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

71–80 of 180 posts

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

#71

Post by naming_the_user »

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…

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

I'm not even in the US and I have multiple friends who have expressed to me that they'd be afraid to holiday there due to reproductive rights stuff. For say, two, three weeks.

It's like some sort of extreme anxiety that has no basis in reality.

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

#72

Post by aphantastic »

9dev wrote: post #64
aphantastic wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So not “anti-vax” but rather “pro-choice”.

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

#73

Post by naming_the_user »

atmavatar wrote: post #69
naming_the_user wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Right, I don't doubt that, but it's clear to me that this isn't the nexus of all of this.

What you're looking at is the later stages of a disagreement. It didn't start out that way, it started as something like, hey can we put the ketchup in the fridge, nah I'd rather leave it out, I prefer it warm. (I'm obviously deliberately being silly here).

You move on in time and suddenly blows are being exchanged because everyone loses patience.

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

#74

Post by [deleted] »

liontwist wrote: post #21
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…

The growing movement is the one that views vaccines as a categorical good and wants to unperson those who see each individual treatment as a an engineered tool with its own risks and benefits. If you know anything about marketing you know that for such messaging to be culturally pervasive is a result of years of effort and organizing.

[deleted]

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

#75

Post by llamaimperative »

naming_the_user wrote: post #73
atmavatar wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, I don't doubt that, but it's clear to me that this isn't the nexus of all of this. What you're looking at is the later stages of a disagreement. It didn't start out that way, it started as something like, hey can we put the ketchup in the fridge, nah I'd rather leave it out, I prefer it warm. (I'm obviously deliberately being silly here). You move on in time and suddenly blows are being exchanged because every…

[flagged]

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

#76

Post by phtrivier »

tivert wrote: post #52
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. 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. No, I don't think that's true. Humans are built to learn from e…

Interestingly, the experiences that people are rallying around (for better or worse) are more going _against_ negative effects (perceived or real) of the scientific / technological world:

* Climate Change (caused by the tech of "burning lots of fuels")

* PFAS, pesticides, endocrine disruptors, etc...

* Opiods crisis, nartotics, etc...

* Impact of GAFAM on privacy, social discourse, etc...

In a sense, the "white coats in their labs" and "nerds with glasses" have been repeatedly found (lately) to be on the "wrong side of the issue". (There are usually scientists on both side of the issue, which is the saving grace for science: self-correction is built in.)

Maybe it's relevant that the book is dated from 1929, that is, right before a time where "white coats" started being involved into very shady stuff (eugenics, mass-media propaganda, global-scale destruction weapons, and of, course, industrialized death.)

The COVID crises could have been a time for science in general to earn trust again - in some sense it did, but this time people were overexpecting, and got disappointed at least (and downright enraged at worst, if they were on the wrong side of the politico-scientifict decisions.)

And the pendulum will keep swinging, but hopefully still rise.

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

#77

Post by llamaimperative »

aphantastic wrote: post #72
9dev wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So not “anti-vax” but rather “pro-choice”.

"anti-vaccinating people at the scale required to yield good public health outcomes" is sufficient to qualify for the label, IMO.

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

#78

Post by liontwist »

goatlover wrote: post #66
liontwist wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A safe place to live, meaningful work, good health, experiences with family and friends, feelings of contribution and importance.

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

#79

Post by supplied_demand »

niceice wrote: post #67
supplied_demand wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

==guilt by association to mislead: "appeared onscreen next to"==

It was something produced by his own non-profit. Do you not think it is fair to associate him with the non-profit he founded and ran? He has had no trouble associating himself with the organization. I feel like we can make the same association without misleading anyone.

This is still just a deflection from the question of what "people who aren't against vaccine technology" even means. Can you please define it? I am having trouble seeing the difference between being anti-vaccine and being anti-vaccine technology.

NOTE: The comment I originally responded to has since been edited.

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

#80

Post by stevenAthompson »

drcwpl wrote: post #60
tivert wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. No, I don't think that's true. Humans are built to learn from e…

I had forgotten about the Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy, great reminder, thank you. Humans are adaptive learners, shaped by both individual experience and cultural memory. The rise of anti-vax sentiments might be better explained by psychological and sociological factors. Like mistrust of institutions, the amplification of fringe views via social media, or the cognitive biases that prioritize visible risks over abstra…

Those sociological factors aren't complex, and don't require an explanation of any real depth.

The entire problem is this: Fifty four percent of Americans read below the 6th grade level, which means that the simple majority of Americans don't understand the world they live in and never will.

Post reply on HN