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

Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 85 posts

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#61

Post by WalterBright »

leto_ii wrote: post #47
WalterBright wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> armies We tend to give medals to soldiers who self-sacrifice, because it's unusual. Not many are interested in dying for their country. If you refuse an order to advance on an enemy stronghold, you'll get shot. Remember those Soviet blocking battalions? How does that relate to self-sacrifice for the collective? You overlooked the rest of what I wrote about armies.

> Not many are interested in dying for their country. If you refuse an order to advance on an enemy stronghold, you'll get shot. Actually, what that shows more than anything is that not many people are willing to kill for their country. Killing other humans, even in self-interest, is often very hard to do - this is actually further evidence that people are quite collaborative and non-confrontational by nature.

> this is actually further evidence that people are quite collaborative and non-confrontational by nature.

Once again, I must emphasize that being motivated by self-interest usually means collaborating. That's how free markets work - collaboration among self-interested people.

Collectivism is about self-sacrifice. Sure, you can find people willing to do that. But not enough to structure society around it.

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#62

Post by WalterBright »

coldtea wrote: post #57
WalterBright wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing in that definition demands self-sacrifice. Sure it does. In a commune, everything produced is shared equally. That's self-sacrifice, as in if you produce more than the mean, that is taken from you.

> Sure it does. In a commune, everything produced is shared equally. Is this thread about some naive US conception and fear of "socialism" and such? Heck, not even in USSR "everything produced was shared equally". Not to mention really existing communism is hardly the main example of the idea of a collective (or a good one)...

> Heck, not even in USSR "everything produced was shared equally".

That was the plan. Of course, it didn't work.

> Not to mention really existing communism is hardly the main example of the idea of a collective (or a good one)...

Existing communism is when people try to implement communes, and wind up having to rely on force to do it.

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#63

Post by WalterBright »

leto_ii wrote: post #43
WalterBright wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I explicitly said that people still organize. Not as collectives, though. Perhaps you're missing what a collective is - it's an organization where people share equally in the results. It's characterized by self-sacrifice for the collective benefit. The huge majority of organizations are set up for selfish benefit, not collective benefit. Cooperation in mutual self-interest is NOT the same thing as cooperation in self…

> The huge majority of organizations are set up for selfish benefit, not collective benefit. What on earth are you talking about? For most of human history we lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers where selfishness could lead to ostracization. Even nowadays we organise in nation-states which try to (artificially) extend tribal loyalty to larger groups. Sometimes this leads people to commit the very self-interested…

Even the Native American tribes did not operate as communes.

> we lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers where selfishness could lead to ostracization.

Are you sure they were communes? Slavery goes as far back as we can tell. The head of the band didn't get the best food? Nobody owned their horse, weapons, etc.? They certainly traded. Why wouldn't they trade amongst themselves?

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#64

Post by WalterBright »

dragonwriter wrote: post #54
WalterBright wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me put it another way. In a free market, any group is free to start a commune. In America, many thousands have been created. They all failed. People try it. After a few months, within a couple years, they tire of it and leave, and the commune collapses. What that strongly suggests is communes are just incompatible with human nature.

> In America, many thousands have been created. > They all failed. > [...] > What that strongly suggests is communes are just incompatible with human nature. All things in the material universe are impermanent, communes exist in the material universe, ergo communes are impermanent. But many of those started in the US have not yet failed, and some have lasted several decades. So the actual evidence doesn't even show t…

I looked into an American commune someone here claimed that was the longest lived American commune. It was, on paper. In actuality, almost nobody stayed more than 2 years. The commune was simply good at attracting new members to replace the ones who faded away.

What is great about America, though, is the free market allows anyone to set up a commune. You're free to join one, and free to leave one. You and everyone else who downvotes me in this thread is also free to make or join a commune.

I doubt any of you will, though.

