccines, and speed up access to nasal and oral vaccines in developing countries. 
  • Conferences and events in US cities that continue to have mask mandates should abolish them. People can wear masks if they want to, but we’ve reached a point in the pandemic in the US where mask mandates are no longer required, and are frankly kind of silly. 
  • Free international trade is broadly a good thing. 
  • It is very hard for developing countries to grow through services. Export-oriented manufacturing is the best tried-and-tested model for developing countries to catch up. 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,897
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
None of these are remotely controversial, rather all are in line with MSM propaganda.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
War on terror as in what specifically
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
War on terror as in what specifically
I’m not referring to wars against any states, but broadly, US military action (including drone strikes, decapitation efforts, and boots on the ground) for counterterrorism post-2001, principally against al Qaeda and ISIL. I suspect it’s done more good than harm. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Tejretics
Riiiight. Have you ever set foot in Iraq and asked the people if they fancied the massacre?

Ty Afghanistan or Pakistan.

That was not a comment on you being in India, to be clear. I cannot believe an Indian solidly supports the US screwing up the Middle East 

Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
To be clear, I think:

  • The Iraq War was an absolute failure, and the War in Afghanistan was way more prolonged than it could’ve been.
  • I opposed US intervention in Libya, the War in Iraq (though evidence shows the 2007 surge saved lives), and US support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen. 
  • American human rights abuses in the Middle East, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are evil.
Regardless, to address your specific example of Pakistan/Afghanistan drone strikes:

  • Lots of research points in the direction of drone strike efforts resulting in reductions in terrorism, with fairly low civilian casualty counts. 
  • People who actually live under drone strike-targeted regions, on balance, don’t oppose them. This is according to several polls
I agree that counterterrorism operations, like air strikes, carry the risk of civilian casualties. This is very bad, and there need to be monumental efforts to stop them -- for instance, Inherent Resolve killed 1,200 civilians. However, my best guess is that Inherent Resolve nonetheless saved more lives, and was critical for recapturing territory from ISIL. 


ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Tejretics
Factory farming should be illegal. Animal suffering is the world’s most pressing immediate problem. 
That is a complicated subject, if you have a moral theory I'd like to hear it. Most theories fail the test of logic rather quickly, and that includes many of my own.

It sounds weird, but there’s a legitimate risk that artificial general intelligence (AGI) could cause human extinction -- I’d say something like a 1 in 20 chance in the next 100 years. There’s also more plausible-sounding risks like a sharp rise in inequality from being able to automate most tasks in the future. We should regulate companies like DeepMind and OpenAI more carefully, and fund labs working on making AI go safer. 
Very wrong and very wrong. Animal intelligence has not been objectively defined, that's why none of the tests match up and why they haven't a clue if they're getting warmer or colder in artificial intelligence.

AI is for all intents and purposes synonymous with deep learning which is synonymous with a neural net, which is a sandwich of non-linear operator matrices. One could argue that that is all an animal brain is so you can expect the same results, hence the gasping as they reach into the hat; but what they have pulled out is a system to model a set of unknown differential equations of any order (provided enough layers).

There is no doubt an algorithm of intelligence, and that algorithm no doubt involves complicated differential equations; so these neural nets will play a part in any true artificial intelligence that may be designed... but they are not the magic ingredient.

Since we don't know what we don't know, and we know (well those of us in the know) we don't yet know what we need to know, there is no ETA on AI. It is more or less just as far away as it has ever been. We have invented a plane, but that will never get us to the moon. Some of the things we've learned may help, but a plane is not a rocket.

Once the magic is solved, it will be an intelligence; not a telekinetic god. Don't hook it up to nuclear weapons or killer robots and we should be just fine.

Nuclear power is good, but overrated. The focus of climate policy should be solar, wind, and, more speculatively, geothermal. 
Inverse of reality. Nuclear power is infinitely scalable. What we have built so far is a dingy compared to the supertankers we could make.

By contrast we've already enough windmills to learn we don't like them very much and they're not nearly enough. (that was predicted long before the first government grant)

There are plenty more places to stick solar panels but in order to make them cheap enough you're going to need really cheap power, leading to a chicken egg problem. Nuclear (as I said) is scalable now because it is efficient now. When energy is cheaper it will still be easier to build bigger nuclear reactors.

