Is There Anything Good About Men? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#201

Post by arvinjoar » Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 9:58 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #137

lkrubner wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Since Dawkins became fashionable I am curious why people keep taking this attitude to Dawkins. And Dawkins himself was also curious why people had this reaction to his books. In his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, he says: "We can rise above our genes, indeed, we do every time we use contraceptives." As he makes clear, several times, in the book, our evolution allows a range of behavior that allows for more than simplis…

I am curious why people keep taking this attitude to Dawkins. And Dawkins himself was also curious why people had this reaction to his books. Well perhaps both you and Dawkins are naive - or perhaps only you are... It should be rather obvious that ninety percent of the impact any book or idea system is the elevator pitch. The elevator pitch for Dawkin is "we are controlled by our (selfish) genes". If Dawkins includes…

A scientist shouldn't be defined by those who misinterpret him/her.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#202

Post by chakde » Sun, Jul 17, 2011, 12:41 AM UTC

nagrom wrote: post #193

chakde wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. yes it's not the sole cause. the bigger cause perhaps was the discovery of the americas - an entire continent almost the size of asia lying undiscovered right next to the europeans for 15000 years since the last ice age, until Islam's kick led the europeans to search for new routes to India, ultimately leading to the discovery of the Americas. with a discovery like that anyone can become powerful if they put their…

1. The search for new routes to the Far East was as much due to political pressures in Europe as it was to any Islamic interference. The British didn't 'resort to colonialism to build their way to modernity.' At that time, Britain defined modernity in a way to which no other country has come close since. Colonialism wasn't nice or good, but implying that the Brits alone relied on it to keep up with the rest of the wo…

It's not the discovery of america, it's the fact that India was actively deindustrialized by the British railways which had a negative feedback loop on Indian industry, whereas in America the railways had a positive feedback loop in manufacturing. It's not that America is ahead but that India was cut down. Also you can read up on internal tarrifs in India which were deliberate British policy to kill the market of goods produced in India, not the doing of one or two men like Clive or Hastings.

Let me close my argument by asking you to read a document that warned of British intentions to the Americans just before the American revolution - Common Sense by Thomas Paine. All the things he warned America about the British crown came true for India, whereas America which was also not united at the time - there were more loyalists than revolutionaries and many different colonies - got the warning in time and got its unity and independance early on. India was not so lucky and did not discern the threat or receive this kind of explicit warning and suffered for it.

There's no bias there, I am clearly stating facts from the Indian perspective not some utilitarian world good perspective. In case you believe in that perspective, the question to you is why America chose not to continue being a British colony.

As far as unity argument, like I said the history of the time has to be examined carefully and it turns out to be false as far as British intentions and actions went. Churchill said was no more a country than the equator for example. Also why UK been so opposed to EU and unification in its own backyard.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#203

Post by chakde » Sun, Jul 17, 2011, 12:43 AM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #192

chakde wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are entire generations of british historians since WW2 dedicated to the PR propaganda of how good the british were for the colonies and until very recently the western opinion has been entirely shaped by this propaganda - almost any book written by a British historian of which you'll find countless in your library have the same basic point of view. Opposing viewpoints are not hard to find if you actually take t…

Ok, Islam and Christianity I'll buy, but exactly what harm do you figure Judaism has done to the people of India?

None at all.

But the whole fascination with idol and temple breaking which Indians can't fathom about Islam turns out to have its origins in the Judaic story of the golden calf.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#204

Post by EGreg » Sun, Jul 17, 2011, 1:20 AM UTC

tel wrote: post #180

EGreg wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think saying "evolution theory" is very vague. There is the theory of common descent. That is what is being supported here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ But claiming that mutation and natural selection alone explains ALL speciation and ALL behavior that we observe today is just a simplistic position, almost an article of faith. How do you know there is no other factor involved? How do you know no other…

No on many counts. Evolution theory is an umbrella term for a number of predictions including common descent, mutation, natural selection which is sufficient in theory and observation to create genetic and then physical changes in a population. We have observed macro evolution countless times in bacteria and viruses. It's not even difficult. I'm not sure why you'd call Evolution a loaded term in a scientific domain.…

1) re evolution: when I say it's a "loaded" term, it's because it is sometimes by people who seem to make the additional assumption that mutation and natural selection are sufficient to produce the results we see today. I think that assumption is unfounded and seems to be more like a wish to keep things simple. I don't for example see how gay people could be genetically predisposed to be gay, since they would have a reproductive fitness level far lower than others. But that's not even the biggest thing. Little mechanisms which could hardly make a difference in survival one way or the other are doing an amazing job. Maybe it's sexual selection. But where is the evidence that all that we see around us was produced with simple mutation and natural selection?

Regarding bacteria and viruses: that's micro-evolution, isn't it? Why is it macroevolution?

2) Regarding the BBT: so why do people think there was a "big bang" and talk about the "first few seconds of the universe" if the universe is probably infinite, and it is only the visible universe that we see expanding?

3) I don't know, I'm not a physicist... seemed like an intriguing way to think about the expansion though

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#205

Post by nkassis » Sun, Jul 17, 2011, 1:23 AM UTC

mannicken wrote: post #200

saturn wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your example, though "dumbed down", makes no sense to me at all. What is a pet? It's a subordinate part of a larger whole. I would submit that the vast majority of men meet this description, where society is the larger group. Society demands a man gets out of bed and goes to work; against his sleeping instinct, man complies. > a pure animalistic instinct of rage I would like to think that my annoyance that good argum…

>Society demands a man gets out of bed and goes to work; against his sleeping instinct, man complies. The only case where society actually does demand a man to get out of bed is jail. Usually, a man gets out of bed not because he is dragged out like a pet but because society offers something in return -- employment, company, money, food, purpose, etc. He can stay in his bed if he really wants to, or he can choose a m…

I like this example about the man and work.

