Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi • Hacker News Board

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#51

Post by lisper » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 4:04 PM UTC

mempko wrote: post #46

lisper wrote: post #17

> a return to our most natural, basic state, which is the law of love I'm sorry, but this is hopelessly naive. All living things are the products of evolution, and hence competition and the drawing of boundaries between "us" and "them" (i.e. between the phenotype of the reproducing genome and the environment that is used to provide the resources to reproduce) is an inherent part of all life. To be sure, cooperation c…

> and hence competition I don't think you understand evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with competition. If the environment is setup such that all beings get 'the prize', which is possible in environments of abundance, then there really is no competition. We as humans have advanced such that we typically can survive every environment. And this is because of technology AND society. We have created for ourselves a…

It is you who do not understand evolution, though you are hardly alone in this. I suggest you read "The Selfish Gene." The inherent competition in evolution is not among individuals, it is among alleles.

> which is possible in environments of abundance

Sure, but environments of abundance do not occur naturally. The natural state is for exponential growth to continue until resource pressure limits it, which is to say, until abundance ends. (This is because, in nature, alleles that reproduce exponentially always out-compete those that don't.)

Yes, we can produce abundance, which in turn can produce peace. But that's an artificial process, not a natural one.

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#52

Post by lisper » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 4:07 PM UTC

s_baby wrote: post #32

lisper wrote: post #17

> a return to our most natural, basic state, which is the law of love I'm sorry, but this is hopelessly naive. All living things are the products of evolution, and hence competition and the drawing of boundaries between "us" and "them" (i.e. between the phenotype of the reproducing genome and the environment that is used to provide the resources to reproduce) is an inherent part of all life. To be sure, cooperation c…

>To be sure, cooperation can be beneficial to survival, but there is nothing in the laws of physics that insures that the cooperative boundary should be the entirety of one's own species. Nothing in physics but there is a clear trend over time towards more inclusive "us" groups. Humans started off as tribal groups of 50 joined together by blood. Then groups of millions bound together by a common belief system. Which…

Yes, indeed, and this is a very hopeful trend. But cities are not a "natural state" from which humans have departed and to which we can "return". They are the very definition of artificial.

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#53

Post by thelark » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 5:22 PM UTC

krick wrote: post #20

thelark wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah, I should read Tolstoy. I had no idea he was into this stuff. I've recently been rediscovering Jesus from a new perspective, having grown up with a typical American Christianity and abandoned it as a teenager. I've been finding that a lot of people from all kinds of backgrounds see the Jesus story and "Christianity" from this other perspective, where his teachings are universal and very subversive as you describ…

Actually this topic is kind of signature for Tolstoy. There's even a special word for that: "толстовство"[1]. On the other hand, the word "толстовство" and especially "толстовец" (that is somebody, who is participating in Tolstoyan movement) has somewhat derogatory connotation in Russian today. Not without a reason, I guess. Many have been noticing that Tolstoy is kind of a "poser" and often his words contradict his…

Thanks for the info. I still think it's interesting, given how popular / famous Tolstoy is, and I'll probably read some of his stuff just to be able to talk about it.

But yeah, I do find it most inspiring reading people whose lives actually _do_ reflect these truths in obvious ways.

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#54

Post by jugad » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 5:53 PM UTC

codeshaman wrote: post #12

Almost by accident I started reading 'The kingdom of God is within you' by Tolstoy a couple of months ago. I haven't read anything by Tolstoy before. And boy, was I in for a surprise. It was a very powerful and inspiring book. Being very fond of the counterculture, the hippy movement, free society, open source, tech anarchy, etc - I was very surprised to see him talking about these concepts with such clarity back the…

Its Gandhi ( not Ghandi ).

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#55

Post by known » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 6:20 PM UTC

Fasting/roaming half-naked in streets are cheap tools/tricks used by Gandhi to INSULT (not defeat) British;

British generosity?