Solar panels have a place as an auxiliary system that you slap on for redundancy and because it doesn't cost much. Like oars on a sailboat.

Gas tax holidays are bad. Gas taxes should be coupled with carbon taxes on corporations. 
Taxes are immoral, CO2 is almost certainly not warming the earth.


Developed countries are underpopulated. The US doubling its population would mostly have positive consequences.
That is something I've only heard Indians say, and since you talked about India in several other points I think you have some affinity with it.

The rest of your assertions I either abstain from commenting on or agree with.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Tejretics
What is your feelings about world population?  What do you suppose is the carrying capacity of the Earth?  If you think the Earth is overpopulated do you have any policy proposals?
Lair77
Lair77's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 97
0
1
4
Lair77's avatar
Lair77
0
1
4
 Biden pulled out of Afghanistan too early, and, by cutting aid flows to Afghanistan, has since been an absolute failure there. 
What exactly is your position on this? How exactly should he have withdrawn?

I'd be willing to do a debate challenge with you on this.

Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@oromagi
What is your feelings about world population?  What do you suppose is the carrying capacity of the Earth?  If you think the Earth is overpopulated do you have any policy proposals?
I don’t think the world is overpopulated, or that it will likely be overpopulated in the future. Our historic worries about overpopulation have always been wrong.

The UN’s best estimate is that the world population will continue to rise until 2100, where it’ll peak at about ~11 billion. While this will put some moderate strain on developing countries and families (and for the latter, I’d support access to things like family planning and health information -- the book Poor Economics has a chapter on this), I expect this to be comfortably within the Earth’s “carrying capacity.” But some researchers argue that the UN’s estimate is a substantial overestimate. For instance, some experts even expect the population to stabilize at a bit over 8 billion by midcentury -- and I don’t think a lot of current world problems result from overpopulation. 

Part of the problem is the distribution of global population. As I said before, there’s many large landmass countries that are likely underpopulated relative to what would be optimal for their prosperity -- including Russia, Canada, the U.S., and China, some of the world’s largest and most resource-rich countries (yes, I think China is simultaneously the world’s most populated country, and underpopulated). There’s some countries, to be sure, where population density is uncomfortably high. I’d say freer migration would help mitigate this problem somewhat. Even in those countries, I’d say there’s a tough trade-off -- the demographic dividend guarantees them a young workforce and the possibility of innovation (in traditional economic models, population growth is the driver of innovation, and hence long-run economic growth). But there is, in the short run, issues like pollution, high costs of living, and joblessness that high populations create. 

I’m not too worried by the effects this has on climate change -- adjusting population growth doesn’t affect climate change outcomes that much. The issue is largely one of the state of clean energy. I will say that I am worried that population growth increases factory farming, although I don’t think the solution to it is slowing down population growth. 
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

Very wrong and very wrong. Animal intelligence has not been objectively defined, that's why none of the tests match up and why they haven't a clue if they're getting warmer or colder in artificial intelligence.
I feel like having a conversation about our differences on AI will probably go nowhere. I think a bunch of scaling (i.e., increasing compute to be similar in size to the human brain) and improving the efficiency of a large model are enough to get a system able to do most tasks that people can do. And I think a system that can do that, make copies of itself on the Internet, and be able to do some of the calculations computers can do much better than humans is potentially really dangerous.

I recommend this resource for one argument for why we’re reasonably close. I don’t think it depends on having a definition of intelligence. I also don’t think you need to be a “telekinetic god” to pose a serious threat to humanity.


Inverse of reality. Nuclear power is infinitely scalable. What we have built so far is a dingy compared to the supertankers we could make.

By contrast we've already enough windmills to learn we don't like them very much and they're not nearly enough. (that was predicted long before the first government grant)

There are plenty more places to stick solar panels but in order to make them cheap enough you're going to need really cheap power, leading to a chicken egg problem. Nuclear (as I said) is scalable now because it is efficient now. When energy is cheaper it will still be easier to build bigger nuclear reactors.

Solar panels have a place as an auxiliary system that you slap on for redundancy and because it doesn't cost much. Like oars on a sailboat.
I think the main distinction is that solar is being scaled and prices are being driven down already. The market isn’t moving quickly on nuclear. You need tons of government subsidies and loan guarantees to make nuclear viable. Deregulation is enough to make solar viable. 