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#65

Post by WalterBright »

coldtea wrote: post #56
WalterBright wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know quite a bit about military history. > There are people who would die for their country, We call them heroes and give them a medal and commemorate them with a statue. Because they are rare. > Hell, historically people died to BUILD or FREE their countries. It's pretty rare for people to do it knowing they will die. (People more often will risk death because of the value of the gain they'll get if they don't die…

> We call them heroes and give them a medal and commemorate them with a statue. Because they are rare. Those are just the most celebrated ones. They are quite more than those. Especially in popular armies (as opposed to professional military), resistance moements, national revolutions and anti-colonial movements and so on where there's no "draft". Even in the US, who is not known for that sort of thing, tons of peopl…

> It's extremely common for people to do it knowing there's a big chance they'll die

Note that I specifically said that people will risk death for a potential large gain.

It's also true that 18 year old men are very poor judges of their risk of death.

> and would have suffered no ill fate if they didn't, probably the contrary

My dad told me that during WW2 if you were a man of military age walking around in civvies, people would spit on you. After the war, if you didn't serve, you were strongly discriminated against.

Would you risk death to go on an adventure and not be a pariah for the rest of your life?

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#66

Post by leto_ii »

WalterBright wrote: post #61
leto_ii wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not many are interested in dying for their country. If you refuse an order to advance on an enemy stronghold, you'll get shot. Actually, what that shows more than anything is that not many people are willing to kill for their country. Killing other humans, even in self-interest, is often very hard to do - this is actually further evidence that people are quite collaborative and non-confrontational by nature.

> this is actually further evidence that people are quite collaborative and non-confrontational by nature. Once again, I must emphasize that being motivated by self-interest usually means collaborating. That's how free markets work - collaboration among self-interested people. Collectivism is about self-sacrifice. Sure, you can find people willing to do that. But not enough to structure society around it.

I really don't understand what free markets have to do with anything in this context.

> being motivated by self-interest usually means collaborating

If you're willing to define self-interest broadly enough then everything can fall under it. Altruism? it's just self-interest because some people simply derive utility from helping others. Self-sacrifice? just self interest because some people like the idea of glory and having streets named after them etc.

> Collectivism is about self-sacrifice

I think wittingly or unwittingly you're playing around with different interpretations of the terms you're using. Altruism and collectivism are not the same thing, just like selfishness and individualism are not the same.

If by collectivism you mean the top-down, oppressive treatment of humans as replaceable cogs in a machine, then we're in agreement - that's inhuman, unnatural. If on the other hand you call basic altruism unnatural, then we're in sharp disagreement.

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#67

Post by leto_ii »

WalterBright wrote: post #60
leto_ii wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not many are interested in dying for their country. If you refuse an order to advance on an enemy stronghold, you'll get shot. Actually, what that shows more than anything is that not many people are willing to kill for their country. Killing other humans, even in self-interest, is often very hard to do - this is actually further evidence that people are quite collaborative and non-confrontational by nature.

Talk to a combat veteran. One who has really been in combat and under fire. You won't find many who are eager to advance under fire. The 8th AF was suffering 80% casualties when my father was in the air war. He would talk sometimes about the terrible, gut-melting fear, and how it would crush some of the men, and how some of the men dealt with it (like heavy drinking). They weren't reluctant to kill the enemy - I aske…

> Talk to a combat veteran. One who has really been in combat and under fire.

> You won't find many who are eager to advance under fire.

I have actually, my grandfather fought in WW2. His stories were usually short, grim, brutal. He, however, emphasized the importance of fighting for the country, of reclaiming occupied land, of putting the greater interest ahead of your own personal fears. Incidentally, while I fully admire his behavior, I don't think 'fighting for the country' is a particularly natural thing for humans to do.

> They weren't reluctant to kill the enemy - I asked him about it.

As far as I know lots of evidence points to the contrary. People often go so far as to deliberately miss shots in order not to kill somebody.

> My father dealt with it by looking at the numbers and resigning himself to death. He figured that while he lasted he'd do his duty and his best.

This sounds quite selfless to me. It may have been done through social pressure, but what this shows is that the fear of opprobrium is greater than the fear of dying - moving against the group is more unpleasant for humans than death.

