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

100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

modeledbehavior.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 140 posts

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#31

Post by gaius »

ErrantX wrote: post #8

I always find it interesting that sci-fi depictions of "evolved" humans (i.e. many years in the future) usually depict very tall, thin - even willowy - figures. That seems to fly in the face of general trend :)

One thing that's always bemused me about scifi is future superhumans adapted for ultimate survival (e.g. the Nietzscheans in Andromeda) are tall, muscular, lean, brave, intelligent, etc.

Whereas for survival, you want humans that are small (so they need less food), weak because they have slow metabolisms, hairy to keep the heat in, fat because they are good at storing food in case of famine, cowardly so they avoid risk at any cost, dumb so they just repeat procedures that are known to work, and so on.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#32

Post by adrianwaj »

I had to call the US last night for webhost support (this host needed a call to cancel a domain from being hosted, and an email to add a new one - a paper trail), and as she had to pause between sentences for labored breath, it was then that I felt a little bit sorry for her, but at least she was employed. That was my trip to the circus.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#33

Post by cema »

gaius wrote: post #31
ErrantX wrote: post #8

I always find it interesting that sci-fi depictions of "evolved" humans (i.e. many years in the future) usually depict very tall, thin - even willowy - figures. That seems to fly in the face of general trend :)

One thing that's always bemused me about scifi is future superhumans adapted for ultimate survival (e.g. the Nietzscheans in Andromeda) are tall, muscular, lean, brave, intelligent, etc. Whereas for survival, you want humans that are small (so they need less food), weak because they have slow metabolisms, hairy to keep the heat in, fat because they are good at storing food in case of famine, cowardly so they avoid ri…

You don't want them dumb: adaptability is paramount for evolution. Smart people are more adaptable.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#34

Post by josefresco »

100 years ago you had to visit the traveling circus to see a fat person.

Now we just turn on the television and turn to TLC or Discovery Channel to see the same thing.

What exactly has changed besides the technology? Any good circus promoter or television producer will find a fatter guy than the last fat guy.

I get it, we're all fatter today, but I don't believe this example proves anything.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#35

Post by DrSprout »

gaius wrote: post #31
ErrantX wrote: post #8

I always find it interesting that sci-fi depictions of "evolved" humans (i.e. many years in the future) usually depict very tall, thin - even willowy - figures. That seems to fly in the face of general trend :)

One thing that's always bemused me about scifi is future superhumans adapted for ultimate survival (e.g. the Nietzscheans in Andromeda) are tall, muscular, lean, brave, intelligent, etc. Whereas for survival, you want humans that are small (so they need less food), weak because they have slow metabolisms, hairy to keep the heat in, fat because they are good at storing food in case of famine, cowardly so they avoid ri…

You're at least partially confusing individual survivability with group survivability. Absolute cowardice, while beneficial to an individual, is ultimately so problematic for the group that it will result in everyone's death.

Dumbly repeating procedures that are known to work without analysis will not only cause stagnation, but also likely cause industrial and environmental collapse unless a system is so tightly controlled that it is impossible for any procedure to lose effectiveness. And unless technological improvement is impossible, this is clearly a suboptimal survival strategy, as survivability may not be improved.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#36

Post by tjogin »

josefresco wrote: post #34

100 years ago you had to visit the traveling circus to see a fat person. Now we just turn on the television and turn to TLC or Discovery Channel to see the same thing. What exactly has changed besides the technology? Any good circus promoter or television producer will find a fatter guy than the last fat guy. I get it, we're all fatter today, but I don't believe this example proves anything.

You don't need technology to see what was then considered "freakishly" obese, today. You can just go to any public place. Technology has nothing to do with it.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#37

Post by tjogin »

hackermom wrote: post #14
CoryMathews wrote: post #2

Sadly hes probably just over normal now.

In Europe, and Scandinavia in particular, that man would sit at a point way, way beyond anything defined as normal or even plump.

True, here he would still turn heads.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#38

Post by fugue88 »

david927 wrote: post #30
dkimball wrote: post #15

So, 100 years ago, this kind of weight was sideshow-worthy (and remember the other things one would see in a circus sideshow...); today, it wouldn't turn heads on a subway. However: the US has become _more_ health-conscious in the past 100 years, not less. We must have something wrong, if concern for exercise and good nutrition goes hand-in-hand with this kind of obesity. I think this is due, at least in part, to the…

The US has become more health-conscious but also, in the last 50 years, has began to be exploited by manufacturers. Note, this person would be shocking still in Europe. Chemicals and corn by-products are stuffed everywhere in American products. Even in crazy places like maple syrup and ketchup. I went back to the States at Christmas and we went to an upscale grocery store, yet my wife couldn't find almost anything (y…

Corn products are stuffed into maple syrup? I think you got that backwards: we stuff a little flavoring into corn syrup and then call it maple!

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#39

Post by gort »

DrSprout wrote: post #35
gaius wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that's always bemused me about scifi is future superhumans adapted for ultimate survival (e.g. the Nietzscheans in Andromeda) are tall, muscular, lean, brave, intelligent, etc. Whereas for survival, you want humans that are small (so they need less food), weak because they have slow metabolisms, hairy to keep the heat in, fat because they are good at storing food in case of famine, cowardly so they avoid ri…

You're at least partially confusing individual survivability with group survivability. Absolute cowardice, while beneficial to an individual, is ultimately so problematic for the group that it will result in everyone's death. Dumbly repeating procedures that are known to work without analysis will not only cause stagnation, but also likely cause industrial and environmental collapse unless a system is so tightly cont…

"Absolute cowardice, while beneficial to an individual"

If this were actually true then evolution would go ahead and make everyone absolutely cowardly. Evolution works because traits that are helpful to an individual become more common; because the individuals with those traits reproduce more. Nothing stops evolution going down paths that are bad for the species.

(Of course, if it gets so bad that the species goes extinct then we simply won't see that species any more. But nothing prevents this from happening.)

It isn't actually true though: risks have their rewards.

Re: 100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.

#40

Post by jerf »

gort wrote: post #39
DrSprout wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're at least partially confusing individual survivability with group survivability. Absolute cowardice, while beneficial to an individual, is ultimately so problematic for the group that it will result in everyone's death. Dumbly repeating procedures that are known to work without analysis will not only cause stagnation, but also likely cause industrial and environmental collapse unless a system is so tightly cont…

"Absolute cowardice, while beneficial to an individual" If this were actually true then evolution would go ahead and make everyone absolutely cowardly. Evolution works because traits that are helpful to an individual become more common; because the individuals with those traits reproduce more. Nothing stops evolution going down paths that are bad for the species. (Of course, if it gets so bad that the species goes ex…

You need to spend some more time with evolutionary theory. Populations do indeed evolve along with individuals. You own message explains why; there are selection pressures at the population level as well. See also animals that are always found in communities, like ants or humans. It's not either/or. It never is with evolutionary theory.
Post reply on HN