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

A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

moreisdifferent.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 180 posts

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#41

Post by aphantastic »

profsummergig wrote: post #15
api wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it about vaccines? Lots of anti-vaxxers are fine with other kinds of drugs and use them liberally, even in many cases street drugs. They'll eat fast food, processed food, use household chemicals, do all kinds of other things that expose them to things they don't understand and may not be good for them, but vaccines are just the devil incarnate. The word vaccine seems to provoke a visceral gut reaction among a…

RFK Jr. is such a case. Anti-vaxx, but uses something to boost his "jackedness". The dude is jacked for a >70 years old guy. Supposedly it's testosterone. If anyone knows what he uses to look so jacked, please share.

He is vaccinated and all of his children are as well. What specifically of his statements do you consider “anti-vax”?

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#42

Post by [deleted] »

api wrote: post #5

Science has delivered a standard of living to most of the developed world that is greater than that of an Egyptian Pharaoh or a Roman Emperor in numerous ways: health, food, availability of information, ease of travel, physical comfort, etc. Yet visit social media and it's absolutely overflowing with gloom and doom and histrionic political rage and fear bait. Saw a thread recently on Reddit about how many young peopl…

[deleted]

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#43

Post by niceice »

api wrote: post #6
mmastrac wrote: post #2

It's amusing to see the early signs of the anti-vax movement here. The history of that movement is long. Humans are built to thrive in danger, chaos and instability. I think a good chunk of humans go insane in a safe and stable environment and resent the things that allow them to live mundane, safe lives -- technology, medicine and rational thinking. I think there's a certain amount of cherry-picking going on with th…

What is it about vaccines? Lots of anti-vaxxers are fine with other kinds of drugs and use them liberally, even in many cases street drugs. They'll eat fast food, processed food, use household chemicals, do all kinds of other things that expose them to things they don't understand and may not be good for them, but vaccines are just the devil incarnate. The word vaccine seems to provoke a visceral gut reaction among a…

A lot of is the abuse of the label anti-vaxxer. It's being misapplied to people who aren't against vaccine technology.

RFK, who is vaccinated along with his children: "I’ve been fighting 40 years to get mercury out of fish. Nobody calls me anti-fish."

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#44

Post by jon_richards »

wussboy wrote: post #33
genghisjahn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Humans are built to thrive in danger, chaos and instability. I think a good chunk of humans go insane in a safe and stable environment and resent the things that allow them to live mundane, safe lives -- technology, medicine and rational thinking. And yet science says the opposite. The prevailing evidence suggests that humans are generally better suited to stable and safe environments, with danger and chaos typicall…

The word "generally" is the important one in your sentence. Genes don't know what environment they will be born into, and so they include various strategies to cope with the unknown in the hope that some will survive. Generally, humans are better suited to stable and safe environments. But it would be irresponsible of genes not to include, occasionally, humans who did better in chaos because chaos frequently happens.

I believe there was a study that showed a mix of behaviors because populations with cooperative individuals out-compete in plentiful times and selfish individuals out-compete in scarce times. Hard to Google now because of selfish gene theory.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#45

Post by mmastrac »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #34
mmastrac wrote: post #2

It's amusing to see the early signs of the anti-vax movement here. The history of that movement is long. Humans are built to thrive in danger, chaos and instability. I think a good chunk of humans go insane in a safe and stable environment and resent the things that allow them to live mundane, safe lives -- technology, medicine and rational thinking. I think there's a certain amount of cherry-picking going on with th…

> It's amusing to see the early signs of the anti-vax movement here. Not surprising. I look at vaccines the same way as I look at any new medication: has it been tested long enough to know what the long-term effects of it are, and do the benefits outweigh the risks. I don't have a problem with MMR, TB and other common vaccines, that have been around for decades. If I'm traveling to East Africa I'm going to get a yell…

> If that makes me an anti-vaxxer, so be it. Don't really care.