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#68

Post by leto_ii »

WalterBright wrote: post #50
leto_ii wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What that strongly suggests is communes are just incompatible with human nature. I really don't understand how this conclusion follows from your premises. Even assuming that you're right and that all US communes failed, what does this have to do with human nature? By the same token you could say that people tried to be gay in Nazi Germany, but they all died, therefore it's against human nature to be gay (maybe my e…

> tried to be gay and getting murdered is not remotely like losing interest in commune life and leaving.

It seems I didn't get my point across, so here's an explicit statement:

The fact that certain human institutions or behaviors face strong opposition in certain contexts doesn't say much about human nature.

w.r.t. your example, this would mean that the failure of communes in the US doesn't say much about the failure/success of communes in other places/times. Nor does it say much about human nature in general.

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#69

Post by leto_ii »

WalterBright wrote: post #63
leto_ii wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The huge majority of organizations are set up for selfish benefit, not collective benefit. What on earth are you talking about? For most of human history we lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers where selfishness could lead to ostracization. Even nowadays we organise in nation-states which try to (artificially) extend tribal loyalty to larger groups. Sometimes this leads people to commit the very self-interested…

Even the Native American tribes did not operate as communes. > we lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers where selfishness could lead to ostracization. Are you sure they were communes? Slavery goes as far back as we can tell. The head of the band didn't get the best food? Nobody owned their horse, weapons, etc.? They certainly traded. Why wouldn't they trade amongst themselves?

I recommend Jared Diamond's 'The World Until Yesterday' ('Guns, Germs and Steel' also covers some related topics), or Frans de Waal's 'The Bonobo and the Atheist'.

In general I think there's broad agreement that in bands and small tribes of up to a few hundred people there's basically no hierarchy. Even when a chief emerges, he/she doesn't have a lot of power over others - they're more like mediators, they alleviate conflict etc.

I think you're making a mistake that I've seen often (Steven Pinker does smth similar), namely assuming that hunter-gatherers behaved like settled societies. They didn't. Most of the increase in violence comes after the agriculture revolution and the development of large settlements. For most of our history we roamed the land in small packs that rarely interacted with outsiders.

This is not to say that hunter-gatherers lived in heavenly harmony, just that they mostly lived in collaborative equality. They were also strongly independent (note that independence/individualism and collaboration do not exclude each other. Individualism however is not the same as selfishness, collaboration is not the same as collectivism).

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#70

Post by EdwardDiego »

WalterBright wrote: post #58
EdwardDiego wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but as the link states, they primarily focused on controlling the penal regiments. And that's one example, from one particular culture. Executions for desertion are very rare in western culture armies. Not that western culture armies couldn't be cruel. Field Punishment No. 1 is culturally engrained in my country: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/field-punishment-no-1 That said, you seem to be implying that…

WW1 and WW2 both relied heavily on forced conscription, on all sides. So did the Vietnam War. The draft was an enormous political issue in the US. > you seem to be implying that all armies ever have relied on force to recruit and retain members, which rings hollow. There are exceptions. But by and large, conscription is used. Conscription is force. As for retaining soldiers, all of them I've ever heard of did not all…

> WW1 and WW2 both relied heavily on forced conscription, on all sides

Yes, sorta. Once again, you can't generalise about this stuff. Every country approached it differently. Often conscription only happened after all the volunteers were depleted - i.e., it wasn't the first port of call.

> So did the Vietnam War.

Not in my country. The US, and Australia, yes, but New Zealand hasn't used conscription since WW2, despite fighting in Malaya, Borneo, Korea, Vietnam, East Timor, Afghanistan etc.

> Deserters are imprisoned or shot.

I thought it was just executed? At least it was in your prior comments.

> The US military is currently all volunteer. But they're still not allowed to desert.

Sure. Military discipline being what it is, well, yeah, I'm not overly surprised.

But a) no-one forced them there at the muzzle of a gun, as you alleged, and b) no-one is shooting them for leaving.

So... well, not really sure what your point was.

Post reply on HN