Hacker News Reader

Comment by adrusi | Hacker News Reader

You're only able to be lax about physical security because institutions take care of it for you. Your taxes go to police, FBI, military. You keep your money in a bank, and the bank spends money on security. If people stopped keeping their money in banks and started storing it in their homes, the incentive for burglary would go up in your area.

I also assume you don't live in a dense city. Even in a utopia you couldn't have perfect safety without investing in security: some people are going to commit crimes and violate property just for fun, and when there's a lot of people in one area, that becomes a concern.

There has never in history been a time when people can be secure without investing in security. To claim that investing in security is in indication of something "wrong" is therefore at best a sentiment far ahead of its time.

View on HN

I live in Japan, where there seems to be a much stronger respect for other people's property. It's a common story for people who forget their wallet on a park bench or something to come back hours later and it's either still there or at the local police box. There's also a lot less vandalism - I don't usually see things like trashed bus stops that were a daily sight back home. Most people seem to lock their bikes with a simple lock between the frame and back tyre - those would have all been hauled away by a truck and disappeared by the next morning back where I used to live. (edit: another anecdote - I was very surprised when my wife thought nothing of leaving a brand new MacBook Pro visible in the back seat of the car when going into a restaurant for lunch)

And yes, people here (mainly the elderly) do keep vast sums of cash at home http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027129/Honest-Japan...

Japan also has some of the densest cities on earth.

Of course, it's far from perfect (there's plenty of crime, people still lock their doors, and sexual violence seems to be off the charts), but it shows that paranoia doesn't have to be the default state. If they made it this far, how much further is possible within human nature?

I moved to Rome, Italy last year and was quite surprised how little respect they seem to have for other people's property.

All the apartments have thick security doors[1], lower windows of buildings have iron bars and all gardens have tall fences. If you leave anything that looks even remotely valuable in your car, someone will break a window and grab it. There is tonnes of vandalism, and even if you leave a motorbike locked with a secure lock it's somewhat likely it won't be there the next day.

It sounds the complete opposite of Japan!

[1] A few weeks after I arrived I was at a friends house and there was a disturbance of some sort in the apartment next door. The police couldn't get in, so called the fire service who had to work for 20 minutes to break the door down. They considered going in through the outside, but it was the third floor and all the windows had metal shutters.

I live in Zürich. The joke here is that if you left a pile of money on the pavement in the city centre, it would stay there for a week and then you'd be fined for littering.

People here are basically honest. There aren't any turnstiles on the transit system --- they just assume you'll have bought a ticket. Children roam the streets on their own and think nothing of talking to random adults.

Of course, they back up this trust with enforcement; there are occasional spot checks on the transit system with big fines; and if you don't pay a driving ticket the police will come to your house and remove your license plates...

In Paris, I used to leave my bag on the street in front of my high school whole days. It was just leaning on the front door, for hours. That was before.

Now I guess someone would call a bomb disposal team and cut the traffic 3 blocks around it. (and I would have been very sad, because to this day I still love that bag, leather, light, durable, practical, it still fits a modern 13" laptop perfectly)

Anyhow, this thread is all anecdotes.

> Anyhow, this thread is all anecdotes.

That's true. And crime statistics aren't much more useful because willingness to report and how well the police handle filing differ a lot between cultures.

Most places also have data from crime surveys, so it's possible to make decent predictions about how much crime is reported or not.

The crime statistics themselves are very useful, there's no need to chuck them about because some level of crime goes unreported. Statisticians have long ago realised that we can measure this too.

some people are going to commit crimes and violate property

Why are we still assuming that as a given, instead of trying to change it at its roots?

He/She could believe that people are inherently bad.

Breaking the rules is fun. The thrill in taking such risks is exhilerating and if you get good at it — if you can repeatedly break the rules and get away with it — you feel powerful. Unless you're suggesting a transhuman approach, there's no way to get around that. You can eliminate any incentives for crime, and eliminate all sources of childhood strife, and still have people who commit crime because it's a great hobby.

