Hacker News Reader

And now the Netherlands, a tiny country with but 18 million people, is the second largest exporter of food in the world.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/09/holland-...

Thank you for that.

Don't forget the history of the Netherlands, where during the 17th century it was the center of the world. You'd be surprised how many colonies the Netherlands had, and some of them have become quite famous (eg. New Zealand), albeit some of their name change (lookup New Amsterdam and New Holland for fun).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Golden_Age

Yep, there’s a reason it’s the “Holland tunnel”. :)

It was named for Clifford M. Holland, the engineer who designed it.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Holland-Tunnel

Leaving these here in part because New Holland as a historical reference was not easy to find.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Holland_(Australia)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amsterdam

Further, the Netherlands is the best prepared country for sea level rises in the world. It's likely they will end up selling the technology they developed domestically, to all the sea-facing cities of the world (assuming sea levels do rise as predicted). It's going to be extremely profitable for them.

I had never heard of this famine. I read the article and found myself wondering how this impacts the collective subconscious and the culture as a whole. Probably not in a good way.

I'm Dutch. Purely anecdotal, of course, but I'd say: "not".

I grew up in the north (struck by the famine) and moved south (not struck by the famine) half a life ago. I've noticed no differences in attitudes to food, Germans or WWII.

A while ago some German ministry did a survey among populations of neighbouring countries and found that the Dutch liked the Germans the most. Anecdotally I can confirm this, everybody I know likes Germans and Germany. (And loves to point out their lack of a sense of humour)

My dad was born during the famine (on a farm, thankfully) and I never heard him nor my grandma mention it in an other way than as a matter of fact.

I only heard about it through a Wikipedia binge on Audrey Hepburn; she was half-Dutch, spent the war in the Netherlands, and was in her early teens during the famine. It left her with lasting health problems, and her slender "elegant" frame and short height is probably connected with the continued malnourishment of the wartime years.

Reminds me of this statement...

"If you have food in your jaws you have solved all questions for the time being." - Kafka

Regarding how it impacted the Dutch subconscious and culture, I obviously can't say for sure (not being Dutch, nor having lived in that period). But they do have a history of being pretty pragmatic about life in general (including euthanasia - https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-and-n...)

I have no idea if pragmatic is a negative word in your eyes, but it is for many people, who view it as incompatible with traits like idealism and compassion. To me, it is not. I am often interpreted by other people as compassionate and idealistic, yet I view myself as a pragmatist.

So, to my eyes, it is a compliment to say they are pragmatic. It means they are very grounded and very focused on results, unwilling to take a neurotic position of don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.

I have a torturous medical condition. I am very much pro the right to die. I primarily need some means to earn an adequate income online to help me to stay healthy and minimize the torture my body subjects me to. I have mostly not gotten much support for that goal. It seems like a really small thing to ask of the world, to please help me earn a little money online as a way to prevent huge medical expenses and dramatically improve my quality of life. Those requests have often been met with really ugly replies. On Metafilter, someone accused me of panhandling the internet for trying to get feedback on how to monetize my web projects.

Given the incredibly poor track record the world has for helping people like me achieve some kind of reasonable quality of life, I very much resent the general idea that I am not allowed to want to die. For me, death would be an end to enormous suffering, suffering the world mostly can't be arsed to do a damn thing about, even when the request for help is quite small.

If the world in general wants to insist on life, it needs to vastly up its game in so many ways. I don't expect this to happen. So I very much feel that I should have the right to say "I have had enough. I want to be done with my suffering." And so should anyone else with a terrible condition that makes life not worth living.

Insisting we stay alive while the US can't even be bothered to straighten out its healthcare system just strikes me as asshole behavior.

The point is that I don't think euthanasia is a negative.

I didn't assign any ethical value to the word. And if you have a much broader sense of reality to existence than most people, "life or death" is a meaningless term. There is, or there is. There is no other. If you can consider "is", then you "is" :).

And not to encourage current reality behavior that is disapproved of, but I would say that a highly disagreeable situation is a motivation to choose "NEXT".

> I read the article and found myself wondering how this impacts the collective subconscious and the culture as a whole.

As a whole I don't know. But many from the generation of the war have learned to never throw something away. Have something like a day in the week to eat left-overs. And some of their children have learned to do the same. But that has been getting rarer for the last 20 years.

It's hard to tell. The Hongerwinter was entirely due to Nazi retaliation(for a railway strike coordinated by Dutch govt in exile), and not due to environmental conditions, crop failure, etc which could happen again.

