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

121–130 of 180 posts

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

#121

Post by tivert »

_feus wrote: post #48
AlexandrB wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

That's probably Special Circumstances in the Culture novels, but those novels are just a mashup of Iain Banks's imagination and biases, and I think they're poor approximation of anything resembling reality under any set of conditions.

Personally, I think your theory would be a fun conversation topic, but I doubt it reflects real life.

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

#122

Post by zozbot234 »

perihelions wrote: post #120
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…

- "...greater than that of an Egyptian Pharaoh or a Roman Emperor..." I agree it's a thought-provoking comparison. It's a remarkably distorted lens, the one modern humans apply to interpret pre-industrial civilization. Should we glamorize a patrician of ancient Rome? Their lifestyle would be a mediocre, low-prestige one, if faithfully translated into the modern world. The vaunted villas of the aristocrats were farmho…

> The only large difference, and this is much more than a footnote, is the total abscence of slavery.

Convict labor is very much a thing in the US. That still counts as slavery.

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

#123

Post by llamaimperative »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #115
NotSammyHagar wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

I think its as simple as the fact that "we" won the Cold War, and that was the only thing putting any leftward pressure at all on US politics. The psycho right wing didn't materialize in 2008 out of nothing (think about LaRouchism, the "moral majority", Pat Buchanan, and on and on). Yes, Republicans are racist, but so are Democrats and Obama did actually win twice so somebody must have voted for him. Rather, Obama's…

Out of curiosity, where were you living during the 2008 election?

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

#124

Post by thrance »

pksebben wrote: post #101
thrance wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'?

Sorry, I wrote my previous comment after I just woke up, it's a bit messy now that I take a second look at it.

I guess the way I used "elites" in my previous comment refers more to a certain perception of society some people hold, rather than to a definite group of people.

If we take the policies implemented during the COVID pandemic as an example, those came from the government, oftentimes backed by academia. Since a lot of people think the government is doing a bad job overall, they don't trust the legitimacy of those policies and oppose the scientific reasoning that led to them being adopted.

When the economy is doing well, people put more trust into their government, or the "elites".

Therefore, my thesis is that distrust into the institutions/science comes from a general discontent of the population, and is not a natural state of humanity.

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

#125

Post by ElevenLathe »

llamaimperative wrote: post #123
ElevenLathe wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its as simple as the fact that "we" won the Cold War, and that was the only thing putting any leftward pressure at all on US politics. The psycho right wing didn't materialize in 2008 out of nothing (think about LaRouchism, the "moral majority", Pat Buchanan, and on and on). Yes, Republicans are racist, but so are Democrats and Obama did actually win twice so somebody must have voted for him. Rather, Obama's…

Out of curiosity, where were you living during the 2008 election?

Lansing, Michigan

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

#126

Post by perihelions »

zozbot234 wrote: post #122
perihelions wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- "...greater than that of an Egyptian Pharaoh or a Roman Emperor..." I agree it's a thought-provoking comparison. It's a remarkably distorted lens, the one modern humans apply to interpret pre-industrial civilization. Should we glamorize a patrician of ancient Rome? Their lifestyle would be a mediocre, low-prestige one, if faithfully translated into the modern world. The vaunted villas of the aristocrats were farmho…

> The only large difference, and this is much more than a footnote, is the total abscence of slavery. Convict labor is very much a thing in the US. That still counts as slavery.

That's fair.

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

#127

Post by stevenAthompson »

tivert wrote: post #119
stevenAthompson wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before you spend too much time patting yourself on the back for being so superior... dividing it into dumbasses and "smart people like me," I didn't say anything like that, or even adjacent to it. I didn't imply any judgement at all, other than to acknowledge that we're not all born the same. That said, tall people will always be better at basketball on average than short people. Raising the average height doesn't…

> ...and trying to pretend that if everyone were provided with the same opportunities they would achieve the same outcomes in basketball, or in intellectual pursuits, is not only dishonest, it's actively harmful to those born at a disadvantage. Cultivating an us/them distinction is also actively harmful, more harmful I'd say. But if you can't help yourself, count yourself with them and do your best to avoid condescen…

I can appreciate your perspective, but I also think the populist notion that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" (to paraphrase Asimov) has already done even greater damage to our society.

It must be stopped, and that can't happen if we're pretending that all people being worthy of respect also implies that all opinions are.

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

#128

Post by tivert »

stevenAthompson wrote: post #127
tivert wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...and trying to pretend that if everyone were provided with the same opportunities they would achieve the same outcomes in basketball, or in intellectual pursuits, is not only dishonest, it's actively harmful to those born at a disadvantage. Cultivating an us/them distinction is also actively harmful, more harmful I'd say. But if you can't help yourself, count yourself with them and do your best to avoid condescen…

I can appreciate your perspective, but I also think the populist notion that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" (to paraphrase Asimov) has already done even greater damage to our society. It must be stopped, and that can't happen if we're pretending that all people being worthy of respect also implies that all opinions are.

[dead]

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

#129

Post by beepbooptheory »

delton137 wrote: post #82
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…

Hi.. original post author here. Interesting point RE the Snopes trial. You are right, evolution is not mentioned in the book as far as I can tell. Even though it is foundational to understanding the human body (in particular some weird features it have which any half-good creator would never design that way.) The SJWs / woke cult are a bit of a personal hobby horse for me. I think it is important to mention, since wo…

When will you feel like you all have won the war here? What is it that you need to happen? Is it simply a matter of removing academics you deem too woke from their positions, or is it more a matter of public opinion becoming less woke? Just really at this point trying to get a gauge for how long we have to live inside this particular discourse.. Because it just structurally is such that it cant last forever, for I hope at least to you somewhat obvious reasons... (Although I wouldn't be too surprised if this is truly a gnostic battle against darkness for you personally. There are some variants here.)

I just miss when yall were simply libertarian and talked about taxes! We can go back to that one day right?

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

#130

Post by robertlagrant »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #115
NotSammyHagar wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

I think its as simple as the fact that "we" won the Cold War, and that was the only thing putting any leftward pressure at all on US politics. The psycho right wing didn't materialize in 2008 out of nothing (think about LaRouchism, the "moral majority", Pat Buchanan, and on and on). Yes, Republicans are racist, but so are Democrats and Obama did actually win twice so somebody must have voted for him. Rather, Obama's…

> In other words, we're still eating the leftovers of anticommunism, the 20th Century's original sin (to mix a metaphor).

I can think of a couple of things that rank higher on the 20th Century's original sin list.

Post reply on HN