Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021) • Hacker News Board

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#101

Post by wanderingbit » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 3:59 PM UTC

wslh wrote: post #38

base698 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the notable things from "Deschooling" is his solution. Illich describes was could be thought of as Meetups using the internet. Hobbyist experts with common interests that can serve as teachers and demonstrators of skills. One of the big insights is that today you have teachers who are certified in teaching and experts in a particular thing. The two are very rarely present in the same person. > In deschooled so…

It seems like he is talking about influencers, where there is a relationship that is based on abstract metrics like number of followers and unclear success. Here I use abstract and metrics together to convey the idea that the metrics does not give a real meaning. Obviously there are many people who perfectly deserves their "followers" but it is gamed by other people removing real meaning.

That’s now how I understood the quote.

I thought of it more like if you went to go hire a doctor, then the best people to review that doctor would not be the university that gave the doctor their credential, or even the doctor’s patients; it would be the doctor’s colleagues who understand the doctor’s strengths and weaknesses best because they are the only ones who have the direct relationship as well as technical skills to compare against.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#102

Post by ses1984 » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:10 PM UTC

walleeee wrote: post #94

slibhb wrote: post #75

Criticizing modern medicine makes a lot of sense if you're a devout Catholic because the afterlife tempers the sadness of death. For non-believers, though, earthly life is all there is, so reducing suffering, disease, and poverty are much more pressing goals -- goals that might be worth a little alienation. I would emphasize choice: people can (and do) embrace alternative ways of life, from the Amish to kibbutzim. Si…

I would contest the notion that a lack of religiosity must magnify discontent with death. Also it remains rather difficult to "opt out" of a protracted, likely intubated decline, at least in the US. Moreover there is no opting out of modernity writ large. This is the nature of multi-polar traps: choosing not to join an arms race is a local, temporary reprieve. The optionality modernity seems determined to optimize fo…

>I would contest the notion that a lack of religiosity must magnify discontent with death

It’s the other way around. Lack of religiosity is the default state and with it you get the default discontent with death, but a religion with an afterlife could reduce discontent with death.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#103

Post by tivert » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:38 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #32

hcks wrote: post #28

> critique of modern certitudes > it’s bottom of the barrel degrowthism Every. Single. Time.

I'll add in that "we should get rid of all these modern flimflam" is generally a rallying cry by quite well off people who choose not to see the obvious future of poor people getting squelched as resources dry up. There are a lot of problems faced by modern society, and those problems are uncomfortably complicated. Most people don't understand the details of them. However, the incredible productivity of modern humans…

> and the unspeakably horrible lifestyles of centuries ago.

That sounds like an over-the-top fairy tale to constructed justify modern society.

I assume by "unspeakably horrible lifestyle" you don't mean something like "lack of color television." That's an assumption I have to state, because there are a surprising number of people who say they consider the lack of modern creature-comforts to be something "unspeakably horrible" and that they'd rather die than be without them.

That said, I'm sure you could cherrypick an "unspeakably horrible lifestyle" out of the history books, just like I can cherrypick an "unspeakably horrible lifestyle" out of the news. I also wouldn't be surprised if the ultimate causes are the same or similar for both. Such cherry-picked examples don't speak to typical experience and don't speak to what's possible.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#104

Post by mdgrech23 » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:44 PM UTC

cainxinth wrote: post #97

> *But he was blistering in his critique of our medical systems oriented toward postponing the end as long as possible. “We now see that a majority of these medical achievements are deceptive misnomers, actually prolonging the suffering of madmen, cripples, old fools and monsters,” he wrote.* That one has certainly proved prescient. Medical science has gotten frighteningly good at prolonging life even in cases when i…

Here in the US and many other first world countries the population is getting very old. We'll need to bring in younger people who look different to keep the average age down. This obviously has all sorts of side effects. The other problem is the wealth inequality it creates. Wealth compounds with time plus the older generation grew up in a boom period. Add in the fact that they were able to buy cheap housing which has appreciated by a large amount and are effectively blocking new affordable housing from being created in many areas (NIMBY's) and we have a very interesting predicament.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#105

Post by markhahn » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:55 PM UTC

walleeee wrote: post #94

slibhb wrote: post #75

Criticizing modern medicine makes a lot of sense if you're a devout Catholic because the afterlife tempers the sadness of death. For non-believers, though, earthly life is all there is, so reducing suffering, disease, and poverty are much more pressing goals -- goals that might be worth a little alienation. I would emphasize choice: people can (and do) embrace alternative ways of life, from the Amish to kibbutzim. Si…

