Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

modeledbehavior.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 140 posts

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#41

Post by ganjianwei »

gaius wrote: post #31
ErrantX wrote: post #8

I always find it interesting that sci-fi depictions of "evolved" humans (i.e. many years in the future) usually depict very tall, thin - even willowy - figures. That seems to fly in the face of general trend :)

One thing that's always bemused me about scifi is future superhumans adapted for ultimate survival (e.g. the Nietzscheans in Andromeda) are tall, muscular, lean, brave, intelligent, etc. Whereas for survival, you want humans that are small (so they need less food), weak because they have slow metabolisms, hairy to keep the heat in, fat because they are good at storing food in case of famine, cowardly so they avoid ri…

Short of a disaster that pushes humankind to the brink of extinction, natural selection is likely to be based on traits of people who mate and reproduce. The more likely you are to mate and reproduce, the more likely the traits you have get passed on. It might be a logical leap but perhaps because of this, humans might evolve towards whatever is more attractive to other humans.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#42

Post by david_adams »

eru wrote: post #4
corruption wrote: post #3

They probably would have paid to see someone over 60 too.

Old people weren't that rare. Over 80 would been more of a show, I guess. (But we should find some data, before we speculate.)

The way that life expectancy works is that it was low because so many people died of disease in their youth that it dragged the average down. But people who lived to old age still lived to what we would consider an old age today. There would just be fewer people who lived that long, but not dramatically fewer.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#43

Post by gaius »

ganjianwei wrote: post #41
gaius wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that's always bemused me about scifi is future superhumans adapted for ultimate survival (e.g. the Nietzscheans in Andromeda) are tall, muscular, lean, brave, intelligent, etc. Whereas for survival, you want humans that are small (so they need less food), weak because they have slow metabolisms, hairy to keep the heat in, fat because they are good at storing food in case of famine, cowardly so they avoid ri…

Short of a disaster that pushes humankind to the brink of extinction, natural selection is likely to be based on traits of people who mate and reproduce. The more likely you are to mate and reproduce, the more likely the traits you have get passed on. It might be a logical leap but perhaps because of this, humans might evolve towards whatever is more attractive to other humans.

In that case evolution favours those too stupid to use a condom and too lazy to work.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#44

Post by stusmith1977 »

rauljara wrote: post #28
gcb wrote: post #19

so, Botticelli ladies were the photoshoped playmates of the time?

I had a Bangladeshi friend explain to me ~8 years ago that all the female Bangladeshi movie stars (not to be confused with Bollywood stars) were fat. For most of the population, being thin was a sign of not being able to afford much food, so fat women were the ideal. Just goes to show how subjective certain kinds of beauty are.

Ditto, a couple of hundred years ago being pale was fashionable - it meant you were rich enough to not work outside. Nowadays of course, we mostly work indoors - so being tanned is fashionable.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#45

Post by gort »

jerf wrote: post #40
gort wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Absolute cowardice, while beneficial to an individual" If this were actually true then evolution would go ahead and make everyone absolutely cowardly. Evolution works because traits that are helpful to an individual become more common; because the individuals with those traits reproduce more. Nothing stops evolution going down paths that are bad for the species. (Of course, if it gets so bad that the species goes ex…

You need to spend some more time with evolutionary theory. Populations do indeed evolve along with individuals. You own message explains why; there are selection pressures at the population level as well. See also animals that are always found in communities, like ants or humans. It's not either/or. It never is with evolutionary theory.

"Populations do indeed evolve along with individuals"

Individuals don't evolve at all. Evolution is changes in gene frequency over time.

