Lets do the math: how many women ever existed? How many years did they were fertile? Then we know the number of ovum/eggs and so: the max number of humans that could have ever been. Right?
Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.
11–20 of 27 posts
Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen so far is in perfect http://www.lovepowerman.net http://www.lovepowerman.com
Don't just downvote it - flag it. Go here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488063 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488061 and click the "flag" link.
There seems to be more and more of this stuff lately.
Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.
#13Lets do the math: how many women ever existed? How many years did they were fertile? Then we know the number of ovum/eggs and so: the max number of humans that could have ever been. Right?
He's more likely referring to every possible human, which for instance would include every possible other sperm that could have fertilized your egg, in addition to all the opportunities to be pregnant that weren't taken. The numbers get so absurdly large so fast that it's inconceivable.
Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.
#14Lets do the math: how many women ever existed? How many years did they were fertile? Then we know the number of ovum/eggs and so: the max number of humans that could have ever been. Right?
He's more likely referring to every possible human, which for instance would include every possible other sperm that could have fertilized your egg, in addition to all the opportunities to be pregnant that weren't taken. The numbers get so absurdly large so fast that it's inconceivable.
Yes. You're right :-) That number would be astronomical
Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.
#15There's no rule that says two people can't, by simple coincidence, have exactly the same DNA, so the amount of unlucky people is actually infinite. Surprisingly meaningless statement from such a smart guy.
Smart? He mostly offers superficial pseudo science, which doesn't hold more profound investigation.
The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one is (as always) in the details. He sounds smart at first (many people could do the same; only very few are really smart though).
He's the perfect guy to mislead you in any wrong direction, if you simply "eat" all of his "science". To me, he's the typical representation of someone able to shout out loud and successfully, without really saying anything really scientific.
You have to be scientific, not only sound so. And, science is not absolute -- nothing is absolute -- but he puts science in an absolute position, which is simply not scientific, but already his religion...
Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.
#16There's no rule that says two people can't, by simple coincidence, have exactly the same DNA, so the amount of unlucky people is actually infinite. Surprisingly meaningless statement from such a smart guy.
Smart? He mostly offers superficial pseudo science, which doesn't hold more profound investigation. The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one is (as always) in the details . He sounds smart at first (many people could do the same; only very few are really smart though). He's the perfect guy to mislead you in any wrong direction, if you simply "eat" all of his "science". To me, he's the typica…
> He mostly offers superficial pseudo science
What do you mean by this? Are you claiming his work in evolutionary biology is pseudo-science? What part of it? Or are you just angry that he doesn't believe in god and isn't afraid to say so?
> The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one
Are you claiming he is a pseudo-scientists or a mediocre scientist?
> To me, he's the typical representation of someone able to shout out loud
What is he shouting about? In my experiences with his writing and speech he makes clear, persuasive arguments which make specific, disprovable claims.
You have made extremely strong claims about a respected scientist and provided nothing but your much derided shouting to back it up.
Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.
#17There's no rule that says two people can't, by simple coincidence, have exactly the same DNA, so the amount of unlucky people is actually infinite. Surprisingly meaningless statement from such a smart guy.
Smart? He mostly offers superficial pseudo science, which doesn't hold more profound investigation. The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one is (as always) in the details . He sounds smart at first (many people could do the same; only very few are really smart though). He's the perfect guy to mislead you in any wrong direction, if you simply "eat" all of his "science". To me, he's the typica…
Now I am not the biggest Dawkins fan (I think he is abit of a science zealot - which has it's place but is still uncomfortable) but you're being unfair.
He is at least soundly scientific; especially in evolutionary biology.
He may dress it up in fancy words, sure.
Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.
#18Out of all the possible combinations of human DNA, I wonder what the "perfect" human individual would look like.
He or she is hiding there, somewhere, in the probability space of all possible combinations.
Must be lonely.
Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.
#19Richard Dawkins' faithful optimism has always bothered me. Even if our species is so special, how does that make us, the individuals, lucky? What good does it do us?
Jim Crawford says it better than I: http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/02/richard-dawkins-bli... and so does David Benatar: http://vorosh.blogspot.com/2008/03/optimism-delusion.html
Re: Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.
#20There's no rule that says two people can't, by simple coincidence, have exactly the same DNA, so the amount of unlucky people is actually infinite. Surprisingly meaningless statement from such a smart guy.
Smart? He mostly offers superficial pseudo science, which doesn't hold more profound investigation. The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one is (as always) in the details . He sounds smart at first (many people could do the same; only very few are really smart though). He's the perfect guy to mislead you in any wrong direction, if you simply "eat" all of his "science". To me, he's the typica…
:-) Wow. This is hysterical and wildly inaccurate. Dawkins has numerous academic papers. 'The Selfish Gene' (which was praised by W D Hamilton--one the great biologists of our times) is a great introduction to genetics, a wonderful and proper science.