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

What You Can't Say (2004)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 308 posts

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#121

Post by sliverstorm »

ggreer wrote: post #68

Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty a…

#1 & #2 are blocked by technical development. I don't expect people will condemn farmed meat in the days before in-vitro meat had even been done, any more than you or I would condemn hunters of antiquity for not giving game meat a painless death.

I don't expect people living in a world where criminals can be "cured" will condemn our use of prisons either, because we can't "cure" criminals yet!

Do you catch my drift? It makes no sense to condemn ancient peoples for not doing something they couldn't do.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#122

Post by bradleysmith »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #14

I find that in engineering circles theology and the notion of the existence of God is one of those 'moral taboos.' And advocating more nuclear power stations or private gun ownership. It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century. Always interesting to think abo…

I've noticed this as well regarding theology and private gun ownership. To begin a discussion about religion with any attitude other than critical seems to incite a very negative response among most engineers (and tangentially, people who strongly identify with "internet culture"). An assumption of 'rightness' is very strong on these issues, from both sides.

I have NOT noticed this at all with regards to nuclear power stations. I've found that there is a fairly even divide among 'reductionist' or science-praising mindsets about nuclear being net negative or net positive.

just my two anecdotal cents.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#123

Post by esrauch »

coolsunglasses wrote: post #108
ggreer wrote: post #68

Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty a…

#1 is only partly correct insofar as some people that can be helped. Sociopathy is permanent and uncurable. It's also common among people with a criminal record. Sifting those out from otherwise lost but psychonormal individuals is not trivial.

There is still a very wide margin between the US prison system and a system that simply detains offenders.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#124

Post by sliverstorm »

scarmig wrote: post #93
DickingAround wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I might want to agree with some of them, they fail the 'time' test. We've used prisons for a while, same with eating animals.

World of difference. Eating animals has happened since, well, our first ancestors crawled out of the ocean. Prisons are a radically modern invention, maybe more so than any other government institution. It's just they and their logic are so pervasive we don't recognize them for what they are. See: Foucault, Bentham.

What do you mean prisons are a modern invention? Prisons/jails have been around since the dawn of history.

Or are you wrapping ancient Egypt into your notion of radically modern.

(Ok, maybe ancient Egypt didn't have many cells with walls and bars for windows, but they sure had prisoners chained to things)

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#126

Post by brd »

enraged_camel wrote: post #47
brd wrote: post #30

"Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?" I think this test is fascinating when applied to the Musk vs. Gates debate from yesterday. How taboo is it to say forget charity? I know I feel uncomfortable with saying: 'forget the poor, we can fix them after we've figured out how to create a sustainable form of first world living' and yet that seems like a far more…

Why does it seem like a far more rational strategy to act upon?

Because its a fact that we cannot, with current technology, support 7 billion people living a modern lifestyle. We simply can't produce enough energy in a clean enough fashion to attempt anything of the sort.

Because technology is a force multiplier and will pay larger dividends than charitable endeavors.

Because “On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.” - Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

*Keep in mind I'm making this statement as if we're only able to pursue one course of action (charity or technology). In reality we should, and are, pursue both solutions at once.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#127

Post by huherto »

avar wrote: post #65
morganherlocker wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very true. My state just passed a law with overwhelming support that allows people to have guns in bars again. I did not expect it to be controversial to believe that drinking + guns + crowded rooms was a bad idea, but apparently I was wrong.

From the perspective of someone living in mainland Europe the legislation around bars in the U.S. is quite baffling. I was over in San Francisco last summer and walked out of a bar pint in hand to tag along for a cigarette break, we were promptly chastised about it. I apologized saying that I'd briefly forgotten what continent I was on. It's also not unusual to see children milling around with their parents in bars i…

I do think teenagers should learn to drink with their parents. They should be taught to be responsible with their drinking. The current system creates so much expectation, they learn to drink among other teenagers, that is pretty crazy.

edit:spelling

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#128

Post by [deleted] »

ggreer wrote: post #68

Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty a…

[deleted]

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#129

Post by dreamfactory2 »

> "most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics"

This is simply an embarrassingly stupid and ignorant comment.

The rest of it is fine if stating the obvious/sophomoric. I'd have like to have seen him take the interesting nuggets on fashion being political in nature and run with it (already well understood by fashion students but might deserve wider exposure).

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#130

Post by coolsunglasses »

esrauch wrote: post #123
coolsunglasses wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#1 is only partly correct insofar as some people that can be helped. Sociopathy is permanent and uncurable. It's also common among people with a criminal record. Sifting those out from otherwise lost but psychonormal individuals is not trivial.

There is still a very wide margin between the US prison system and a system that simply detains offenders.

Sure, but we should set realistic expectations on who can be rehabilitated and who cannot.

That's part of the intent (however misguided and misapplied) behind three strikes laws, the assumption is that repeat offenders are more representative of those that cannot be rehabilitated. Which isn't far from the truth, but we're not really rehabbing them at the moment.

Post reply on HN