Live data from Hacker News

My new favorite book of all time

gatesnotes.com

121–130 of 421 posts

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Highly respected, four star general, Wesley Clark says that the Iraq war was about attempting to strip Russian influence out of the Middle East. That the plan was to knock over several of the dictatorships there, which were overwhelmingly friendly toward Russia and hostile toward the US and its allies. > You're saying it was about oil primarily. Those aren't conflicting explanations; the US is concerned about the f…

Your premise is refuted by the fact that China is the primary customer of Middle Eastern oil today, and will overwhelmingly be tomorrow. Please explain to me how it was in the US interest to topple Saddam, lose a couple trillion dollars in national treasure, all so China could increase its power and influence by securing critical oil supplies and displace the US influence in the Middle East. And when it comes to enem…

[deleted]

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#122
post #47

The British philosopher John Gray is a good counterpart to Pinker's idea of progress. He focuses on the myths of progress, civilisation and freedom. This is his response to Pinker: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-stev... "A new orthodoxy, led by Pinker, holds that war and violence in the developed world are declining. The stats are misleading, argues Gray – and the idea of moral progress is wi…

I watched the video of Pinker & Gates, and I confess my prejudice was 'two comfortably rich elitists pushing a centralized globalization agenda'. I'll read the book but with a large pinch of salt...

What is "centralized globalization?" The top google result for this term is a paper talking about the Vatican; results quickly seem to become less relevant (for example, talking about "globalization, centralization, ...").

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#123
post #99

" War is illegal. This idea seems obvious. But before the creation of the United Nations in 1945, no institution had the power to stop countries from going to war with each other. Although there have been some exceptions, the threat of international sanctions and intervention has proven to be an effective deterrent to wars between nations." I would argue that something else that happened in 1945 has been a much bigge…

If war has become illegal, then perhaps it is time that we make Nuclear weapons illegal as well. It only takes one bad actor to light the fuse that ends the world.

If having nukes is considered rogue, then only rogue states will have nukes.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your premise is refuted by the fact that China is the primary customer of Middle Eastern oil today, and will overwhelmingly be tomorrow. Please explain to me how it was in the US interest to topple Saddam, lose a couple trillion dollars in national treasure, all so China could increase its power and influence by securing critical oil supplies and displace the US influence in the Middle East. And when it comes to enem…

> Your premise is refuted by the fact that China is the primary customer of Middle Eastern oil today No, it's not, because the US concern outside of a major war, again, isn't who buys it but pumping and pricing policy. If we were in a major war with China now and that was true, it would suggest that the policy had been unsuccessful in achieving a key goal, but even then wouldn't refute that that had been the policy g…

> the US concern outside of a major war, again, isn't who buys it but pumping and pricing policy

Of course it's about who buys (ie who can supply their economy with the energy it needs). The entire political value of oil is that it's critical to most economies. You keep saying that it's about controlling the oil, the point of that control is to use it for self-benefit. If the US were doing what you're claiming, it would be denying oil to China. You say that there is value in being able to deny oil supply to enemies - and then you pretend the US wouldn't have an interest in denying oil supply to China to slow its economic ascension (it obviously would benefit massively if it could partially suffocate China's growth via oil). These are contradictions in your theory, as China swims in Middle Eastern oil supply.

> though maintain any kind of optempo in a major war requires more than just adequate supplies for peacetime consumption, even after the inevitable rationing of non-militart use

Russian and Iranian oil production is drastically beyond their peacetime economic consumption. I can't imagine where you're trying to go with that.

> but even so they do have an interest in having supplies denied to an external enemy like, say, the US. Which motivates a desire to influence other exporters.

You're refuting yourself there. Then why didn't the US deny Chinese access to Iraqi oil? China almost immediately began benefiting immensely from Iraq's oil as production ramped up after the worst of the shutdown. Saudi's primary customer is now China and that is going to get a lot more dramatic in the coming decade. Those two points collapse what you're claiming.