What I think you're trying to talk about is macroevolution, where species that happen to have certain traits survive longer than other species. Sure, this sort of thing happens. But I was responding to the claim that "absolute cowardice [is] beneficial to an individual" and noting what would happen to the level of cowardice in a population if that were actually true.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#46

Post by gaius »

cema wrote: post #33
gaius wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that's always bemused me about scifi is future superhumans adapted for ultimate survival (e.g. the Nietzscheans in Andromeda) are tall, muscular, lean, brave, intelligent, etc. Whereas for survival, you want humans that are small (so they need less food), weak because they have slow metabolisms, hairy to keep the heat in, fat because they are good at storing food in case of famine, cowardly so they avoid ri…

You don't want them dumb: adaptability is paramount for evolution. Smart people are more adaptable.

OK yeah, but you'd still want basically hobbits, not supermodels.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#47

Post by roc »

adamhowell wrote: post #23
gfodor wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in Wall-e

They got a lot of shit for it at the time, too. Every time I see everyone in a train or line looking down at their phones, I also can't help but think of Wall-e.

> "They got a lot of shit for it at the time, too."

A good deal of it very well-deserved. For a movie exposing the blind-alley of rampant consumerism, it was being sold via a dizzying array of Cheap Plastic Crap, much of it bundled with the very junk food the movie skewered.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#48

Post by SamAtt »

ErrantX wrote: post #8

I always find it interesting that sci-fi depictions of "evolved" humans (i.e. many years in the future) usually depict very tall, thin - even willowy - figures. That seems to fly in the face of general trend :)

I'm not sure I agree with that.

I think the fast food industry gives a false impression because they started out with fattening food. But all the current fast food places were founded a relatively short time ago (McDonalds: '55, Burger King: '53, KFC: '52, Taco Bell: '62, Pizza Hut: '58) and as they've evolved their menus have become healthier.

Beyond that technology is paving the way for a less fattening diet. Diet soft drinks, soy burgers, and other low calorie foods have gotten dramatically better tasting in just the last 20 years or so (It's actually getting to the point where those Diet Dr. Pepper ads are almost true). At the same time we've developed Appetite Suppressants (the most popular of which, Hoodia gordonii, wasn't even patented until 1996) and other prescription drugs to fight obesity.

So really the trend seems to be towards healthier, less fattening food. We're just at the beginning of the curve.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#49

Post by DrSprout »

gort wrote: post #45
jerf wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to spend some more time with evolutionary theory. Populations do indeed evolve along with individuals. You own message explains why; there are selection pressures at the population level as well. See also animals that are always found in communities, like ants or humans. It's not either/or. It never is with evolutionary theory.

"Populations do indeed evolve along with individuals" Individuals don't evolve at all. Evolution is changes in gene frequency over time. What I think you're trying to talk about is macroevolution, where species that happen to have certain traits survive longer than other species. Sure, this sort of thing happens. But I was responding to the claim that "absolute cowardice [is] beneficial to an individual" and noting w…

What you refer to as macroevolutionary effects are equally problematic for a small village. It will quickly be destroyed and any wealth it has taken by a neighboring village whose warriors are not afraid to give their lives in service of their chief.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#50

Post by timwiseman »

SamAtt wrote: post #48
ErrantX wrote: post #8

I always find it interesting that sci-fi depictions of "evolved" humans (i.e. many years in the future) usually depict very tall, thin - even willowy - figures. That seems to fly in the face of general trend :)

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the fast food industry gives a false impression because they started out with fattening food. But all the current fast food places were founded a relatively short time ago (McDonalds: '55, Burger King: '53, KFC: '52, Taco Bell: '62, Pizza Hut: '58) and as they've evolved their menus have become healthier. Beyond that technology is paving the way for a less fattening diet. Diet…

* they've evolved their menus have become healthier.*

Have you looked at the nutrition facts lately? Or seen the new commercials for KFC heart attack of two pieces of fried chicken with bacon and cheese in between?

I wasn't around when the fast food places you mention were founded, but if this is the trend towards healthier then I am amazed people survived for any length of time after they emerged.

(Granted, many have added healthier options lately, but that is in addition to pushing junk food to even greater extremes.)

Post reply on HN