Nuclear is theoretically efficient. I disagree that it’s as scalable as you think it is. That’s because nuclear is really expensive, and solar is incredibly cheap. Even if we cut nuclear costs in half in the US through something like deregulation, making it cheaper than any country on Earth, it would still be more expensive than solar. Forecasts that consider the costs of a nuclear transition relative to the baseline find it substantially more expensive than a transition driven by solar and wind. Indeed, Way et al 2021 find that “a scenario in which nuclear plays a dominant role in replacing fossil fuels ... is substantially more expensive than the baseline. For example, using a 1.4% discount rate the mean cost is about 15 trillion dollars more than No Transition and 27 trillion more than the Fast Transition [scenario].” Another important factor is that nuclear plants take a long time to build -- ~5-10 years worldwide in general, compared to under a year for solar.

To be clear, I’m pro-nuclear -- it is a significant factor in decarbonizing France, and research into nuclear fusion could help decarbonize the world. Nuclear power is great. But I don’t think it’s enough, and I don’t think it gets us there nearly as fast as solar does. 


Taxes are immoral, CO2 is almost certainly not warming the earth.
Both bare assertions. 

The question of whether CO2 is warming the Earth is mostly about climate sensitivity estimates. Recent equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from the CMIP6 climate models range from 1.8 to 5.6 degrees Celsius (though I’m skeptical of the higher estimates). I know some people (like 16kadams) are skeptical of climate models in general, but I’m not as skeptical -- 14 out of 17 climate models between 1970 and 2001 predicted future warming accurately. And I remember 16k did a BOTEC a few years back that suggested that even a 1.2 degree Celsius equilibrium climate sensitivity suggested that CO2 emissions explained ~60% of post-19th century warming -- so a 1.8 to 5.6 degree range suggests that a lot of the observable warming is a function of CO2. 

I don’t think it’s likely that climate change is catastrophic, but I think it will likely be as bad as many existing public health crises, like diabetes, smoking, or air pollution. This is a serious problem, and it gets worse when you account for the small but real risk that climate change is in fact catastrophic. So efforts to decarbonize the world seem good.

But I’ll also emphasize that a major part of the argument for pollution taxes is that outdoor air pollution causes six percent of all deaths in the world (and indoor and outdoor combined cause twelve percent of global mortality) -- that’s a huge externality that should probably be taxed. 

That is something I've only heard Indians say, and since you talked about India in several other points I think you have some affinity with it.
I mean, Thett talks about it a lot on this website, and he’s American. Even Elon Musk talks about this a lot. 

I recommend the book One Billion Americans by Matt Yglesias. 
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Tejretics
Very wrong and very wrong. Animal intelligence has not been objectively defined, that's why none of the tests match up and why they haven't a clue if they're getting warmer or colder in artificial intelligence.
I feel like having a conversation about our differences on AI will probably go nowhere. I think a bunch of scaling (i.e., increasing compute to be similar in size to the human brain) and improving the efficiency of a large model are enough to get a system able to do most tasks that people can do. And I think a system that can do that, make copies of itself on the Internet, and be able to do some of the calculations computers can do much better than humans is potentially really dangerous.

I recommend this resource for one argument for why we’re reasonably close. I don’t think it depends on having a definition of intelligence. I also don’t think you need to be a “telekinetic god” to pose a serious threat to humanity.
It was an interesting website, I knew a guy who would lecture at university and say these things with a straight face; but ultimately I consider it sci-fi material.

It would be difficult to have a hard logic debate on this because as I said intelligence is not precisely defined. There is a vague idea of what it is but without precise definition no existing software system could be evaluated for intelligence. I don't think scale is the problem, there is a wiring pattern if you will; that will not be trained.

I do suspect we will someday have AI, but we will have it when we get past whatever blindness is preventing us from defining intelligence. Once we define it we can work the problem, and the core of it may be explicit object oriented programming with no mystical black-box ingredients.

The market isn’t moving quickly on nuclear. You need tons of government subsidies and loan guarantees to make nuclear viable. Deregulation is enough to make solar viable. 
There is what is practical given physics and what is practical given politics and ideology. I do not speak of the later. The market isn't moving on nuclear because of politics and ideology and it is moving on solar for the same reasons.

