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

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#71

Post by phaus »

aeturnum wrote: post #70
phaus wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 develop…

I agree completely with your comment.

> 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 think everyone is biased and that objective thinking is a learned skill that you have to constantly re-evaluate. No one will ever be perfectly unbiased or anywhere near it. Even when you are practicing objective thinking honestly and correctly, there are undoubtedly deeply ingrained biases that you can't shake and you may not even be able to know what those biases are.

However, I think through effort we can improve and minimize the impact of bias. Furthermore, over long periods of time, if we adopt a culture of doing this, it may actually reduce bias overall in the generations to come.

The simple version is I think we are not going to be perfect, but surely we can be better than we are if we try. I think that's better than attempting to prevent bias by introducing extreme forms of bias in the opposite direction.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#72

Post by hesk »

goatinaboat wrote: post #42
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.

I assume you're looking at overall CO2 emissions rather than per-capita emissions. I’m looking at the page I linked. Per-capita is basically irrelevant, the issue is the total emissions under the control of any one government. Or should China not act until they match the US per-capita but with 3-4x the population? Further the US and European trends are already downwards. China’s is dramatically upwards.

> Further the US and European trends are already downwards.

US CO2 emission trends are downwards because the US stopped burning coal. In the same time, they've switched to natural gas produced by fracking. Fracking leaks methane. Taking methane and CO2 emissions together, US greenhouse gas trends are stable and not downward.

Source: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-literal-gas...

I don't know about EU trends. I'm not very optimistic.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#73

Post by Udik »

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…

> Trump made the decision not to attack Iran and start WWIII after Iran downed a US drone > He hasn't started any new conflicts

He has started a (completely unnecessary, in the opinion of almost everybody) conflict with Iran. The violation of the treaty and the sanctions are an act of economic war- which is much cheaper and less bloody than a military attack, but almost equally devastating for the victim. Trump is very happy with choking a whole country and he wants it to die in silence, without making too much fuss. Should he get a Nobel peace prize for that? I don't think so.

Not to mention the fact that Iran isn't happy at all at the idea of being silently choked so it'll keep staging provocations until either it can get a relief from sanctions or Trump is dragged into a war of his own making.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#74

Post by dhosek »

cpursley wrote: post #69
acollins1331 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The problem is that if you say shit on Twitter it has far fewer consequences than if Cheetolini says it.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#75

Post by Udik »

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…

> However, the Nobel prize for literature should remain a pure meritocracy as much as possible.

I don't think it's even remotely the case. If anything, just for the fact that literature cannot be measured independently of times, culture and circumstances. The idea of people in Oslo comparing the merits of an Italian poet with those of a playwright writing in Swahili is pretty ridiculous.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#76

Post by garmaine »

lonelappde wrote: post #41
krona wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She recommends we listen to the science. Consensus is a probability distribution. Greta talks about the 'findings' of approximately 4% of the IPCC scientists conclusions, on one extreme of the consensus. Obviously none of the models are available to examine, so we'll take their word for it, like a child would.

Care to explain what you are talking about? I'm going on a limb here to be charitable despite the anti-credibility marker in your last sentence.

The world-ending alarmism she typifies is not the consensus view.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#77

Post by Traster »

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.

It doesn't help your case to just try and pretend you're logical and everyone else is just biased. The situation in Iran has been actively built up by Trump, partly through his hiring and support of John Bolton - one of the architects of the foreign policy disaster of the Bush years. Partly by completely unnecessarily walking away from the JCPOA against all the lobbying of his allies. Trump has been actively making the prospect of war with Iran far more likely since 2016 and giving him a Nobel prize for stepping back from a brink that he himself walked up to is pretty ridiculous in my opinion.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#78

Post by beokop »

Miner49er wrote: post #58
Tenoke wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to admit that's very indirect. Most issues can lead to/exacerbate a war. Most technologies, too.

I don't think it's indirect at all. Climate change will very nearly directly cause war. It will and already is causing food shortages, flooding, drought, etc. This will cause mass migration and conflict for resources. It's about as close to directly causing war as a thing can be.

This might be true, however, I’m of the opinion that the prize should go to people that are making hard choices to de-escalate actual armed conflicts.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#79

Post by protastus »

garmaine wrote: post #76
lonelappde wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to explain what you are talking about? I'm going on a limb here to be charitable despite the anti-credibility marker in your last sentence.

The world-ending alarmism she typifies is not the consensus view.

How is it not? The IPCC models predict a > 4°C average temperature increase for the business-as-usual scenario. This is means billions of people migrating across national boundaries and/or dead, extinction of most species, a dramatic reduction in farm land, tropical rainforests ceasing to exist. I doubt humanity's technological advances can be sustained when we can't even feed ourselves.

Even a 2°C average increase is very, very bad, with intense weather events every year, countries like India not being able to support their population density, tropical rainforests turning into savannahs. It is also a mass extinction scenario.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2019

#80

Post by garmaine »

protastus wrote: post #79
garmaine wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world-ending alarmism she typifies is not the consensus view.

How is it not? The IPCC models predict a > 4°C average temperature increase for the business-as-usual scenario. This is means billions of people migrating across national boundaries and/or dead, extinction of most species, a dramatic reduction in farm land, tropical rainforests ceasing to exist. I doubt humanity's technological advances can be sustained when we can't even feed ourselves. Even a 2°C average increase i…

> The IPCC models predict a > 4°C average temperature increase for the business-as-usual scenario.

“Business-as-usual” is not the most likely outcome. It completely neglects technological development trajectories which make something like 2.5 deg absolutely achievable by simple market forces without radical action. But in any case...

> This is means billions of people migrating across national boundaries and/or dead, extinction of most species, a dramatic reduction in farm land, tropical rainforests ceasing to exist. I doubt humanity's technological advances can be sustained when we can't even feed ourselves.

All of that is rampant speculation. THIS is what I’m calling out as non-consensus.

> Even a 2°C average increase is very, very bad, with intense weather events every year, countries like India not being able to support their population density, tropical rainforests turning into savannahs. It is also a mass extinction scenario.

That’s a strange thing to say. How do you reconcile that statement with the fact that higher temperatures mean more rainfall, higher CO2 levels mean better plant growth, and geologic record which indicates that when the earth was previously that much warmer it was covered pole-to-pole with lush tropical rainforests?

Post reply on HN