Why does the man find value in what work gives him in return? Because he feels he needs those things, he can still make the choice not to get them but why would have this choice in the first place, why do those things appeal to him?

The same as how a dog will choose to jump when you train him to expect treats, he could just ignore it but someone he'll do it because treats taste good. Why they taste good is I believe something that is honed by evolution. (Same as how we like things with Fat in it. Fatty stuff taste good for a reason.)

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#206

Post by wvoq » Sun, Jul 17, 2011, 2:45 AM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #194

saturn wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A meaningless platitude.

Actually, it's a perfectly reasonable statement. That which truly proves anything would be able to prove a statement and its own converse, creating a contradiction. Evolution, of course, is true, but that doesn't mean that everyone who tries to claim that X is an effect of evolution is correct. There are other causes for things, after all and people are right to be wary of easy explanations trotted out without any di…

  converse

Negation. There are plenty of true conditional statements whose converses are also true.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#207

Post by chakde » Sun, Jul 17, 2011, 3:11 AM UTC

nagrom wrote: post #193

chakde wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. yes it's not the sole cause. the bigger cause perhaps was the discovery of the americas - an entire continent almost the size of asia lying undiscovered right next to the europeans for 15000 years since the last ice age, until Islam's kick led the europeans to search for new routes to India, ultimately leading to the discovery of the Americas. with a discovery like that anyone can become powerful if they put their…

1. The search for new routes to the Far East was as much due to political pressures in Europe as it was to any Islamic interference. The British didn't 'resort to colonialism to build their way to modernity.' At that time, Britain defined modernity in a way to which no other country has come close since. Colonialism wasn't nice or good, but implying that the Brits alone relied on it to keep up with the rest of the wo…

Re: most benevolent structure ever to have existed

here's a reference on internal tariffs from R.C.Dutt since it is very hard to locate online.

"The transit duties became more oppressive under the British Rule than they had been under the Nawabs. For the Company's power was more far- reaching, absolute, and undisputed, and each low- paid officer, at each Chowki or toll-house, had the means of exercising greater oppression. The evil grew without cessation for sixty years, and as late as 1825, Holt Mackenzie, then Territorial Secretary, condemned it in the strongest terms. " ..

"But Holt Mackenzie spoke to deaf ears. The East India Company would not willingly sacrifice even a re- venue of ;!{^2 2 0,000, or any portion of it, for the prosperity of the internal trade of India. Professing the utmost anxiety for the material welfare of the people of India, they were unwilling to sacrifice a shilling to promote that welfare. If the abolition of the Inland Duties had depended on the East India Company, the duties would never have been abolished under their administration. "

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#208

Post by burgerbrain » Sun, Jul 17, 2011, 5:46 AM UTC

chakde wrote: post #203

burgerbrain wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, Islam and Christianity I'll buy, but exactly what harm do you figure Judaism has done to the people of India?

None at all. But the whole fascination with idol and temple breaking which Indians can't fathom about Islam turns out to have its origins in the Judaic story of the golden calf.

The blame for that lies only on those who believe and act on the stories, not those who wrote them.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#209

Post by naveens » Sun, Jul 17, 2011, 5:58 AM UTC

nagrom wrote: post #193

chakde wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. yes it's not the sole cause. the bigger cause perhaps was the discovery of the americas - an entire continent almost the size of asia lying undiscovered right next to the europeans for 15000 years since the last ice age, until Islam's kick led the europeans to search for new routes to India, ultimately leading to the discovery of the Americas. with a discovery like that anyone can become powerful if they put their…

1. The search for new routes to the Far East was as much due to political pressures in Europe as it was to any Islamic interference. The British didn't 'resort to colonialism to build their way to modernity.' At that time, Britain defined modernity in a way to which no other country has come close since. Colonialism wasn't nice or good, but implying that the Brits alone relied on it to keep up with the rest of the wo…

>2. When the Brits found India, it was fragmented into several different princedoms and cities. To say that it was in any sense united is misleading - before the Brits got there and for a time while the Brits were there, wars between neighboring sultanates and empires were commonplace.

What do you think happened between when they landed and when they left? They landed as traders; they took sides between the warring kingdoms and sultanates for access to markets. They just played on the differences for their own gains - divide and rule. Read about the Partition of Bengal. This was the modus operandi of the empire everywhere: hindu v muslims in India, catholics v protestants in Ireland, muslims v jews in Palestine.

>When they left, they left a united India. Those are just cold hard facts that cannot be argued with - India may have been politically united in 300BC, but it sure as hell wasn't in 1700. At the bitter end, if the Brits had really, really wanted to leave India divided, it would not have been a difficult thing to accomplish.

Well they did not try to leave it united. The British never had direct control over all of India. Many regions were under direct rule, many still under princes. It was the Indian political will, after independence (and after the India-Pakistan partition), which united India in to a whole. India did not become a Republic until 1950.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#210

Post by chakde » Sun, Jul 17, 2011, 9:59 AM UTC

olalonde wrote: post #119

lionhearted wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To make a long story really short, the British did ridiculous amounts of good in their colonies. is VERY simplistic. No, it's not. By pretty much any reasonable metric, the British Empire has contributed more net good to humanity than any other nation in history. Plenty of bad, too. But overwhelmingly more good than bad. Much of the good is taken for granted until you realize all the mess they cleaned up that isn't…

> By pretty much any reasonable metric, the British Empire has contributed more net good to humanity than any other nation in history. From an utilitarian point of view, correct.

The greatest good for the smallest number ?