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

Out of Africa's midlife crisis

razib.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Out of Africa's midlife crisis

#41

Post by rayiner »

selimthegrim wrote: post #30
bsanr2 wrote: post #5

On an extremely tangential note: I wish we would stop using the term, "Sub-Saharan." The semantic quandaries should be obvious, but it also subscribes to a curious linguistic glitch of putting the North and South into a hierarchy that only exists if you are rather incurious about the ambiguity of geographic perspective (see: the infamous "upside down" Gall-Peters projection for some mind-blowey fun). I would personal…

I’ve never heard anyone from the Indian subcontinent complain about this.

That’s because they don’t know it’s a dog whistle for “sub-human continent.” /s

Re: Out of Africa's midlife crisis

#42

Post by throwaway894345 »

bsanr2 wrote: post #23
throwaway894345 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting aside the absurd nitpick on the "Sub-" prefix (everyone understands that this refers to "South" and not some position on a hierarchy). > (riffing on Asia Minor and referring to the fact that that part of the continent is, in fact, a majority of its landmass). Isn't Asia Minor a bit more than half of Turkey? It's certainly not a majority of all of Asia...

>Putting aside the absurd nitpick on the "Sub-" prefix (everyone understands that this refers to "South" and not some position on a hierarchy). Is it absurd? Do they understand? Can you show me how you know this? >Isn't Asia Minor a bit more than half of Turkey? It's certainly not a majority of all of Asia... Sorry, I can see where I was unclear. I was referring to Africa.

> Is it absurd? Do they understand? Can you show me how you know this?

It is absurd, they do understand, and I know it because I'm a native English speaker and I've never been in a conversation where anyone was confused by the term nor even in which someone bothered to clarify that they didn't mean to imply a hierarchy. I'm sure you're going to understand that this is satisfactory evidence and not resort to some sort of "BuT Do YoU kNoW eVeRy SiNgLe PeRsOn On ThE PlAnEt?!" nonsense.

> Sorry, I can see where I was unclear. I was referring to Africa.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. That makes sense.

Re: Out of Africa's midlife crisis

#43

Post by TimonKnigge »

I'm curious if this genetic diversity is just something that shows up as a number on a computer, or does it translate into something phenotypically* visible?

Also, how much of, say, our medical/biological knowledge actually only applies to the descendants of the bottleneck mentioned in the post? I understand the "very diverse" in the article have better things to do than be subjected to researchers, but reading the article I can't help but be curious what this genetic diversity means in practice?

*) not necessarily visually

Re: Out of Africa's midlife crisis

#44

Post by bsanr2 »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #42
bsanr2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Putting aside the absurd nitpick on the "Sub-" prefix (everyone understands that this refers to "South" and not some position on a hierarchy). Is it absurd? Do they understand? Can you show me how you know this? >Isn't Asia Minor a bit more than half of Turkey? It's certainly not a majority of all of Asia... Sorry, I can see where I was unclear. I was referring to Africa.

> Is it absurd? Do they understand? Can you show me how you know this? It is absurd, they do understand, and I know it because I'm a native English speaker and I've never been in a conversation where anyone was confused by the term nor even in which someone bothered to clarify that they didn't mean to imply a hierarchy. I'm sure you're going to understand that this is satisfactory evidence and not resort to some sort…

>It is absurd.

Again, how so? The two connotations are not mutually exclusive.

If the goal is to avoid implying a hierarchy, why not change to a term that has no connection to hierarchy?

Re: Out of Africa's midlife crisis

#45

Post by throwaway894345 »

bsanr2 wrote: post #44
throwaway894345 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it absurd? Do they understand? Can you show me how you know this? It is absurd, they do understand, and I know it because I'm a native English speaker and I've never been in a conversation where anyone was confused by the term nor even in which someone bothered to clarify that they didn't mean to imply a hierarchy. I'm sure you're going to understand that this is satisfactory evidence and not resort to some sort…

>It is absurd. Again, how so? The two connotations are not mutually exclusive. If the goal is to avoid implying a hierarchy, why not change to a term that has no connection to hierarchy?

Because there's no indication that it causes confusion for anyone except, perhaps, you. There is a lot more ambiguity in English than this and we don't put aside all of our other problems to deal with this. Anyway, these kind of semantic debates are the most boring, dull, tedious things I can think of (see also the people who think we need to replace "latinos" with "latinxs") so I'm going to entertain myself with anything else besides this thread.