It certainly is. Personally, I've grown beyond purely breaking rules for the sake of it, without concern for the repercussions. I still break the rules, all the time, but only when I think the rules are wrong and no true harm will come from my breaking them. It's gotten much less fun in my old age, just seems rather boring and rational.

Only if the chance of capture is low. If people got cought 9 times out of 10 I don't think they would have that hobby.

And now we're back to spending billions on security.

I think that can be fixed at a cultural level, so it's no guarantor of crime.

Sexual desire was fixed at a cultural level until it wasn't. The narrative that people only steal because they're poor and desperate is just that, a narrative. Anyone can feel excitement at taking another's property. Your perfect society free of crime is begging for a "disruption."

> Anyone can feel excitement at taking another's property.

My upbringing has had this "golden rule of ethics" (don't do to others what you don't want done upon yourself) ingrained in me pretty well, so I would never feel excitement about this.

(Hypothesis: This ridiculous objectivism has had people forget how much cooperation is ingrained into humans by nature.)

That said, I am aware that such thoughts exist in my subconsciousness, because the subc is always exploring all possible paths, but I have never experienced that as an even remotely acceptable (in terms of my own moral) path of action.

> don't do to others what you don't want done upon yourself

This only works for people who sufficiently appreciate their own possessions. Others might develop a very relaxed "stuff comes, stuff goes, who cares it's just materialistic crap anyways" attitude and and that equips them to have surprisingly little remorse in regards to theft. This is probably exemplified best in the extremely high rate of theft affecting near-zero-value bikes in many Dutch cities. That kind of thief might even rationalize by inverting guilt, "if he feels bad about the loss it's his own fault that he is not as cool about shitty old piles of rust as I am"

Have you ever watched a heist film? If so, you can't claim not to understand how it could be exciting to break into someone's property, risk imprisonment or death, and take their stuff. Go watch one some time, the writers make sure to paint the victims as bad men and the thieves as anti-heroes so that you can enjoy the fantasy without guilt.

You've missed my point for the opportunity to moralize and posture. Consider this: You know cheating is wrong, you probably consider yourself to be someone that would never do it, yet you can still acknowledge that it would most likely be enjoyable for at least a very short while, right? That's all I'm saying, not (lmao) some kind of faux-objectivist philosophy on the right to take other people's property or whatever it is you seem to be imagining.

Easy to say, but people are selfish. There will always be evil sinful people in this world

Only if you believe in the concept of evil and sin.

There will always be people who will happily infringe upon your person to their benefit and your dismay.

There, now the philosophical twaddle is excised without ruining the spirit of the point

Exhibit B: A human expending energy to protect an idea from a self-important prat too busy playing word games and Tea with Philosophers to listen.

Yea, I wish we could all live in Anarchy without rules or police or armies etc. But there is always an asshole who want more, or think he deserves more. I mean, we reward these people today with jobs on WallStreet etc, but these people would still exist in an anarchy, and would do their best to "solve" the world to their liking.

Exhibit A. A human selfishly ignoring the thesis of a statement in order to sound wise and try to win the disagreement by subterfuge.

Since the discussion is about criminality, and it was suggested that this arises due to some religious notions rather than eg (a) people being defective or (b) social-economic disadvantage, it thought that out to be challenged. From an evolutionary perspective you could say that there must be an advantage in such behavior to the individual, even if the society suffers.

Also, thanks for the unjustified rudeness, you've made a great contribution today.

>Why are we still assuming that as a given, instead of trying to change it at its roots?

You mean change human nature?

I imagine it'd be more like changing human behaviors, and the societal conditions in which they are shaped.

So, have any society ever changed those exact behaviors?

Human nature is the least productive concept ever. It is only ever brought up to defend the status quo and declare it as inevitable. It is a mystical concept impervious to examination. Whether it's "God" or "human nature" it's just a term for an abstract master that keeps us all in bondage.

Do you think animals have a "nature"? If so, why are humans any different? Sure, we can reflect on our behavior and try and change it, but it's undeniable there are innate drivers that can be hard to overcome.

I take issue with the way "human nature" is used, not the idea that we have a nature. It is almost always unproductive. Even so, most who make an argument from human nature always convince me that they know nothing about other human beings within a sentence or two.

