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

The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

nobelprize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 95 posts

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#61

Post by kyleblarson »

jswizzy wrote: post #46
peter303 wrote: post #7

I will see Greta in Denver Friday afternoon at a climate rally. She is young and a voice of her generation. Many future possibilities for her and repairing the climate crisis. I respect the Nobels decision to award the prize to this peace broker. So many global issues that need attention.

I don't think she really has done enough to deserve it. To me it seems like it is forced and just pushed to lend creditably to an obvious political puppet. The poor girl is being used and obvious is abused by her parents.

This is spot on. She is like a vegan cat. You know who makes those choices.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#62

Post by brosinante »

Symmetry wrote: post #45
mraison wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you're looking at overall CO2 emissions rather than per-capita emissions. The page you linked shows fossil CO2 emissions per capita: China: 7.7t CO2/cap/yr USA: 15.7t CO2/cap/yr Denver seems like a good place to give a speech. Of course, country size does matter, but it's unfair to simply compare total emissions when there's such a huge difference in population size.

If you're concerned with how guilty each individual consumer in a country should feel look at per capita emissions. If you're interested in stopping climate change effectively look at total emissions.

What if you're just interested in pushing a specific agenta.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#63

Post by srean »

Symmetry wrote: post #45
mraison wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you're looking at overall CO2 emissions rather than per-capita emissions. The page you linked shows fossil CO2 emissions per capita: China: 7.7t CO2/cap/yr USA: 15.7t CO2/cap/yr Denver seems like a good place to give a speech. Of course, country size does matter, but it's unfair to simply compare total emissions when there's such a huge difference in population size.

If you're concerned with how guilty each individual consumer in a country should feel look at per capita emissions. If you're interested in stopping climate change effectively look at total emissions.

Not guilt, but compensation not necessarily in cash. And perhaps fairness.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#65

Post by lone_haxx0r »

Tepix wrote: post #15
phil_folrida wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about Greta Thunberg, I would think so, I don't know enough about her, what do you recommend from her? I fail to see what or why she is important, we are past good speech in terms of ecology, what actions does she recommends?

Of course. She is creating a lot of attention for the mismatch between scientists' (in particular IPCC) insights and recommendations and politicians (in)actions and failure to reach the goals they set themselves. > what actions does she recommend She recommends we listen to the science. Nothing more, nothing less.

> Of course. She is creating a lot of attention for the mismatch between scientists' (in particular IPCC) insights and recommendations and politicians (in)actions and failure to reach the goals they set themselves.

Is she? I've only watched her "how dare you" speech and have read a couple of hit pieces about how she doesn't like Trump (granted, it's not necessarily her fault that journalists focus on this part), but I haven't been exposed to any actual content about climate change because of her.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#66

Post by phaus »

the_duke wrote: post #28
input_sh wrote: post #9

Well, this is a much less controversial choice compared to the Nobel Prize in Literature 2019.

From a global perspective, awarding two European writers yet again is just a failure. From a purely literary perspective, Handke is a great and influential writer, who was a hot candidate for a long time. For his work, I think the award is justified. On a personal level, his ex-wife accused him of physical abuse, he held a eulogy for a war criminal, was known for cursing and berating his audience, ... If he still sho…

I can get behind excluding individual authors from the award for being terrible people, but I can't get behind purposely giving the award to someone that's not European if Europeans would have otherwise deserved it based solely on the merits of their writing.

There's plenty of amazing things written by non-white people. However, the Nobel prize for literature should remain a pure meritocracy as much as possible.

That's not to say that its a perfect system. If you point to any given year you can likely find examples of written works that didn't get the award but are arguably as good if not better.

If you intentionally limit the pool of potential awardees to people that are not white, you make a mockery of the award and it loses any sense of prestige or credibility, even if the non-white awardee was truly the best writer. Not only are you discriminating against certain people, you are also doing a disservice to the very people you want to help.

I think a better solution would be to try and make sure the people involved in the process aren't heavily biased towards any specific demographic of authors.

There are probably additional ways to improve the system, but I think if we want the award to mean anything they have to be focused on eliminating discrimination, rather than using it as a tool to generate an equality in outcomes.

Edit: I should note that this reflects my thoughts on prestigious awards being meritocracies, it doesn't reflect my thoughts anything else, there are lots of complicated issues such as affirmative action, university quotas, etc. That I am not making a comment about because I don't know what the optimal solution is to solving those problems.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#67

Post by cpursley »

cpursley wrote: post #60
gigatexal wrote: post #30

[flagged]

Considering Trump made the decision not to attack Iran and start WWIII after Iran downed a US drone (despite immense pressure from neocons like Bolton), Trump actually deserves a little credit for being a relatively peaceful president. He hasn't started any new conflicts and just recently started pulling US troops out of Syria. Can't say that for his predicessors. I understand that people don't like Trump due to his…

I guess I should of expected down votes. People's disdane for Trump is often visceral instead of logical (similar to people's feelings on Obama). But you know, sometimes people/orgs/etc that you don't like or support make some good decisions. But if you "feel" good about down voting, then go for it. I'll stick to the facts.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#68

Post by acollins1331 »

cpursley wrote: post #67
cpursley wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering Trump made the decision not to attack Iran and start WWIII after Iran downed a US drone (despite immense pressure from neocons like Bolton), Trump actually deserves a little credit for being a relatively peaceful president. He hasn't started any new conflicts and just recently started pulling US troops out of Syria. Can't say that for his predicessors. I understand that people don't like Trump due to his…

I guess I should of expected down votes. People's disdane for Trump is often visceral instead of logical (similar to people's feelings on Obama). But you know, sometimes people/orgs/etc that you don't like or support make some good decisions. But if you "feel" good about down voting, then go for it. I'll stick to the facts.

The dude also threatens nuclear war with NK on Twitter.

Next.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#69

Post by cpursley »

acollins1331 wrote: post #68
cpursley wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I should of expected down votes. People's disdane for Trump is often visceral instead of logical (similar to people's feelings on Obama). But you know, sometimes people/orgs/etc that you don't like or support make some good decisions. But if you "feel" good about down voting, then go for it. I'll stick to the facts.

The dude also threatens nuclear war with NK on Twitter. Next.

Saying sensational crap on Twitter (or any media) is just that. I'm sure the NK regime was shaking in their boots...

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#70

Post by aeturnum »

phaus wrote: post #66
the_duke wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a global perspective, awarding two European writers yet again is just a failure. From a purely literary perspective, Handke is a great and influential writer, who was a hot candidate for a long time. For his work, I think the award is justified. On a personal level, his ex-wife accused him of physical abuse, he held a eulogy for a war criminal, was known for cursing and berating his audience, ... If he still sho…

I can get behind excluding individual authors from the award for being terrible people, but I can't get behind purposely giving the award to someone that's not European if Europeans would have otherwise deserved it based solely on the merits of their writing. There's plenty of amazing things written by non-white people. However, the Nobel prize for literature should remain a pure meritocracy as much as possible. That…

What do you think about the critiques of our understanding of merit - specifically the idea that our cultural experiences bias our understanding and perception of excellence?

I.e. If all your examples of good writing are written by a european for other europeans, you will likely associate some cultural practices that aren't required for good writing with your understanding of "good writing." The whole idea of developing taste is, of course, that it is somewhat subjective.

I think the idea of meritocracy is one worth pursuing, but I think modern advocates for it as a thing that actually exists today should engage more energetically with the critiques of it in practice.

Post reply on HN