If the US wanted to press an advantage, it would destroy Saudi Arabian and Iraqi oil supplies (use an ISIS-like mess), which would hammer China's economy by removing 1/4 to 1/3 of their oil supply. The US is now one of the few major nations that can fully support itself on energy. Instead, the US is actively protecting both Saudi and Iraq, while the largest US rival - China - benefits the most from that protection.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#125

This article/video explains why so many people have completely lost faith in our technocratic elite. The idea that "You’re 37 times less likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning than you were at the turn of the century" makes a large difference in the happiness of people is ridiculous. Why are people pessimistic about the future? Maybe its because the rates of addiction (including to smart phones and other screens)…

> The idea that "You’re 37 times less likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning than you were at the turn of the century" makes a large difference in the happiness of people is ridiculous. I believe he put that in as an interesting, somewhat unexpected benefit of modern life. His next few arguments are what really backs up his points. > Maybe its because rates of marriage and church attendance are on the decline. As…

Plenty of people complain about their culture disappearing, and being replaced by the universal culture (usually, but wrongly, called "Western culture" or "American culture"). It's one of the many factors contributing to the present rise of nationalism in Europe.

Personally, I don't mind the universal culture. But then, I'm just comfortable in it; many people are not, and cling to their local traditions.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#126
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. I couldn't help but feel like Pinker is peddling feel-good nonsense to sell books, and give people hope to cling to. Progress or betterment is entirely subjective, and when considering the human condition, relies on too many variables to even count. Of course, the variables the Pinker focuses on have gotten better overall. The way I see it is a chaotic scatterplot that is trending slightly upwards towards…

Pinker is much more nefarious (and you can know that by going to his talks, as I have, where he's more loose-tongued than in his books). He places such emphasis on the fact that the world is getting better as a rebuttal to "complainers" and political activists . The problem is not with his premise but with his conclusion. The world has been getting better (to the extent that it has) because people complain and are di…

There is a certain rather loud, rather fashionable kind of "activist" who are if not directly claiming that everything is awful, then strongly evoking symbolism and imagery to that effect. To fix this, they want to take broad, radical action, basically to affect revolution. This approach is indefensible given the actual state of the world, and these activists are either confused about the facts, or cynically manipulating their followers for personal power. If they get their way, things will get worse, quickly. These are the people Pinker is rebutting.

There is also a kind of activist that work towards fixing specific problems, including Gates, but certainly also a great many people of lesser means and public profile, and does indeed improve the world in the way you describe. I have no doubt that Pinker respects these.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#127
post #111
post #72

> Time spent doing laundry fell from 11.5 hours a week in 1920 to an hour and a half in 2014. This might sound trivial in the grand scheme of progress. But the rise of the washing machine has improved quality of life by freeing up time for people—mostly women—to enjoy other pursuits. This. I remember following Reddit AMAs of two centenarian women, women who remembered SS troops arriving at their village, who watched…

In my case I wash outer garments once per month (button down shirts, pants, etc). But I wash under garments weekly: white t-shirts, underwear, long underwear (esp in winter). They protect my outer clothes so get washed more frequently. I hang up my button-downs immediately when I get home. I don't like having to wash and iron a shirt every week, which does not get dirty anyway. I'm not sure if I'm the only one who do…

There's another variable here: clothes are immensely cheaper today. It was much less affordable to own a huge batch of clothes at all back then.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#128

" War is illegal. This idea seems obvious. But before the creation of the United Nations in 1945, no institution had the power to stop countries from going to war with each other. Although there have been some exceptions, the threat of international sanctions and intervention has proven to be an effective deterrent to wars between nations." I would argue that something else that happened in 1945 has been a much bigge…

The bombed-out city that turned the Europeans was Dresden. Not Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Dresden.

Not all Europeans, just Germans.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#129
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If war has become illegal, then perhaps it is time that we make Nuclear weapons illegal as well. It only takes one bad actor to light the fuse that ends the world.

If having nukes is considered rogue, then only rogue states will have nukes.

This is similar to what you've said, but I'd say the issue is more that it becomes more advantageous to use them if the same people who would normally levy sanctions against you have all disarmed. Currently there's little risk of North Korea actually using nuclear weapons. If they could do so without nuclear retaliation, it becomes a much more likely scenario. Even if banning nuclear weapons makes it much more difficult to obtain them, the consequences of someone obtaining them become much worse.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#130
"The global average IQ score is rising by about 3 IQ points every decade."

Is this statement correct? I was under impression that while the per-country averages are mostly rising, the global average is going down.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2730791/Are-S... http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/

Post reply on HN