I'm pretty sure setting a personal bar/risk tradeoff that lets you take a significant number of vaccines doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#46

Post by niceice »

Lutger wrote: post #37
api wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it about vaccines? Lots of anti-vaxxers are fine with other kinds of drugs and use them liberally, even in many cases street drugs. They'll eat fast food, processed food, use household chemicals, do all kinds of other things that expose them to things they don't understand and may not be good for them, but vaccines are just the devil incarnate. The word vaccine seems to provoke a visceral gut reaction among a…

Of course, in the pandemic we saw extreme versions of this. Anything to avoid vaccination, but ivermectin and other risky drugs were no problem. If vaccination would be alternative medicine and ivermection government mandated, we might see the reverse. So I don't think its vaccination perse, at least not on its own, but vaccines have various things going against them. Like someone else in this thread said, government…

[flagged]

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#47

Post by naming_the_user »

davidw wrote: post #16
mmastrac wrote: post #2

It's amusing to see the early signs of the anti-vax movement here. The history of that movement is long. Humans are built to thrive in danger, chaos and instability. I think a good chunk of humans go insane in a safe and stable environment and resent the things that allow them to live mundane, safe lives -- technology, medicine and rational thinking. I think there's a certain amount of cherry-picking going on with th…

> Humans are built to thrive in danger, chaos and instability. I think a good chunk of humans go insane in a safe and stable environment and resent the things that allow them to live mundane, safe lives -- technology, medicine and rational thinking. That's part of what Tom Nichols has been saying: https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2021/09/10/democracy-di...

> Our politics has become all about hurting other people, instead of trying to create something positive. We used to go to the polls and say, here’s what I’m voting for. Now we go to the polls to vote against something and we hope it makes others really mad.

This feels like a really uncharitable interpretation on what is going on.

To me it feels more like you have two sides, the two sides have viewpoints that feel very alien to the other side, so extreme that they feel like attacks but actually it's just a clash of worldview.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#48

Post by _feus »

AlexandrB wrote: post #30
davidw wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humans are built to thrive in danger, chaos and instability. I think a good chunk of humans go insane in a safe and stable environment and resent the things that allow them to live mundane, safe lives -- technology, medicine and rational thinking. That's part of what Tom Nichols has been saying: https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2021/09/10/democracy-di...

I wonder if that's the real reason he wanted the US to start a war in Iraq: to alleviate the boredom of modern life.

I have a little theory I like to tell at pubs that all of the intelligence comminities exist just because it attracts people who can't stand being bored. Advancing national security could be a thrilling entertainment.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#49

Post by revel »

> Now, imagine the uproar that might ensue from some corners today if a textbook made this sort of direct comparison between two groups, with one group happening to be white and the other black. Some social justice warriors would no doubt raise an outcry. The book would be branded as Eurocentric, racist, and white supremacist, since it doesn’t give equal space to describing the intellectual achievements of the Zulu or to recognizing the validity of indigenous ways of knowing. The picture of the African witch doctor might be described as a “culturally insensitive caricature”. The book would also be criticized for not describing ways in which Zulu society is more healthy than contemporary American society.

This textbook is from 1929 and was probably being written at the exact same time as the Snopes monkey trial (1925). You're reading science hype because science was under attack; and not from "social justice warriors" but from conservative Americans. Notice that the single most transformative discovery in all of biology, evolution, isn't mentioned.

That attack on evolution is still taking place. In Texas there was an attempt to strike all references to evolution and climate change from the curriculum, along with other attempts to introduce biblical references. When did that take place? That was this year; oh, and in 2023: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/texas-education-board-...

Getting mad at "social justice warriors" for an imagined reaction while ignoring the actual attacks on science is... well, it's what I've come to expect.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#50

Post by mmastrac »

niceice wrote: post #43
api wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it about vaccines? Lots of anti-vaxxers are fine with other kinds of drugs and use them liberally, even in many cases street drugs. They'll eat fast food, processed food, use household chemicals, do all kinds of other things that expose them to things they don't understand and may not be good for them, but vaccines are just the devil incarnate. The word vaccine seems to provoke a visceral gut reaction among a…

A lot of is the abuse of the label anti-vaxxer. It's being misapplied to people who aren't against vaccine technology. RFK, who is vaccinated along with his children: "I’ve been fighting 40 years to get mercury out of fish. Nobody calls me anti-fish."

I don't think quoting RFK is a good example of showcasing a rational view of vaccines.
Post reply on HN