Otherwise in Independent India protesters are thrashed/thrown in jail;

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#56

Post by s_baby » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 7:18 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #52

s_baby wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To be sure, cooperation can be beneficial to survival, but there is nothing in the laws of physics that insures that the cooperative boundary should be the entirety of one's own species. Nothing in physics but there is a clear trend over time towards more inclusive "us" groups. Humans started off as tribal groups of 50 joined together by blood. Then groups of millions bound together by a common belief system. Which…

Yes, indeed, and this is a very hopeful trend. But cities are not a "natural state" from which humans have departed and to which we can "return". They are the very definition of artificial.

I don't see anything artificial about what humans do. Everything we do is moulded by billion(s) of years of evolution.

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#57

Post by lisper » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 7:32 PM UTC

s_baby wrote: post #56

lisper wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, indeed, and this is a very hopeful trend. But cities are not a "natural state" from which humans have departed and to which we can "return". They are the very definition of artificial.

I don't see anything artificial about what humans do. Everything we do is moulded by billion(s) of years of evolution.

What do you think artificial means? Here, I'll help you:

"made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally"

Artificial may be considered a proper subset of "natural", but what humans do is different enough from what the rest of nature does that it's useful to distinguish between those things that exist because we humans put our effort into making them exist and those things that exist without our help. Cities are in the former category.

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#58

Post by joehilton » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 8:29 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #57

s_baby wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything artificial about what humans do. Everything we do is moulded by billion(s) of years of evolution.

What do you think artificial means ? Here, I'll help you: "made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally" Artificial may be considered a proper subset of "natural", but what humans do is different enough from what the rest of nature does that it's useful to distinguish between those things that exist because we humans put our effort into making them exist and those things that exist without our hel…

This sounds like splitting hairs over semantics because applying that definition of artificial in this context is circular: all things humans do are artificial because artificial is defined as things humans do.

Humans gather at residential centers with populations in the millions, yeah, so do ants. Are we going to call that antificial?

The underlying point is that human beings have natural proclivities toward certain positive/healthy/beneficial behaviors, regardless of whether or not those behaviors occur spontaneously. This principle probably pervades nature beyond humanity, but Tolstoy's point is that only humans recognize this, and some deliberately place themselves in opposition.

Not matter what we call the words, I believe Tolstoy (and Ganhi, and Jesus, and the people replying to this post) are correct: the only way to succeed as civilization, whether it means ending violence or even just eliminating wealth gaps, is to recognize and develop love for one another.

Great insights.

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#59

Post by lisper » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 9:18 PM UTC

joehilton wrote: post #58

lisper wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think artificial means ? Here, I'll help you: "made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally" Artificial may be considered a proper subset of "natural", but what humans do is different enough from what the rest of nature does that it's useful to distinguish between those things that exist because we humans put our effort into making them exist and those things that exist without our hel…

This sounds like splitting hairs over semantics because applying that definition of artificial in this context is circular: all things humans do are artificial because artificial is defined as things humans do. Humans gather at residential centers with populations in the millions, yeah, so do ants. Are we going to call that antificial? The underlying point is that human beings have natural proclivities toward certain…

Seriously? You cannot discern the qualitative differences between human social interactions and ant social interactions?

Gathering in groups is natural. Doing it in residential centers full of buildings that have right angles in their construction and flush toilets and electrical outlets and internet connections is artificial.

> the only way to succeed as civilization, whether it means ending violence or even just eliminating wealth gaps, is to recognize and develop love for one another

Love? How about just respect?

But it doesn't matter what label you attach to it. I agree that the only way to achieve peace is to reach some state of mind, and I don't particularly care whether you call it "love" or "respect" or "nirvana" or the flying spaghetti monster. I don't want to quibble over terminology. What matters is that this state is not the natural order of things. Mankind has never been in this state, and so we cannot "return" to this state. What we have been doing is steadily making progress towards this state. But we have made this progress by mastering the laws of physics, not by denying them.

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#60

Post by kleer001 » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 11:20 PM UTC

verbin217 wrote: post #40

kleer001 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>deep intuitive wisdom. aka he pulled it out of thin air. The sooner we base long term plans on verified data instead of intuition the sooner we'll reduce needless suffering.

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." The Little Prince.

All woo-woo aside, ooshy gooshy feelings won't get us to the moon, cure cancer, decrease childhood diseases, or feed a billion people with the land usually used to only feed 10,000.