I would contest the notion that a lack of religiosity must magnify discontent with death. Also it remains rather difficult to "opt out" of a protracted, likely intubated decline, at least in the US. Moreover there is no opting out of modernity writ large. This is the nature of multi-polar traps: choosing not to join an arms race is a local, temporary reprieve. The optionality modernity seems determined to optimize fo…

isn't it more that people cleave to magical thinking, archaic though it is, because they have trouble dealing with the despair of poor health and final death?

one big support for this is the gradual decline of religiosity in areas of the world where life is improving. conflated, of course, with the hegemonistic aspect of organized religion.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#106

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:58 PM UTC

heresie-dabord wrote: post #86

palata wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the modern economy have achieved remarkable, good things on a global scale. There is no doubt about that. But it has also brought us into a mass extinction (that's happening right now), it brought climate change (it will add to the biodiversity issue), and it relies very heavily on fossil fuels which are not unlimited. > to his solutionless critique. I believe that we need to agree on the problem before we can find…

> we should not care about our survival on Earth and start looking at other solar systems Wacky thinking. Another modern achievement, some very wealthy people literally have more money than neurons. ^_^ > I strongly believe that we have an energy problem There is no doubt that the challenge is now . But our industrial and technical capabilities can solve the problem... if corrupt petrostate kakistocracies don't destr…

[deleted]

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#107

Post by telmo » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:58 PM UTC

ses1984 wrote: post #102

walleeee wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would contest the notion that a lack of religiosity must magnify discontent with death. Also it remains rather difficult to "opt out" of a protracted, likely intubated decline, at least in the US. Moreover there is no opting out of modernity writ large. This is the nature of multi-polar traps: choosing not to join an arms race is a local, temporary reprieve. The optionality modernity seems determined to optimize fo…

>I would contest the notion that a lack of religiosity must magnify discontent with death It’s the other way around. Lack of religiosity is the default state and with it you get the default discontent with death, but a religion with an afterlife could reduce discontent with death.

> Lack of religiosity is the default state

On the contrary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligio...

> and with it you get the default discontent with death

That is a huge assumption. There is a huge variety of ways in which societies, cultures and individuals relate and have related with death.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#108

Post by markhahn » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:59 PM UTC

heresie-dabord wrote: post #86

palata wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the modern economy have achieved remarkable, good things on a global scale. There is no doubt about that. But it has also brought us into a mass extinction (that's happening right now), it brought climate change (it will add to the biodiversity issue), and it relies very heavily on fossil fuels which are not unlimited. > to his solutionless critique. I believe that we need to agree on the problem before we can find…

> we should not care about our survival on Earth and start looking at other solar systems Wacky thinking. Another modern achievement, some very wealthy people literally have more money than neurons. ^_^ > I strongly believe that we have an energy problem There is no doubt that the challenge is now . But our industrial and technical capabilities can solve the problem... if corrupt petrostate kakistocracies don't destr…

surely it's not just an energy problem - but a resource problem.

I dislike the "overconsumption" mantra (and its degrowth kin). The problem is waste - fast fashion is a great example. just stop making stupid choices - people still need clothes, and we still need lots of people.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#109

Post by ska » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:00 PM UTC

heresie-dabord wrote: post #86

palata wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the modern economy have achieved remarkable, good things on a global scale. There is no doubt about that. But it has also brought us into a mass extinction (that's happening right now), it brought climate change (it will add to the biodiversity issue), and it relies very heavily on fossil fuels which are not unlimited. > to his solutionless critique. I believe that we need to agree on the problem before we can find…

> we should not care about our survival on Earth and start looking at other solar systems Wacky thinking. Another modern achievement, some very wealthy people literally have more money than neurons. ^_^ > I strongly believe that we have an energy problem There is no doubt that the challenge is now . But our industrial and technical capabilities can solve the problem... if corrupt petrostate kakistocracies don't destr…

> There is no doubt that the challenge is now. But our industrial and technical capabilities can solve the problem...

Of the first part, there is no doubt - the second statement is not nearly so clear (at least, on the necessary timelines)

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#110

Post by UncleOxidant » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:42 PM UTC

marttt wrote: post #24

stanislavb wrote: post #2

Has anyone read any of his books? What do you think?

A great introduction to his lines of thinking was (to me) "Ivan Illich in Conversation" by David Cayley [0]. Essentially a book-length interview. While I find him truly interesting, there is an annoyance: he is strongly critical about "traditional" school system, while holding a PhD himself. I've always found this kind of thing somewhat controversial. I wonder if he did consider dropping out during his studies; and i…

> While I find him truly interesting, there is an annoyance: he is strongly critical about "traditional" school system, while holding a PhD himself.

Isn't it possible that getting a PhD gave him a front row seat to observe the problems of academia? In some sense it lends credibility to his arguments since he's been on the inside.