The nuclear age was upon us, long before solar panels; if they had continued to be developed without fear at the same rate it would be obvious which is the better choice.

If you take politics and ideology as immovable factors there isn't much point in talking about anything; but those are things we might affect by talking about it.


I disagree that it’s as scalable as you think it is. That’s because nuclear is really expensive, and solar is incredibly cheap.
That is what efficiency means, the only efficiency that matters in this context at least. Efficiency in terms of other resources and the best system for measuring the relative value of resources is the open market. Hence, unless there is strong and objective reason to doubt it, the $ is the value of the resource.

... and no, nuclear is not really expensive. The only reasonable quantity to look at is Energy/Currency averaged over all run time including initial investment and maintenance.

Even if we cut nuclear costs in half in the US through something like deregulation, making it cheaper than any country on Earth, it would still be more expensive than solar.
I glanced through that link, I didn't see a straightforward $/Joule for nuclear. It didn't talk about solar at all.

Another important factor is that nuclear plants take a long time to build -- ~5-10 years worldwide in general, compared to under a year for solar.
This is utterly irrelevant unless you think that there is some scenario where the world relies entirely on solar in under a year. That is not going to happen, and production lines don't work like that. Just because you slow on solar doesn't mean nuclear goes faster. Just because you slow on nuclear doesn't mean solar goes faster. They utilize almost completely different industrial pathways.

The market would reflect this naturally, and the only reason either technology would die is if it so inefficient compared to the other that no one wants it even at the lowest possible price.

Taxes are immoral, CO2 is almost certainly not warming the earth.
Both bare assertions. 
Get's the ball rolling. In the philosophy thread you made you asked about an objective moral theory. That would combine with the tax claim. I have to go dig up stuff. Maybe this time I'll finally make a draft I'm happy with.

As for CO2, the BoP is as always on the positive position.

14 out of 17 climate models between 1970 and 2001 predicted future warming accurately
It doesn't take a complicated model to predict a fairly linear increase; and you know they threw out everything that didn't match the fairly linear increase in the record.

And I remember 16k did a BOTEC a few years back that suggested that even a 1.2 degree Celsius equilibrium climate sensitivity suggested that CO2 emissions explained ~60% of post-19th century warming -- so a 1.8 to 5.6 degree range suggests that a lot of the observable warming is a function of CO2. 
Problem is the mechanism is missing. Correlation is not causation, and that is ultimately what these models represent. A model of correlation.

Although there are significant error bars on historical CO2 and temperature data, several times the increase in temperature preceded the increase in CO2. If accurate that rules out CO2 causing temperature increases.

This matches with general physics which is incompatible with the crayon drawing proposed mechanism of warming via CO2. On the other hand there is a rock solid reason to expect rising temperatures to increase the CO2 concentration, namely Henry's law.

I therefore believe it's a simple case of confusing cause and effect.


So efforts to decarbonize the world seem good.
Increasing the free CO2 is a boon for life on earth. I think more life is better than less life.


But I’ll also emphasize that a major part of the argument for pollution taxes is that outdoor air pollution causes six percent of all deaths in the world (and indoor and outdoor combined cause twelve percent of global mortality) -- that’s a huge externality that should probably be taxed. 
Those numbers seem a bit high and thus I am highly skeptical of the no doubt shady statistics that went into producing it.
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
The war on terror is a politically correct way of saying "the war on religion". 
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Machine learning is essentially just glorified curve fitting. It's a very efficient method for dealing with massive amounts of data that we've picked out of the human brain. It's still our toddling learning algorithms. There's nothing in anything anyone is doing that's going to allow for or facilitate an AI striking off and doing its own thing. I've built tons of these things at this point. It's just so incredibly basic once you actually get into it. Here, this is AI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFbnpY_k7js&ab_channel=FirstPrinciplesofComputerVision

TBH I think human intelligence arises not just from brain but from brain-body communication. Actually, I could almost concede that human thinking is essentially as basic as found in that video above, but I think the human body is a wonderland of a complex system and environment. We never simulate anything close to it. Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/25/science/rewired-ferrets-overturn-theories-of-brain-growth.html It feels like brain is secondary here. Just jelly mathematics. The intelligence is in our bodies. I think maybe that Avengers movie got at that a little bit with Vision. Or maybe not. It's definitely an idea though. 
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
The big actual threat in AI is that the Chinese are going to build a bunch of Terminators and take over the world. Like actually. 
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Tejretics
Anything I don't comment on I range from neutral to strongly agree. The following I disagree with:

  • Factory farming should be illegal. Animal suffering is the world’s most pressing immediate problem. 
Agree with the former. Disagree with the latter because there are more pressing issues.

