A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929 • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by pksebben » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 7:26 PM UTC

thrance wrote: post #93

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…

I really don't like how often I have to read/hear "Humans are built to X" type arguments. I don't think the lack of a challenge is the root cause of science denialism. It's a cultural thing, coming from a lack of confidence in the elites. Elites are distraught when inequality become larger and things get tougher for the poorest.

Could you expound on this a little more? I think I've totally misunderstood you.

Like, who would you consider an 'Elite'? AFAICT, someone who's 'an Elite' thrives off of inequality, by definition. Without said inequality they wouldn't be 'Elite'.

Is it possible that your definition for Elite is similar to my definition for Specialist? Like 'Subject Matter Expert'?

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

#102

Post by pksebben » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 7:29 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #22

jazzyjackson wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The safest and richest societies are also the most highly medicated, so I would question to what prevailing evidence you refer. For an extreme example one might consider soldiers / warfighters. Very high rates of trauma and suicidality after returning from war, and this is only anecdotal not first hand but I would be interested to know what the mental health of deployed soldiers looks like in comparison (certainly th…

> The safest and richest societies are also the most highly medicated... That, alone, could point to two very obvious but very different conclusions. One is that people in those societies need medications more. Alternatively, people in these societies get needed medications more. I suspect the average American gets more therapy than the average Afghan, but I suspect the Afghans would still benefit from it.

I think Maslow would have a point to make, here.

Privileged societies are more medicated because the most pressing issues to them are (somewhat) soluble using medication. Because they are not imminently worried about housing and sustenance or violence.

Would be odd to consider medicating for fibromyalgia or depression when you're starving and/or being bombed / shot at.

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

#103

Post by HarryHirsch » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 7:31 PM UTC

stevenAthompson wrote: post #80

drcwpl wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's one side. The other side looks like this: https://spelmanblueprint.com/810/opinions/professors-bitter-...

The background is a new faculty member actually teaching at university level. We know that proofs and reading are required. They do not.

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

#104

Post by svara » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 7:35 PM UTC

aphantastic wrote: post #18

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…

Yes, people can choose to do some things without wanting authorities to force them to do other things. Astutely observed.

So tired of this framing. We get it, you don't like the government. So what?

If you're spreading lies about medicine because you distrust authority...

Well, first of all, you're dumb because you believe falsehoods.

But more importantly, you're a danger to my health, my friends and my families' health, and to your own health as well.

Why would we have any patience for this?

Your rugged self-important individualism is not worth more than any of that.

You appear to be thinking that you're taking some heroic stand on principle. Your principle is leading you astray. It makes you antisocial, a danger to your neighbors.

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

#105

Post by snowwrestler » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 7:39 PM UTC

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…

> But I have never gotten a "flu shot" in my life because the benefit of it is rather low relative to the risk of influenza given my demographics and health. If that makes me an anti-vaxxer, so be it.

That seems like reasonable risk assessment to me. It’s a minor chore to get but the benefit to you is also pretty minor. Lots of people skip the flu vaccine for those reasons.

But some folks skip the flu vaccine because they are convinced that the vaccine itself will harm them. I hate the term “anti-vaxxer” but if I were to apply the concept, it’s mostly to that unbalanced risk assessment.

It’s an interesting question why some folks develop such an unbalanced assessment. And I dislike “anti-vaxxer” because I think is dismissive and derogatory, and leads away from trying to understand each other.

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

#106

Post by liontwist » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 7:45 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #92

liontwist wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you live in the USA or other developed countries then your opportunity to have all of those things is greater than at any other time or place in human history. Of course, not everyone chooses to seize that opportunity. Some people would rather complain or blame others rather than grinding and delaying gratification to improve their circumstances.

Blaming poor character may be true of individuals, but when you’re referring to large groups of people you have to look at the social system.

And by those standards our economic system is not working for the vast majority of people and getting worse every year.

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

#107

Post by stevenAthompson » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 8:04 PM UTC

pksebben wrote: post #99

stevenAthompson wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd agree with this, but it's missing something; why is this the case? From what I know, it's a lot tougher to tease out the cause of this malfunction in our society. Do we have an undereducated populace because of poverty? Lack of school funding? (if so, why do we underfund schools? is it because we don't have the money? greed? is there a concerted effort to suppress an educated populace for political reasons?) Is t…

It's the old dream of the information era. We were going to cure all of the worlds ills by fixing the problem of unequal access to information. Surely people would all perform equally, when given equal opportunity?

Not only didn't it work, it made the world a far worse place. I think Occam's razor tells us why: Forty nine percent of people will always be of below average intelligence.

Average intelligence currently seems to mean understanding the world at the 6th grade level. Maybe we can raise that to the 7th grade level with a concentrated effort, but that will also raise the performance of the top fifty percent.

There will always be a bottom half and they will always struggle to understand the world the top half build.

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

#108

Post by marcosdumay » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 8:09 PM UTC

TheFreim wrote: post #96

marcosdumay wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the doses people were recommending it's very clearly unsafe, known to have killed a few people, and marked so on the usage instructions.

I agree, which is why someone should say "unsafe dosages of ivermectin" or "ivermectin in formulations unsafe for human consumption" instead of speaking of a widely used drug as per itself "unsafe" without qualification. Making over-generalized statements will lead to people rightly reject what you're saying, leaving room for them to be misinformed about the actual reality of the situation.

Oh, I do agree with this.

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

#109

Post by nradov » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 8:15 PM UTC

liontwist wrote: post #106

nradov wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live in the USA or other developed countries then your opportunity to have all of those things is greater than at any other time or place in human history. Of course, not everyone chooses to seize that opportunity. Some people would rather complain or blame others rather than grinding and delaying gratification to improve their circumstances.

Blaming poor character may be true of individuals, but when you’re referring to large groups of people you have to look at the social system. And by those standards our economic system is not working for the vast majority of people and getting worse every year.

That comment is just totally disconnected from reality. Sure, some people have it rough through no fault of their own and we should implement public policies to expand their opportunities. But the vast majority of people are doing pretty well by historical standards. The unemployment rate is 4.1%! The Consumer Confidence Index is 111!

If you pay attention to the whining losers on Reddit and other social media then you get a distorted view of the state of the country. The silent majority are doing fairly well.

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

#110

Post by NotSammyHagar » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 8:15 PM UTC

llamaimperative wrote: post #75

naming_the_user wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

That was the thing that broke my family. The older generation became way more openly racist after that. I didn't want to accept that it was happening, but I finally gave up denying it. And then Trump came along and all rationality went out the window. Distinguished people with engineering degrees, PE some of them just lost their minds. Wealthy boomers with no care in the world just couldn't handle that (I know not all are that way, but half my family became that).

Looking back there were some racist tendencies in that generation but it wasn't openly talked about with me or more likely I just missed it.