I was homeless for 5.7 years and I only got off the street about 5 months ago. While homeless, I sometimes went hungry for short periods, like a day or so, or was short rationed for a week or so. It changed me in terms of how I relate socially.

I don't really know how to describe it, and I don't know that I care to. But that experience influences my view of this article and my thoughts on how that must impact people, how it must negatively impact their ability to ask for what they want, to feel about the social climate and so on.

To my mind, the fact that it was not due to environmental conditions or crop failure makes it psychologically worse. I have a lot of emotional baggage about the world not caring whether or not I ate in recent years, about the callous disregard I experienced as a homeless person, something alien to my social background.

How much worse must that emotional and psychological impact be when it is active malice? When the entire goal is to kill you, slowly and cruelly? You and everyone you know and care about?

The famine, and WW2 in general,had a huge impact in culture.

The Netherlands had been a quiet little village for centuries. It managed to remain neutral in WW1. After the war the Netherlands was one of the countries that pushed relentlessly for both the European Union and NATO.

> The Netherlands had been a quiet little village for centuries.

You must be thinking of another country. A lot can be said about the Netherlands and its predecessors, but it was not a 'quiet little village'. From dominating maritime trade, to waging (a lot of) wars with England, Spain, and France, and its many achievements in science; the past half millennium was quite eventful.

The Netherlands had been a quiet little village for centuries.

The Dutch East India company would say otherwise! The Netherlands were one of the serious seagoing powers, along with England, France and Spain

Here in Thailand, there isn’t much of a taboo about wasting food, and nothing compared to Europe. Pop-science theory is that it’s because Thailand has very rarely had any food shortages in its past.

I'm not so certain. The trend pieces that push for large roles for epigenetic effects often have an activist lean to them, from the set of people who want to downplay the role of actual genetics as well as more straightforward environmental effects.

There's often an ulterior motive at play. Modern day lysenkoism.

I actually quoted a portion where they admit to the limitations of what they can determine and that there may be unknown and unknowable factors at play. So I see no reason to throw shade here.

I wouldn't say I'm throwing shade as much as reporting on a real trend to be wary of, unless you disagree that there is a set of activists jumping on epigenetic explanations to further their ideological causes: https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/06/10/epigenetics-lamarcks-re...

I wouldn't know and I don't actually care. I thought this piece was solid in part because it admits to uncertainty. The fact that other groups might use this study for some end of theirs is no reason to cast aspersions on the motives of these scientists.

If you have something more solid and specific than "it's a trend, man!" it would be fine to bring that up. But the essence of prejudice is to make unfounded assumptions about a specific case because of general trends. It is a thing I think is highly corrosive and should be guarded against.

I did. Here's another warning, from the journal Cell: http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(14)00286-4

It sounds to me like this piece indicates that the science is new and unproven, not that it is poisoned by ulterior motives of some sort.

I have two sons who see the world through a very different mental framework from me. We often have lively discussions that give both sides. It keeps us aware that life is multidimensional.

The debate about nature vs nurture often loses sight of the fact that, ultimately, the answer is both. Trying to follow a thread and understand it doesn't mean that one thread is the entirety of the fabric of life. But ignoring that thread doesn't work either.

Except the psychometric traits that activists most want to be a product of nurture often have a genetic heritability of 80% or more.

And how is this assertion evidence that epigenetics generally and this study in specific, which posit heritability of various things, is really a diabolical plot to put some activist's evil wolf in sciency sheep's clothing?

I'm generally a fan of Carl Zimmer. I liked his book on parasites quite a bit, but I also think it's important to bring up the context of how epigenetics have been repurposed for ideological battles when they're brought up in highly shared pop science articles.

There are better ways to do that than the framing you have used in this discussion. So, if you plan to keep bringing such things up, I hope you find a better way to do it.

I don't disagree that understanding such contexts or pointing them out has value.

Epigenetic effects through DNA methylation is rather well established, I believe. And then there's actual genetic change during neural development. Also during humoral and cellular immune response. So maybe it's Mendelian dogma that's more problematic.

> Mendelian dogma

There is no evidence for transgenerational epigenetics in humans. http://quillette.com/2017/04/07/epigenetics-become-dangerous...

Are you sure? I remember reading about parents that suffered from a famine had certain genetic effects show up in their grand children. I believe diabetes factored into the story somehow but the details escape me. Sorry.

Well, I didn't claim that there is such evidence. But it's certainly not impossible. Especially in males, given ongoing spermatogenesis.