  • Fracking should be legal in the US. It creates jobs and generates economic efficiency. Banning it would make energy sources more unclean and empower Russia and Saudi Arabia. 
Disagree. It destroys the environment too much.

  • Feminism does more good than harm. 
Hard disagree with this NPC opinion.

  • Abortion should be safe, legal, and accessible, as should contraception. 
Disagree (only in extreme circumstances).

  • Developed countries should admit a lot more immigrants, including low-skill immigrants. 
Hard disagree. Tired of 3rd world crap flooding my developed country. You can't maintain 1st world countries with 3rd world genetics.

  • Biden’s response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has been, on balance, pretty good. The same goes for Zelenskyy’s response. 
Disagree. Zelensky's government is worse than Russia's, and Russia's is bad. 

  • Developed countries are underpopulated. The US doubling its population would mostly have positive consequences. Population growth should be driven both by systems that make it easier for people to have kids (e.g., child allowances, efforts to lower the cost of living) and large increases in immigration. 
Disagree, especially with the last bit.

  • Free international trade is broadly a good thing. 
Disagree. Inefficiency costs are better than losing control.


8 days later

TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Tejretics
  • Factory farming should be illegal. Animal suffering is the world’s most pressing immediate problem. 
I agree that it is a pressing issue, but not sure if I would say it is the pressing issue. I would also go further than this, in a philosophical sense, and say that wasting meat is also a moral issue. I do not support veganism, but I do think that if an animal is killed for the purposes of becoming food that it is only right to actually use the animal for that purpose. If you buy a bunch of meat just to throw some of it out, then that is a problem. I'm not perfect in this, but it is a standard I hope to be able to hold myself to some day.

  • It sounds weird, but there’s a legitimate risk that artificial general intelligence (AGI) could cause human extinction -- I’d say something like a 1 in 20 chance in the next 100 years. There’s also more plausible-sounding risks like a sharp rise in inequality from being able to automate most tasks in the future. We should regulate companies like DeepMind and OpenAI more carefully, and fund labs working on making AI go safer. 
Agreed.

  • Nuclear power is good, but overrated. The focus of climate policy should be solar, wind, and, more speculatively, geothermal. 
Disagree. Solar and wind power are great supplementary tools, but there isn't good evidence that they could be a reliable, primary source of energy for a grid. Geothermal is absolutely not focused on enough, but I feel as if there are too few areas where geothermal energy would be useful as a primary source of energy (as its efficiency is tied to geography to an extent). Nuclear is going to have to be the focus (unless we can find a way of efficiently getting energy from tides).

  • Fracking should be legal in the US. It creates jobs and generates economic efficiency. Banning it would make energy sources more unclean and empower Russia and Saudi Arabia. 
Yes, but purely from a political and not environmental or economic POV. There are other ways of generating jobs, but the US should try and prevent its allies from being dependent on Russian and Saudi oil.

  • Gas tax holidays are bad. Gas taxes should be coupled with carbon taxes on corporations. 
Agreed, but only because of how economically dependent we are on gas taxes. I think that we should not have gas taxes be that high at all, as to much of the economy relies on people using gas (whether for travel, equipment, etc.). When gas prices get too high, then we face issues that are "solved" by a gas tax holiday, but this is not a good solution.

  • In general, hiring more police officers is a good idea. Most countries have fewer police officers than optimal. This might require increasing law enforcement budgets. Police over prisons is a good approach to criminal justice reform. 
Agreed, but I think it also needs to be combined with better training, continual training, etc. Yes, this requires increasing the budget for law enforcement, but it is better in the long run.

