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

81–90 of 140 posts

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

#81

Post by Avshalom »

tjogin wrote: post #36
josefresco wrote: post #34

100 years ago you had to visit the traveling circus to see a fat person. Now we just turn on the television and turn to TLC or Discovery Channel to see the same thing. What exactly has changed besides the technology? Any good circus promoter or television producer will find a fatter guy than the last fat guy. I get it, we're all fatter today, but I don't believe this example proves anything.

You don't need technology to see what was then considered "freakishly" obese, today. You can just go to any public place. Technology has nothing to do with it.

I think the point was that people tune in in massive numbers for say Biggest Loser just to play look at the fat guy. Ditto with anything about the enormously obese on random Discovery channel shows. The money comes from advertisements instead of ticket sales but people are still making money by showing us fat people.

At least one implication is that just because people were willing to pay money to see a show that included fat people in 1910 doesn't mean it was actually considered freakish any more than it is today.

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

#82

Post by MikeCapone »

exit wrote: post #76
MikeCapone wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If humans survive long enough to become highly advanced technologically, we'll almost certainly have a high degree of control over our bodies. Tall, thin and handsome is probably to be expected. See Iain M. Banks's Culture novels for a fictional depiction of this pushed to the extreme (people there can even chose to switch from one sex to the other whenever they feel like it).

if we can manipulate neurological details like gender, why not lock ourselves into a happy-loop and be done with history?

A wirehead future is possible (and scary to me).

We can do better, though. Check out Yudkowsky's Fun Theory sequence for more on this:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/xy/the_fun_theory_sequence/

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

#83

Post by hugh3 »

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.

Last I heard there was still some ongoing debate among ev biologists about whether group selection was an important effect or not; I think the general consensus tends to be that it's a pretty small effect except in certain special cases.

The existence of traits like courage is far better explained by sexual selection. Women throughout history have always strongly preferred courageous men to cowardly ones. This is only partially cancelled out by the fact that courageous men tend to die more often.

As civilization continues to advance, and fewer and fewer people die before childbearing age, I'd expect the balance between sexual selection and survival selection to tip even more strongly in favour of sexual selection, so it's quite likely that (even absent widespread genetic modification) the people of the future will indeed tend to be "sexier" than the people of the present.

(Partially cancelling this out is the idiocracy effect whereby poor dumb folks have more children; I can't estimate which is more powerful.)

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

#84

Post by eldenbishop »

adamhowell wrote: post #77
axod wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really should have been billed as "Not a fun kids movie" IMHO. Still surprises me that people liked that movie.

It's still the only movie my 3-yr-old daughter will sit through. The first 30 minutes is some of the best storytelling ever put to film, IMHO. So much told with so little. Other Pixar movies like Monsters, Inc. or Cars are either too scary or too talky. Wall-E is the perfect balance, and such a well told story that I never tire of it, either.

My friends kid can only watch the beginning. When the humans show up, he starts crying. To scary.

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

#85

Post by hugh3 »

timwiseman wrote: post #50
SamAtt wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hav…

I had a Double Down the other day. It was unspectacular; not tasty enough to be good, not disgusting enough to be an adventure.

Anyway, it only has 540 calories, which is actually pretty modest.

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

#86

Post by run4yourlives »

axod wrote: post #70
hackermom wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, WALL-E really nails the reality of western man's search for perfected convenience.

It really should have been billed as "Not a fun kids movie" IMHO. Still surprises me that people liked that movie.

What do mean? Movies that have points are not to be enjoyed? A movie cannot be entertaining and insightful?

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

#87

Post by Semiapies »

Stop people working behind desks and get them back out in the fields, then stop people taking advantage of national and global markets for food and put them back at the mercy of regional farm production, and you will see far fewer obese people.

Mind, that's ignoring the huge pretense of the linked post that the pictured level of obesity is "normal" or "unremarkable" anywhere. Obesity is a medical definition, and most people who meet it look far thinner than that.

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

#88

Post by run4yourlives »

roc wrote: post #47
adamhowell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nonsense, this was just Pixar's way of helping kids learn the proper definition of irony.

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

#89

Post by jules »

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…

Except that humans don't (or will not) need these qualities anymore. Humans will evolve to be desirable to the other sex, i.e. "tall, muscular, lean, brave, intelligent".

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

#90

Post by axod »

run4yourlives wrote: post #86
axod wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really should have been billed as "Not a fun kids movie" IMHO. Still surprises me that people liked that movie.

What do mean? Movies that have points are not to be enjoyed? A movie cannot be entertaining and insightful?

It's just more of an adult / documentary thing IMHO. They spent way too much trying to make some principled point rather than entertain. Same with 'Up'. I think perhaps they were catering to people who nominate Oscars or something.

My kids were bored. Gimmie Princess and the frog, Hercules, Aladdin, Little Mermaid etc etc any day.

Post reply on HN