Re: Out of Africa's midlife crisis

#46

Post by BitwiseFool »

bsanr2 wrote: post #37
BitwiseFool wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't even get me started on the Prime Meridian. It's even more problematic than North being 'up' and South being 'down'! /s

People seem really upset at the notion. Even you can't seem to engage with it as anything but a farce. I have to wonder why. I'm just going to start calling it Super-Saharan Africa. When people point out the issue on their map, I'll just flip it 180°. Google Maps conveniently reorients text. The real fun begins when you decide to make longitude the horizontal aspect. Is it Dexterous Africa or Sinister Africa?

>"Even you can't seem to engage with it as anything but a farce. I have to wonder why."

No need to wonder, it's because I see it as a farce. The idea that the top / bottom aspect is something that needs to be re-evaluated because it implies hierarchy is something so inconsequential that I just can't bring myself to take it seriously. And, if you really wanted to flip the hierarchy then you've got the same 'problem' just in reverse.

I know you really want to change the way people think but adopting the term "Super-Saharan Africa" is just going to make you look strange. I guarantee you no one will think "oh, this person means the southern part of Africa, but from the reference point of the equator to the South Pole." They're going to think "Wait what? A bigger Sahara? Desertification? What?"

Re: Out of Africa's midlife crisis

#47

Post by bsanr2 »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #46
bsanr2 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People seem really upset at the notion. Even you can't seem to engage with it as anything but a farce. I have to wonder why. I'm just going to start calling it Super-Saharan Africa. When people point out the issue on their map, I'll just flip it 180°. Google Maps conveniently reorients text. The real fun begins when you decide to make longitude the horizontal aspect. Is it Dexterous Africa or Sinister Africa?

>"Even you can't seem to engage with it as anything but a farce. I have to wonder why." No need to wonder, it's because I see it as a farce. The idea that the top / bottom aspect is something that needs to be re-evaluated because it implies hierarchy is something so inconsequential that I just can't bring myself to take it seriously. And, if you really wanted to flip the hierarchy then you've got the same 'problem' j…

"Super-Saharan Africa" was a joke, meant to draw attention to the farce of this associative naming convention in general. Hence "Left Africa" and "Right Africa". :)

Now, I'll ask you to take it seriously. If it's not a matter of concern for you, but it is for me, it would seem most fair to address my concern (since it's apparenty beneath your care). But if you do care, I'm happy to have that conversation. As stated, I would like to remove hierarchy (or the connotation of hierarchy) from the terminology altogether, and more explicitly refer to directionality. If you disagree with this course, please say why (beyond, "It shouldn't matter," because at this point we'd have agreed that it does).

Re: Out of Africa's midlife crisis

#48

Post by bsanr2 »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #45
bsanr2 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is absurd. Again, how so? The two connotations are not mutually exclusive. If the goal is to avoid implying a hierarchy, why not change to a term that has no connection to hierarchy?

Because there's no indication that it causes confusion for anyone except, perhaps, you. There is a lot more ambiguity in English than this and we don't put aside all of our other problems to deal with this. Anyway, these kind of semantic debates are the most boring, dull, tedious things I can think of (see also the people who think we need to replace "latinos" with "latinxs") so I'm going to entertain myself with any…

I never held that it causes confusion. The duplicity of meaning is probably, in fact, a bonus for some. I don't like that duplicity. I would rather the terminology be unambiguous and direct, if it is possible (and, in this case, it is).

Re: Out of Africa's midlife crisis

#49

Post by BitwiseFool »

bsanr2 wrote: post #47
BitwiseFool wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Even you can't seem to engage with it as anything but a farce. I have to wonder why." No need to wonder, it's because I see it as a farce. The idea that the top / bottom aspect is something that needs to be re-evaluated because it implies hierarchy is something so inconsequential that I just can't bring myself to take it seriously. And, if you really wanted to flip the hierarchy then you've got the same 'problem' j…

"Super-Saharan Africa" was a joke, meant to draw attention to the farce of this associative naming convention in general. Hence "Left Africa" and "Right Africa". :) Now, I'll ask you to take it seriously. If it's not a matter of concern for you, but it is for me, it would seem most fair to address my concern (since it's apparenty beneath your care). But if you do care, I'm happy to have that conversation. As stated,…

I'm going to be honest and say that I'm reluctant to get into a debate with you on this. Simply put, I already know we aren't going to change anyone's mind on this subject.

I will say this, it is perfectly fine to worry about hierarchical structures and the impacts they have on people. But the mere existence or implication of hierarchy is not a problem in-and-of itself. Especially in this context, where I am certain the impact of North being considered 'up' and South being considered 'down' has not materially harmed anyone living down under. I also see no evidence that this paradigm/convention is actually harmful. Only speculation that it could be, in an indirect way, and for reasons I don't find compelling.

I'm also concerned that we're going to slip into one of the least productive kinds of argument, trying to define, redefine, and shift the meaning of words. So I'd like to avoid all of this and let bygones be bygones.

Post reply on HN