  • The current government in India has done more harm than good, both by mismanaging the economy and hurting India’s advancements on social justice. It’s quite plausible to me that even the Indian National Congress would have done a better job. 
Do not know much about India, so won't give my thoughts on this issue (or others that are tied more to India).

  • Feminism does more good than harm. 
Very context dependent. From a global perspective? Sure. From a historical perspective? Sure (I think some mistakes had been made, but it was, overall, a positive). Are we talking about feminism in the west today? Disagree.

  • Abortion should be safe, legal, and accessible, as should contraception. 
Strong disagree on the abortion part, strong agree on the contraception part.

  • Biden is partly responsible for the ongoing inflation crisis in the US. 
Agree, but I think that 'partly' downplays his role a bit.

  • Developed countries should admit a lot more immigrants, including low-skill immigrants. 
Mixed on this one. High skill immigrants? Sure. Low-skill? Questionable. An important aspect to making immigration work is integration, but if there is too much immigration then the integration levels start to diminish. We can see throughout history that immigration without integration has been disastrous, and so there are real concerns that need to be considered. Furthermore, there is a real question on the impact an increase in potential employees give to employee treatment. The higher the number of people that can fill a position, the less valuable the individual is, and thus the treatment they receive diminishes. It is when it is harder to replace an employee that said employee gets better treatment. This also needs to be kept in mind.

  • The War on Terror was, on balance, a success. 
Eh? I mean, if it was a success then it was a Pyrrhic victory imo. The amount of laws implemented that just spit on the rights of the people, the further support of the industrial military complex, etc. Not something that bodes well for us.

  • The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was, on balance, a good idea, even with the benefit of hindsight. Biden pulled out of Afghanistan too early, and, by cutting aid flows to Afghanistan, has since been an absolute failure there. 
Disagree on the first part, agree on the second. There was no chance we would be able to have long lasting impact on the state of Afghanistan without basically colonizing it, and so it was just a way of assisting the industrial military complex. I agree that taking on al-Qaeda was a good idea, but the way we went about it was just wrong.

  • Biden’s response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has been, on balance, pretty good. The same goes for Zelenskyy’s response. 
Disagree. The response has done nothing to assure our allies or anyone else that we would stick up for them. I am genuinely curious how Taiwan feels about what we would actually do to help when China invades.

  • Rent control is a bad idea in most cases. 
Agreed.

  • Excessive zoning regulations, like the Floor Space Index in Indian cities, are very bad. Most coastal American cities are seriously hurt by it. Denser cities are both greener and more efficient. 
Mixed on this one, but also would need to do more research into it.

  • We should ban gain-of-function research and fund the Biological Weapons Convention a lot more. There’s a legitimate risk of major epidemics or even a pandemic that’s man-made. 
Agreed.

  • Developed countries are underpopulated. The US doubling its population would mostly have positive consequences. Population growth should be driven both by systems that make it easier for people to have kids (e.g., child allowances, efforts to lower the cost of living) and large increases in immigration. 
Disagree, mostly because this would lead to more metropolitan areas, which just are not good for people's mental well-being. I also disagree with the last part, population growth should almost always be primarily from increased births.

  • Biden has done a poor job on COVID vaccines. It’s time to invest in creating cross-variant vaccines, and speed up access to nasal and oral vaccines in developing countries. 
Agreed.

  • Conferences and events in US cities that continue to have mask mandates should abolish them. People can wear masks if they want to, but we’ve reached a point in the pandemic in the US where mask mandates are no longer required, and are frankly kind of silly. 
Agreed.

  • Free international trade is broadly a good thing. 
Disagree. If you have two countries, one that produces a good through ethical means, pays the employees well, etc. and another country that produces the same good through slave labor, free trade on an international scale will allow the country using slave labor to profit (as they can produce the product for cheaper). This is an extreme example, but why do you think that made in China products are so popular (even when there are alternatives)? Because they are affordable, and that is what most people care about. This not only incentivizes countries using unethical policies to continue doing so, but hurts the economy of countries that try to be ethical in business practices. If everyone and every country were generally ethical, then I could see free international trade possibly being a good thing, but that just isn't the reality of things.

  • It is very hard for developing countries to grow through services. Export-oriented manufacturing is the best tried-and-tested model for developing countries to catch up. 
Agreed.