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

61–70 of 180 posts

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

#61

Post by supplied_demand »

Eumenes wrote: post #39
ceejayoz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My body my choice? If being pregnant was contagious, we'd treat it as a very different issue.

[flagged]

A perfect example of modern-day discourse. Not even taking a stance or making a point, just the least-generous interpretation of someone else's words turned into an attacking question.

-- Nobody suggested that only women get autonomy

-- Communicable diseases are obviously different than pregnancy in there health impacts on broader society

-- Lots of women in lots of places don't have bodily autonomy (there was a lot of discussion/reporting about it leading up to the recent US election)

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

#62

Post by drcwpl »

wussboy wrote: post #51
jon_richards wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

D.S. Wilson did a lot of work in that area.

Yes, especially his A theory of group selection https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC432258/

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

#63

Post by api »

edflsafoiewq wrote: post #12
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…

People don't set their standard of a good life against a 3000 year old kingdom they've never seen or think about. Nor are they impressed when people resort to mining the ancient past or far-off countries for the deepest pits of misery they can find to make things sound good by comparison.

It's entirely rational to be upset when things get worse, such as housing prices. IMHO housing prices are the big one for most young people in the developed world today... dig into why they're so upset and you get to housing prices pretty fast.

I'm talking about deep existential despair and doomerism though, like people discussing suicide or refusing to have children because they're convinced the world is ending because of online discourse and/or paranoia.

Edit: speaking of perspective: one of my favorites is to go find a global salary comparison calculator and input my first world tech salary. If you are on this site chances are you are at least in the global 5% if not the global 1%.

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

#64

Post by 9dev »

aphantastic wrote: post #41
profsummergig wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”?

Maybe the fact that he wants to let people choose whether to get vaccinated. That isn’t how we eradicated polio. It’s irresponsible.

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

#65

Post by goatlover »

edflsafoiewq wrote: post #12
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…

People don't set their standard of a good life against a 3000 year old kingdom they've never seen or think about. Nor are they impressed when people resort to mining the ancient past or far-off countries for the deepest pits of misery they can find to make things sound good by comparison.

Maybe having a better view of human history would help combat the largely false narrative that things are overall getting worse, and there's little hope for future generations?

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

#66

Post by goatlover »

liontwist wrote: post #26
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…

Do exotic foods, information, entertainment, and travel make you happy? Or are they more like cheap substitutes for the real thing.

Usually they do. That's why most people want access to those things. What is the "real thing" they are substitutes for?

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

#67

Post by niceice »

supplied_demand wrote: post #54
niceice wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Can you explain what you mean by "people who aren't against vaccine technology?" I'm not sure I follow given that RFK has explicitly said he is against vaccines and that no vaccines are safe and effective. [0] ===In July, Kennedy said in a podcast interview that “There’s no vaccine that is safe and effective” and told FOX News that he still believes in the long-ago debunked idea that vaccines can cause autism. In a 2…

He should be more careful with his words, but they're resorting to cherry picked quotes and guilt by association to mislead:

"appeared onscreen next to"

It's unserious. To get his actual opinion, which is nuanced, you have to go long form.

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

#68

Post by ngriffiths »

revel wrote: post #49

> 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 o…

I still thought that passage was interesting. It is a totally reasonable prediction of how much of public health would read it.

The post and your comment emphasize how the impact of science depends more on the public than the handful of scientists who create it. Roughly ~0% of people understand any given scientific topic. It will always be completely asymmetric. It will always involve stuff like belief in an ideology, struggles for political power, (relatively blind) trust in a movement or leader, etc. As a result, there is no world in which scientists don't regularly harm whoever follows them, the same as any leader in an uncertain/asymmetric environment (by getting stuff wrong accidentally, or actively abusing their power for personal gain).

The part about social justice warriors is actually interesting because that view will come across as "we hate science!" to some people but the real idea is somewhere between "successful science requires exerting some political power over other people" (obviously true) and "western science was built on a foundation of coercion and oppression, making lots of technological progress and causing some unavoidable tragic effects." Whatever the "truth" is, it's really complicated ethically.

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

#69

Post by atmavatar »

naming_the_user wrote: post #47
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...

> 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 ve…

When one side has a repeatedly-stated policy goal like sending the military against "the enemy within" while specifically calling-out political opponents as belonging to said group, it's difficult to interpret that as a mere clash of worldview, even when assuming it's mere bluster to gin up engagement at rallies.

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

#70

Post by naming_the_user »

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…

Anything that people are forced to do is going to cause this sort of visceral response.

A lot of things that we were forced to do during COVID still stick with me and have basically made me intensely distrustful of authority to a degree that wasn't present before.

It was just bullshit after bullshit enacted in law and forced on people. Walking in certain directions in the supermarket, going outside for only X minutes per day to exercise, only X people allowed at your table at the pub, etc. Just endless totally unscientific bollocks.

It's like getting into a heated debate with someone. You start out and actually listen to what people are saying, but then eventually it's just like, come on man, fuck off, I don't even care if you're right, I'm tuned out.

Fast food doesn't force me to eat it under penalty of imprisonment.

Post reply on HN