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

51–60 of 140 posts

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

#51

Post by timwiseman »

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…

Evolution works because traits that are helpful to an individual become more common; because the individuals with those traits reproduce more.

It depends on what you mean by helpful. If you mean helpful in helping them live longer, then it is patently false. Look at peacocks feathers as one famous example.

In any species which require two to reproduce, you also have to be able to attract a mate (generally mostly on the male side), and that may require bravery, willingness to make expensive displays of power, and all kinds of other things that may go against the best way for the individual to survive.

Similarly, in a species that produces few off spring, those members also need to help ensure the off spring survive. This may involve charging into fights you could have run from so your off spring can run, searching for far more food then you need for yourself possibly at great risk, etc. In short again other traits that may go against the individuals personal survival.

(edit: spelling)

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

#52

Post by btilly »

gort wrote: post #45
jerf wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Populations do indeed evolve along with individuals" Individuals don't evolve at all. Evolution is changes in gene frequency over time. What I think you're trying to talk about is macroevolution, where species that happen to have certain traits survive longer than other species. Sure, this sort of thing happens. But I was responding to the claim that "absolute cowardice [is] beneficial to an individual" and noting w…

What it looks like you're not paying sufficient attention to is that selection happens at the level of the gene, not the level of the individual.

It is absolutely not beneficial to the individual to put energy out to try to have sex, put energy into offspring, or to take risks for others. However all of those behaviors have tended to be beneficial for the genes that the individual has because the others who are helped are likely to have the genes producing that behavior. Therefore all of those behaviors have evolved notwithstanding the fact that they are inconvenient for individuals with those genes.

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

#53

Post by patrickgzill »

timwiseman wrote: post #50
SamAtt wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the fast food industry gives a false impression because they started out with fattening food. But all the current fast food places were founded a relatively short time ago (McDonalds: '55, Burger King: '53, KFC: '52, Taco Bell: '62, Pizza Hut: '58) and as they've evolved their menus have become healthier. Beyond that technology is paving the way for a less fattening diet. Diet…

* they've evolved their menus have become healthier.* Have you looked at the nutrition facts lately? Or seen the new commercials for KFC heart attack of two pieces of fried chicken with bacon and cheese in between? I wasn't around when the fast food places you mention were founded, but if this is the trend towards healthier then I am amazed people survived for any length of time after they emerged. (Granted, many hav…

Quarter Double Pounder with Cheese is is worse than the KFC Double Down, believe it or not!

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

#54

Post by btilly »

gfodor wrote: post #12
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 :)

Except in Wall-e

And Idiocracy.

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

#55

Post by derefr »

roc wrote: post #47
adamhowell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They got a lot of shit for it at the time, too. Every time I see everyone in a train or line looking down at their phones, I also can't help but think of Wall-e.

> " They got a lot of shit for it at the time, too. " A good deal of it very well-deserved. For a movie exposing the blind-alley of rampant consumerism, it was being sold via a dizzying array of Cheap Plastic Crap, much of it bundled with the very junk food the movie skewered.

Isn't that for the best, though? If you want to communicate a moral message, you should target it so the people most in need of it will consume it as part of their daily routine, instead of having to go out of their way to find it.

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

#57

Post by lmkg »

rauljara wrote: post #28
gcb wrote: post #19

so, Botticelli ladies were the photoshoped playmates of the time?

I had a Bangladeshi friend explain to me ~8 years ago that all the female Bangladeshi movie stars (not to be confused with Bollywood stars) were fat. For most of the population, being thin was a sign of not being able to afford much food, so fat women were the ideal. Just goes to show how subjective certain kinds of beauty are.

It's true in a lot of cultures. I know in pre-colonial Hawai'i, being huge was attractive. I hear it was true in parts of Africa, too. It's not true in the states just because the bar isn't that high to get 2-3k calories per day. I think it's generally true that standards of beauty follow whatever implies a higher standard of living. Look at America today: facial and hair complexion to show quality, not just quantity, of food; muscle tone and tan to show spare time out of a desk job doing exercise; and of course flamboyant displays of money, the ultimate objective measure of success.

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

#58

Post by eru »

gaius wrote: post #43
ganjianwei wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short of a disaster that pushes humankind to the brink of extinction, natural selection is likely to be based on traits of people who mate and reproduce. The more likely you are to mate and reproduce, the more likely the traits you have get passed on. It might be a logical leap but perhaps because of this, humans might evolve towards whatever is more attractive to other humans.

In that case evolution favours those too stupid to use a condom and too lazy to work.

See "Rich men do have more kids" (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/rich-men-do-have-...)

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

#59

Post by eru »

SamAtt wrote: post #48
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 :)

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the fast food industry gives a false impression because they started out with fattening food. But all the current fast food places were founded a relatively short time ago (McDonalds: '55, Burger King: '53, KFC: '52, Taco Bell: '62, Pizza Hut: '58) and as they've evolved their menus have become healthier. Beyond that technology is paving the way for a less fattening diet. Diet…

Anything with "diet" in the name is not automagically healthier.

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

#60

Post by roc »

derefr wrote: post #55
roc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " They got a lot of shit for it at the time, too. " A good deal of it very well-deserved. For a movie exposing the blind-alley of rampant consumerism, it was being sold via a dizzying array of Cheap Plastic Crap, much of it bundled with the very junk food the movie skewered.

Isn't that for the best, though? If you want to communicate a moral message, you should target it so the people most in need of it will consume it as part of their daily routine, instead of having to go out of their way to find it.

Do as I say, not as I do? Is that still a popular way to communicate moral messages?

Even coming from Disney in the first place the message came across as the old argument of a priest-of-past-sins being preferable to a priest-of-purity.

Post reply on HN