Live data from Hacker News

My new favorite book of all time

gatesnotes.com

201–210 of 421 posts

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why act like the world isn't getting better if it actually is?

It is getting better for some people by some measures, and worse for others by other measures. What Pinker and Gates are attempting to impose is a tyranny of faux rationality--"an 800 pg book with sources up the wazoo say that the world is getting better, all these whiny poor folk must just be delusional".

Only very strong motivated reasoning would lead someone like Gates -- who would presumably consider himself 'rational' -- to take seriously a book written by an amateur historian in full-scale emeritus mode. Outside of his own field, Pinker's just a crank. He doesn't understand his sources, and isn't taken seriously by anyone that I've read so far who has the slightest interest in or understanding of historiography.

The source of Gates' wonky motivation can only be known to him (if he possesses enough self-awareness). We might guess that justification of the changes his corrupt dealings have been a part of (and made him in the process a leading megaconsumer) might have something to do with it.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#202

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…

I agree that people probably overestimate the role of oil, but you have to keep in mind that the current world paradigm is not the world paradigm at the time of the Iraq war, and that there are very personal issues involving the Bush dynasty and its connections with the intelligence-executive infrastructure at play as well.

The US shale oil issue has also really flipped the script as well; it's something I don't think anyone was predicting at the time. The rapidity of solar and wind's rise is another surprising thing.

I don't mean anything conspiratorial about that. I just mean that, yes, China is dominant now, and there's a certain global socioeconomic-political dynamic. But at the time leading up to the Iraq war, the world was a very different place in terms of global politics and energy economics.

It is probably more fruitful to argue over whether or not the US government anticipated these geopolitical changes well enough. But to point to things that happened later as a rationale for what transpired before seems backward to me.

In some ways, the transition we've witnessed is from a oil-cold-war dynamic involving the US and Russia/USSR to a vacuum, made by renewable energy and Asian and European economic growth. As an American, I feel like we should sidestep issues about Euro-Asian supremacy and American-Russian decline, and take a hard look at what assumptions we often make, and what it increasingly looks like is that many of the old political blocs are starting to seem irrelevant to a prosperous future. I think America has a dominant role it can play, and will, if it just starts being forward-looking instead of backward-looking.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#203

" 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.

I don't think people would believe the scale of these things unless there was video and/or photographic evidence (which there thankfully is)

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#204
I'm not sure how any American can read a call to return to Enlightenment values as a feel-good, no-worries pallative. It rather seems to me that such an appeal is a radical declaration of war against the prevailing political winds in America today – on both the left and the right. I would read it as a kick in the pants, not a soothing lullaby.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#205

" 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 you consider war as (among other things) "a contest" (albeit a very grim one), do any of you think there'd ever be any traction in settling disputes via something more sportsmanlike and without such fatality and waste of human life on both sides? I am reminded of the pistol duels of ages ago (although those were often fatal). Something that could test the "will and skill" of opponents who agree to settle it in suc…

No, because a symbolic contest is not final in the way that the physical imposition of force is: a country who loses a symbolic contest has limited incentive to abide by the symbolic outcome if they believe they can nevertheless impose their will on the other country by force. Wars end when contestants lose the will or the ability to resist the will of the opponent.

There can and should be other options to settle differences, but in the end, people and groups who have gone through all the other options will still always have the choice to simply physically resist the outcome, and there is no other counter to that than sufficient physical force to overcome the resistance. War is the final arbiter, stupid as it is.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#206
The vast, vast majority of people in the world have to work most of the best hours of the day in order to pay for shelter from the weather and food for their family. In return they get the dubious privilege of allowing their brain to decompress in front of corporate-manufactured garbage on television.

Although we are not currently in a World War or its aftermath, and therefore our lives could reasonably be said to be better than in, say, 1917, I think this is taking a remarkably short view. There's a solid argument to be had that the life of an average human (well, admittedly a man) in the 17th century was immeasurably richer than the life of an average man in the late 20th / early 21st century, and that this downturn is because of the Enlightenment Pinker worships. Sure, life was shorter, but it's at least arguable that the quantification of life ushered in by the Enlightenment is responsible for the impoverishment of quality as a measure.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#208

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)…

> Maybe its because... Disclaimer: all of this is entirely unscientific, just observations. From the perspective of a South African, we didn't have people walking into a public place (church, concert or otherwise) and shoot up a crowd. In general, undeveloped countries seem to have fewer problems with psychopaths (disregarding the ones in charge). I find this immensely curious. One thing that Facebook has taught me i…

> In general, undeveloped countries seem to have fewer problems with psychopaths (disregarding the ones in charge). I find this immensely curious.

My pet hypothesis on this is that humans are wired to cope with extreme stress, scarcity, and violence. In an environment of relative peace and abundance we develop a whole host of neuroses. Most cope through entertainment, drugs, and other outlets, but some just totally flip out.

It's like what happens to hunting and working dog breeds when cooped up in a little apartment. They start eating the furniture, digging holes in the walls, chewing lesions into their skin, etc. Watch a large predator animal walk nervously in circles in a zoo.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#209
post #94

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…

It's telling that one of the richest, most well off men on Earth is helping to peddle this narrative. It behooves those in positions of power and wealth to hoodwink the masses into being satisfied with their given stations. Research and statistics say the world is a better place than ever, put down your protest signs.

Downvoting this because it made me feel UNEASY /s

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#210

" 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…

""War is illegal. This idea seems obvious." Well, was has always been a privilege for countries. It is absurd that some German generals were executed after WW2 for "fighting an aggressive" war (not talking about war crimes).

Obviously the WW3 will make look WW2 like a piece of cake.

"Increasing speed of operation marked each new weapons system, particularly the decision-making function (to strike or not to strike, where, how, with what force held in reserve, at what risk, etc.), and this increasing speed also brought the incalculable factor of chance into play. Lightning-fast systems made lightning-fast mistakes. When a fraction of a second determined the safety or destruction of a region, a great metropolis, an industrial complex, or a large fleet, it was impossible to achieve military certainty. One could even say that victory had ceased to be distinguishable from defeat. In a word, the arms race was heading toward a Pyrrhic situation." 1983

Post reply on HN