Oh I got it. Fair point. It doesn't add much to a complex conversation.

>Human nature is the least productive concept ever. It is only ever brought up to defend the status quo and declare it as inevitable. It is a mystical concept impervious to examination.

Actually it's the exact opposite: very pragmatic and empirically verified.

It's exactly what people, in statistical quantities, tend to do over what they tend not to do.

Plus, most of it is shared with our animal siblings.

Except if you think that an Elephant or a Cat doesn't have certain natural characteristics (insticts, behaviors, traits) based on their species.

Do you see a specific claim backed up with empirical research in the above usage of human nature? I don't. Do people ever? Any time someone brings up human nature they could omit the term and just talk about the research itself. They don't. Human nature is a rhetorical shortcut. You can't assail human nature, you can't examine it like scientific evidence. It is intellectual laziness to make any argument from human nature.

>Do you see a specific claim backed up with empirical research in the above usage of human nature? I don't.

That's because it's a casual online conversation. I don't stuff my responses with citations when I'm not writing a paper.

>Do people ever?

Yes. There are tons of research on human psychology, cognition, physiology, evolutionary traits, instincts and other aspects of what colloquially is called "human nature".

How do you plan on preventing people from wanting things?

Idealistically and for the fun of philosophically considering the matter, by creating a world composed of societies in which the inhabitants are free from want.

> ... inhabitants are free from want.

Do you mean chemical lobotomies or a post scarcity economy? Because there are some wants that are impossible to fulfill, for example: there are a bunch of murderers in Syria motivated by the desire to fly a winged horse to a sky mansion where 72 infinity virgins await. I don't see that happening, even post scarcity.

Because those roots are hard wired into us by a billion years of evolution.

And yet we evolved a rather handy set of features for altering and shaping our behaviors.

And they'll continue to evolve and improve, but that takes thousands of generations.

Naturally.

You're radically underestimating mankind's potential of disruptive innovation.

Now I have to apologize for playing both sides of this conversation, but we've been working on this tribalism for a few hundred years, maybe if you were a better student of human history than I am you could make a case for a few thousand.

We have a way to go, but we have made at least some progress. Maybe in another few hundred years humans won't be so 'Us and Them'. Maybe materialism will be the next thing we work on. Who knows, maybe by the time we reach the next galaxy we'll have it sorted out.

It's human nature to crave sex, maybe not with every single person you meet, but certainly with more than a single partner in your entire life, right? For thousands of years, Christianity attempted to "work on this" aspect of human nature and make non-monogamous sexuality taboo. It was fairly successful at it. Yet (depending on your perspective) it only took somewhere between a few years and a few decades post-sexual revolution for it all to come crashing down spectacularly.

If the most powerful institution in the western world couldn't "fix" this aspect of human nature over millennia, it is sheer arrogance to think we can do better today.

I'm not sure if that's the best example. People that don't crave sex fall out of the gene pool pretty quickly.

Something like aggressive behavior though, is something that can be selected against.

Feminists have selected against male aggressive behavior in our education systems for decades. They have "successfully" ruined the lives of countless western boys and laid the foundation for immigrants from non-castrated cultures to take their stead with redoubled aggression. Turns out that it's much easier to beat boys into submission than it is to subvert female attraction to dominance.

This is not r/redpill, if you're going to make outlandish claims, please back them up with good citations.

"This is not r/redpill" says it all, but ok. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-...

Because "we're" being realistic. Changing that is unrealistic.

> ... instead of trying to change it at its roots?

Because eugenics went out of fashion a long time ago. The "roots" is free will, so you can't really change that without horrific consequences. Using birth control (voluntary and involuntary) to bias the population was a popular idea in the 1920s. China's latest gamifaction of "social credit" is another biasing attempt. I'm not aware of any "roots" solution that doesn't require total surveillance or head measurements...

More than just for fun. In a global society so encapsulated by money people are always going to tend toward the path of least resistance to maximise that goal. In many cases, despite the moral factors, risk, etc; this is going to be crime. It seems to simply be human/animal nature and something which society itself won't easily be able to change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com