Hacker News Reader

> Most of humanity has never been agile, curious and resourceful. Historically a handful of people were, and they tried to steer everyone around them.

I have a problem with this premise! My experience has been that when you look closely enough, most people are agile and curious within the sphere of their own action. What varies is the scale they believe they can act at, which can be a matter of internal motivation, social pressures and molding, or hard constraints.

The history you are referring to is one where people with the spare time and education to write histories have consistently assumed that masses have low ambition due to missing internal drive. That perspective is blind to forces that make high ambitions impractical for many people. This article is about how technology can sometimes contribute to those forces.

All that said, I agree with where you land here: the fix is for us to make tech that makes it easier for more people to be active.

Well, my premise was summarized before: "most people are not active most of the time".

If we look at examples of people who historically have had access to all the base resources they required, they weren't all active. Examples: Roman aristocracy, medieval feudal classes, modern day tycoon fortune inheritors. Only a small percentage were truly active most of the time.

In my opinion it's not even healthy to be always active. It generally takes time away from down time with your friends and family.

I think you're going to have to define "active" here.

Researching, working, helping your community, etc.

Basically think of what the majority of people consider "fun" and/or "relaxing": watching sports, movies, TV series, listening to music, going to parties, hiking, reading a book, etc.

I'd define "active" as not doing things most people consider "fun" and/or "relaxing".

That definition makes an odd dichotomy between "turn-off-your-brain" style consumption on the "passive" side and necessary but mostly unrewarding chores on the "active" side.

Where would creativity or curiosity fit in that definition?

> I'd define "active" as not doing things most people consider "fun" and/or "relaxing".

I don't find that definition very intuitive.

Better definition would be doing things that have lasting positive effects. (on themselves and / or society)

In this regard, most people are active though do not have means to be active on global scale.

In this definition, limited "passive" entertainment and consumption count as long as they bring long term positive results.

    > I'd define "active" as not doing things most people consider "fun" and/or "relaxing".

People do crave meaning and self-actualization in their lives, it is the top of Maslow's hierarchy of human needs. For some that means watching sports on cable TV, that is "active" to them. Who are we to judge?

If you consider hunter-gatherer societies, people were probably a lot more active by your definition than people are now.

Also humanity in the past was far more violent and gruesome. So if being tame means not slaughtering each other it seems like a good thing.

This book from Steven Pinker talks about this topic and its one of the best books I have read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...

Personally the idea of being tame revolts me. Maybe even more so than our violent and gruesome past.

I also don't think they are linked. There is a definite difference to being civilised and being tame. MLK and Gandhi were civilised, and non-violent, but were certainly not tame.

Being tame means won't have the desire to revolt against tyranny.

You might can't imagine that, coz you probably didn't live under one.

Currently in China, there are tons of people (personally I'd say most) prefer to live inside the "protection against malicious misinformation" of the great firewall. They have "everything they want" there, they listen to authoritative info and fend off doubts spontaneously.

Please stop taking HN threads into nationalistic flamewar about China. That's not what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Also humanity in the past was far more violent and gruesome.

Looks like an interesting book.

I know that percentage wise, violence has been decreasing. But is it simply that modern governments are bigger, more powerful, and can better contain and direct violence? Or are modern people actually less violent as far as their culture and psychology? I wonder because even in modern times we've seen incredibly developed and cultured societies turn violent and gruesome very quickly.

It's hard to completely generalize, because modernity is a pretty short timeframe and things are moving very quickly relative to the rest of history, but Pinker's premise (which is well defended) is that human progress is inexorably toward less violence, both in terms of warfare and criminal/interpersonal violence. That's in large part because violence is becoming a less effective means of social advancement.

Having effective, more or less trustworthy police and courts goes a long way toward both making violent behavior risky, and reducing the need for vigilante justice/vengeance violence. And civil courts help resolve disputes without resorting to violence.

Likewise, trade and economic stability have become so effective that it makes little sense for nations to engage in war with their neighbors anymore. War is bad for business!

I think it's just that people are safer and better fed now. There's no real need for most of us to use violence to preserve our way of life.

Straight from the Wikipedia article:

Pinker identifies five "historical forces" that have favored "our peaceable motives" and "have driven the multiple declines in violence." They are:

The Leviathan – the rise of the modern nation-state and judiciary "with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force," which "can defuse the [individual] temptation of exploitative attack, inhibit the impulse for revenge, and circumvent ... self-serving biases."

Commerce – the rise of "technological progress [allowing] the exchange of goods and services over longer distances and larger groups of trading partners," so that "other people become more valuable alive than dead" and "are less likely to become targets of demonization and dehumanization."

Feminization – increasing respect for "the interests and values of women."

Cosmopolitanism – the rise of forces such as literacy, mobility, and mass media, which "can prompt people to take the perspectives of people unlike themselves and to expand their circle of sympathy to embrace them."

The Escalator of Reason – an "intensifying application of knowledge and rationality to human affairs," which "can force people to recognize the futility of cycles of violence, to ramp down the privileging of their own interests over others', and to reframe violence as a problem to be solved rather than a contest to be won."

