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

Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.

jorel314.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.

#21

Post by avar »

koningrobot wrote: post #19

Richard Dawkins' faithful optimism has always bothered me. Even if our species is so special, how does that make us, the individuals, lucky? What good does it do us? Jim Crawford says it better than I: http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/02/richard-dawkins-bli... and so does David Benatar: http://vorosh.blogspot.com/2008/03/optimism-delusion.html

What good does it do you? Well, the atoms that are you are now eating, sleeping, farting and posting comments on HN.

That's pretty interesting, given that it's much more likely that they'd be undergoing nuclear fusion as part of a star, or clumped together as a planet or an asteroid.

Dawkins is pointing out how neat this is as a way to get people interested in science. As Feynman pointed out, it's neat to take the world from another point of view.

Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.

#22

Post by kirse »

koningrobot wrote: post #19

Richard Dawkins' faithful optimism has always bothered me. Even if our species is so special, how does that make us, the individuals, lucky? What good does it do us? Jim Crawford says it better than I: http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/02/richard-dawkins-bli... and so does David Benatar: http://vorosh.blogspot.com/2008/03/optimism-delusion.html

At some point Dawkins has to rationalize (or shall I say 'irrationalize', for a man so concerned with logic) away the consequences of his diehard belief in an evolutionary process explaining our existence...

So to Dawkins, being the pawn of a purposeless, intelligence-devoid, purely natural process -- slowing marching his way to death, only to be forgotten within a few centuries -- probably doesn't sit well with him.

For most people, they choose to ignore the reality that Evolution simply lays down the fact that one's existence is both purposeless and meaningless. Well, one does have a purpose - replicating their species.

Of course, the optimistic delusion starts when people start bullshitting about "doing good for humanity" and "living for the moment" and all sorts of other drivel that really just serves to help them ignore the bigger uncomfortable reality of how incredibly useless and meaningless they are on the timeline of the infinite.

Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.

#23

Post by pbhjpbhj »

jerf wrote: post #13
barredo wrote: post #11

Lets do the math: how many women ever existed? How many years did they were fertile? Then we know the number of ovum/eggs and so: the max number of humans that could have ever been. Right?

He's more likely referring to every possible human, which for instance would include every possible other sperm that could have fertilized your egg, in addition to all the opportunities to be pregnant that weren't taken. The numbers get so absurdly large so fast that it's inconceivable.

>He's more likely referring to every possible human, which for instance would include every possible other sperm that could have fertilized your egg

The one that fertilised it is the only one that could have fertilised it. Perhaps if you're into realist versions Copenhagen interpretation then you can argue that in a largely parallel universe that another sperm may have suited the conditions ...

Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.

#24

Post by ErrantX »

kirse wrote: post #22
koningrobot wrote: post #19

Richard Dawkins' faithful optimism has always bothered me. Even if our species is so special, how does that make us, the individuals, lucky? What good does it do us? Jim Crawford says it better than I: http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/02/richard-dawkins-bli... and so does David Benatar: http://vorosh.blogspot.com/2008/03/optimism-delusion.html

At some point Dawkins has to rationalize (or shall I say 'irrationalize', for a man so concerned with logic) away the consequences of his diehard belief in an evolutionary process explaining our existence... So to Dawkins, being the pawn of a purposeless, intelligence-devoid, purely natural process -- slowing marching his way to death, only to be forgotten within a few centuries -- probably doesn't sit well with him.…

You seem to be pretty dismissive of our irrelevance on the solar scale.

For me it is always humbling; being an infatessimably small part of the grand scheme.

Far from feeling meaningless it sets me free :)

Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.

#25

Post by qq66 »

erikstarck wrote: post #18

Out of all the possible combinations of human DNA, I wonder what the "perfect" human individual would look like. He or she is hiding there, somewhere, in the probability space of all possible combinations. Must be lonely.

Nope, he's right here in my room, typing on HN :)

Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.

#26

Post by _polos_ »

gsk wrote: post #20
_polos_ wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart? He mostly offers superficial pseudo science, which doesn't hold more profound investigation. The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one is (as always) in the details . He sounds smart at first (many people could do the same; only very few are really smart though). He's the perfect guy to mislead you in any wrong direction, if you simply "eat" all of his "science". To me, he's the typica…

:-) Wow. This is hysterical and wildly inaccurate. Dawkins has numerous academic papers. 'The Selfish Gene' (which was praised by W D Hamilton--one the great biologists of our times) is a great introduction to genetics, a wonderful and proper science.

Science is not absolute!

He is making science (and many times his personal opinion, that is: his personal theories) an absolute fact.

It doesn't matter how many real science he's providing: if you take 90% of truth, and mix in 10% of lies, then the result can't be true...

He claims that evolution (a statistically impossible theory) has to be taken as a fact, "forgetting" that one of his colleagues, and many others, already have proven it wrong.

It's not important what I think now, or what you think now, future will show! The current science might be blind -- remember, it's not absolute -- as it already happened many times in history...

Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.

#27

Post by ErrantX »

_polos_ wrote: post #26
gsk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

:-) Wow. This is hysterical and wildly inaccurate. Dawkins has numerous academic papers. 'The Selfish Gene' (which was praised by W D Hamilton--one the great biologists of our times) is a great introduction to genetics, a wonderful and proper science.

Science is not absolute! He is making science (and many times his personal opinion, that is: his personal theories) an absolute fact. It doesn't matter how many real science he's providing: if you take 90% of truth, and mix in 10% of lies, then the result can't be true... He claims that evolution (a statistically impossible theory) has to be taken as a fact, "forgetting" that one of his colleagues, and many others, a…

> a statistically impossible theory

Oh, you're one of those types.

Well, as much as I respect you're right to believe these things (irrationally or not) it's worth saying you will find little interest in them here.

Post reply on HN