> Also humanity in the past was far more violent and gruesome

They needed to kill humans one by one with blades and rocks and this was cumbersome and messy. At 3000 kills by minute we, definitely, are much more violent than they.

>I have a problem with this premise. Anyone that knows history knows that humans were as tame, if not tamer, in the past. Plus uneducated.

The past is full of revolutions, revolts, regional struggles, dethronings, and so on -- since time immemorial.

Humans were anything than tame.

>Most of humanity has never been agile, curious and resourceful. Historically a handful of people were, and they tried to steer everyone around them.

That's the myth of the "sole inventor" and the "great leader".

Most of progress have been a much more mass struggle...

> Humans were anything than tame.

If you'd put me in the living conditions lived their whole lives, I'd be waaay less tame then they were. Trust me, they were tame (in good part because they didn't know any better). And I'm not only talking about physical conditions, but about psychological degrading ones.

They'd blow up only when they were literally starving (or their families were).

Now we become violent for things which in the past were day-to-day life.

>If you'd put me in the living conditions lived their whole lives, I'd be waaay less tame then they were.

Oh please. This is exactly the same sort of claptrap Kanye West was on, and Ta-Nehisi Coates already pointed out how dumb and ahistorical it was: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/05/im...

Well, maybe not me personally. But look at the recent violences in Chemnitz, Germany. The trigger is minor compared to stuff in the past.

And you sent me a link to a 20k+ word article... TL;DR?

>Well, maybe not me personally. But look at the recent violences in Chemnitz, Germany. The trigger is minor compared to stuff in the past.

What's at stake for participating is even more minor, so much more so that's there's no comparison....

Here's a (far from comprehensive) list of revolts in France, starting from the 13th century:

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

And even this is so lacking (it's not even 1/100 of the documented revolts) that it manages to miss the whole Paris Commune, a huge revolt that shook France and had tons of casualties...

The 1830 revolution is also missing, or the revolt against the 1851 coup... Yet minor incidents from last year protests are on the list.

>The trigger is minor compared to stuff in the past

You have a view of history that is whatever the opposite of rose tinted glasses are.

For one thing, the inciting incidents are rarely an important part of the story. By that logic, India blew up in 1857 over unfounded rumors of their musket cartridges being greased with animal fat.

For another thing, people in the past had different values and priorities than you do and they likely found worth and pleasure in stuff that modern consumerists from a capitalist economy do not and vice-versa. You assume your value systems are universal, but this is just presentism and cultural chauvinism at work. You’re not looking at the stuff they would have found offensive, you’re focused on the stuff that motivates you. That’s not how to do any analysis.

>And you sent me a link to a 20k+ word article... TL;DR?

It’s a detailed and nuanced article that is exactly as long as it needs to be. There can be no TL;DR that doesn’t do violence to the argument. But in general, Kanye would have happily been a slave, because he’s a docile sheep who only thinks he’s empowered due to his celebrity and power, but if you took those away he’d be just like anyone else.

And also, plenty of people did rebel but they died in anonymity or had it whipped out of them. Most of the small acts of rebellion went unnoticed or stayed under the radar

>If you'd put me in the living conditions lived their whole lives, I'd be waaay less tame then they were.

Easy to say. You haven't faced much beheadings for not following the orders of the local feudal lord...

>They'd blow up only when they were literally starving (or their families were).

They'd blow up for all kinds of reasons. There were huge revolts for simple things that were considered "insulting".

I am not sure what reading of history led you to conclude that people were tame in the past, but one thing to consider is that, as most history is written by the victors (or, at least, about them), the losers, victims, foot-soldiers and general populace can end up looking like nothing more than stage props in a costume drama.

Most of history is actually about humans enduring routine unimaginable* suffering their whole lives and very brief outbursts (revolutions, wars, etc.).

I think I have a pretty accurate reading of history...

* Unimaginable to modern day people.

You do realize that modern humans are weaker and have a smaller brain than their hunter gatherer ancestors, right? And not by a trivial amount, but by like 10% or so.

Most of us no longer hunt and gather all day so it would make sense that we would not need to be as big.

Very true, but there’s evidence that switching from hunting to farming actually changed us because of nutritional deficiencies, not just exercise changes.

Example: hunter gatherers were not only stronger, they were taller and had wider jaws that fit all their teeth better. They also had fewer cavities than both farmers and modern humans. I personally think humans have lower tolerance for carbohydrates than most realize, and that we’re missing out on a lot of fat soluable compounds in our diets, such as K2.

They also typically lived healthier, although not always longer. Obviously war, predation, and disease cut the life expectancy of hunter gatherers a lot. But if you exclude the unlucky, they actually remained active into remarkably old ages, seeing skeletons who showed signs of hunting into their 80s is not unheard of at all. Our aging might make it to their 80s much more regularly, killing off the sabertooths helped, but they’re hobled by mental and physical degeneration at distressingly high rates.

Unfortunately your assumptions are based on no data. Including living healthier lives.

Malnutrition was very common until very recently even among hunter gatherers. Bad season? Sorry, half of your family starves and the other is sick.

That said, early settled people had it even worse.

They did get more exercise, but that is possible, easy in fact, to match, and results will likely be limited.

The bit about teeth is actually based on work by Weston A Price. He managed to catch photos of many tribes right as they transitioned into the then modern diet in the early 20th century. He was also a dentist, which is why he focused on teeth. Focusing on teeth is important because

1. Cavities kill.

2. Teeth are a good proxy for general health.

The bit about morbidity is bog standard anthropological information from any university. Quick googling for “hunter gatherer mortality” brings up plenty of sources.

I personally focus on pre-history, since early “civilization” was awful. We’ve only recently climbed out of the low life expectancies that started with the advent of farming.

Homo-sapiens were weaker and had a smaller brain, and less advanced culture and technology then Neanderthals. But we're here and they are not (except in like 4% of European DNA).

What matters is how adaptable we are. And we certainly are the most adaptable we have ever been. It might be thought that people use all of the technology as a crutch and would not be able to survive if they were transported to a world without it. But, after a couple of days, modern people would get used to what they have, make do, and be creative in solving problems. It would be hard and painful, but that's the nature of adapting.

Yes, although some of the theories about Neanderthal extinction involve climate change, not intelligence.

The point is that our ancestors up until 10,000 years ago would make us look like complete and utter wimps, which contradicts your “most people were inactive” premise.

And based on what happens to a modern human even with survival gear who gets lost in the wilderness, typically death within a week or two sans rescue, I genuinely doubt that modern humans would adapt quickly enough to a hunter gatherer world.

"Yes, although some of the theories about Neanderthal extinction involve climate change, not intelligence."

My point was that they were less adaptable. For example, the climate changed and they were unable to adapt. I stated that they had bigger brains and more advanced technology. Neanderthals were more intelligent than Sapiens.

I had no premise that “most people were inactive”. I honestly have no idea where you think I said this.

A single human alone would probably die no matter when they were from. We have always been a social species. A group of humans would be fine anywhere that was not a massive extreme (desert, tundra) unless they had experience in these locales.

> Anyone that knows history knows that humans were as tame, if not tamer, in the past. Plus uneducated. Most of humanity has never been agile, curious and resourceful.

Anthropologists know that ancient hunter gatherers were stronger, fitter, and typically had lower rates of morbidity than us. Which kind of undermines your “agile” and “tame” bit.

I’d also say going from nothing to stone tools counts as quite resourceful, if you ask me. Given that our ancestors had the same basic wiring and larger brains, I’d actually wager on them being more curious and clever than modern humans.

Who ever you're quoting wasn't me, please look at the author name. It seems you are arguing another person with another opinion.

Oops.

I can confirm I know more and likely am stronger than every hunter gatherer.

Hunter gatherers didnt know what chemicals to mix to create a battery, or use that battery to power magnets, and that if you power them in the correct order you can spin things, and with spinning, you have our modern way of moving energy.

I also lift weights, likely unbelievable weights that couldnt be sustained for a hunter gatherer due to lack of food.

Size doesnt matter as much as environment. I have an abundance of food and information, while this was scarce 10,000 years a go.

Knowledge != intelligence. That little bit there basically blows away your first section completely.

The second is dubious. Ancient hunter gatherers were persistence hunters. Go walk for 50 miles a day for a few days and then carry the kill home and I’ll believe that you’re stronger.

Hell, for that matter go kill a mastadon and then carry the meat home. Watch out for wolves!

Intelligence says you don't carry the mastadon home, you take the tribe to the mastadon.

It’s not like carrying all your possessions to the mastadon is easy either.

It worked, though. A lot of stone age tribes for tens of thousands of years made a pretty good living hunting big game animals like mastodons. Taking a creature that large down can feed an entire tribe for days or even weeks. Makes it well worth the effort to move to it.

The idea of villages and more possessions than you can carry didn't happen until agriculture became a thing. The people that lived off big game hunting with stone age tools and no pack animals were set up for it.

Of course it works. We’re here.

I’m pushing back against OPs idea that humans weren’t agile for most of history. Hunter gatherers were about as tough as humans get.

I'd argue they were about like us, no more, no less. Hunting mastodons was actually very sophisticated technology - I mean, all they had were sticks and rocks, against a beast that could easily kill them. On the other hand, disease, malnutrition, and untreated injuries really dragged them down.

It's important to divide between history and pre-history, though - living conditions for stone age tribes were very different than for civilizations, which had agriculture and permanent structures and all the benefits and problems that go with those things.

> a smaller brain

Sperm whale's brains are more than 6 times the size of ours. Maybe size doesn't matter as much as you think it does.

Apples to oranges. It has more than 6 times the body to control than us, and lacks the cortices we have.

Our ancestors however had basically the exact same neurological wiring, roughly the same amount of body to control, and even more neurons crammed into their skulls. Hence the theory that they’d be more clever than modern humans.