Hacker News Reader

[On overthrowing the arbitrary authority:] That's what my generation believed. And my parents' generation. And their parents...

On my good days, I think your generation did a pretty good job. And your parents too. The amount of authority that has been overthrown in the last 100 years is pretty staggering. And I think we'll do a good job too.

The world is a mess. I widely despise our cultural practices. But I also see that there are armies of brilliant, good people working in the background to turn all of it around.

If you're talking total overthrow, then of course... tyranny will always remain. But I think overthrow for the better is a constant, largely monotonic process. And regression (for example, our collective environmental destruction) usually happens because the system is funtional, but unstable... people are living sustainably while living above a massive reservoir of free energy is not actually sustainable, because it's politically unstable.

So, while the system might get temporarily less functional (releasing greenhouse gasses), it is getting more stable (burning fossil fuels which are destabilizing materials).

Which is to say, I think we are overthrowing these arbitrary destructive structures.

>That's what my generation believed. And my parents' generation. And their parents

That doesn't mean it will never happen. The world is changing rapidly, it stands to reason that even more big changes could happen.

I think "human nature" is a bit of a red herring. We don't currently have any scientific way to separate how much of how people behave is social/environment programming and how much is "human nature".

> That doesn't mean it will never happen. The world is changing rapidly, it stands to reason that even more big changes could happen.

Rapidly compared to what ? 1900-1960 arguably saw more significant cultural, technological and political change than 1960-2010. The internet and mobile phone are about the only significant technological breakthroughs in my lifetime - in fact even they happened before my lifetime, but were not commonplace yet.

> I think "human nature" is a bit of a red herring. We don't currently have any scientific way to separate how much of how people behave is social/environment programming and how much is "human nature".

Well, we do have millenia of recorded history. Social mores may change, human nature less so.

>The internet and mobile phone are about the only significant technological breakthroughs in my lifetime

I don't know if you've noticed but these two are having some very large impact in the world right now. Dictators of 30 and 40 years are being cast off.

>Well, we do have millenia of recorded history. Social mores may change, human nature less so.

I think that's a pretty skewed view of history. Another way to see it might be that we used to mostly have largely anarchistic/socialist societies that were overrun by a few greedy people and we've spent the rest of our history taking back our freedoms from the elite few of our day.

Now you could say that even if we ever managed to get to a utopia state more greedy people will just show up but I would counter argue that e.g. Alexander the great wouldn't have gotten off the ground if people could have just sent a twitter to warn everyone else what he was up to.

> I don't know if you've noticed but these two are having some very large impact in the world right now. Dictators of 30 and 40 years are being cast off.

I'm sure the Jacobins had a totally cool Facebook page.

> Now you could say that even if we ever managed to get to a utopia state more greedy people will just show up but I would counter argue that e.g. Alexander the great wouldn't have gotten off the ground if people could have just sent a twitter to warn everyone else what he was up to.

That has to be the funniest thing I've read all day. If only poor King Darius III had a Twitter account.

>That has to be the funniest thing I've read all day. If only poor King Darius III had a Twitter account.

So you think that if the whole world would have been aware of what was happening they would have just sat back and watched? I think they would have all banded together to fight him at once rather than be picked off one at a time.

There's a strong motive to defect from cooperation, unfortunately. If 100 nations are discussing banding together to defend themselves, and everyone realizes it will only take 50 nations to repel an attack, then there is going to be a very strong incentive to be a free riding country.

>> I don't know if you've noticed but these two are having some very large impact in the world right now. Dictators of 30 and 40 years are being cast off.

Unfortunately, revolutions are nothing new. Bigger revolutions happened in the past quite impactfully without such technologies. These technologies perhaps add benefit in the arms race to better organize against government's controls for infrastructure, institutions, and society.

>> I think that's a pretty skewed view of history. Another way to see it might be that we used to mostly have largely anarchistic/socialist societies that were overrun by a few greedy people and we've spent the rest of our history taking back our freedoms from the elite few of our day. Now you could say that even if we ever managed to get to a utopia state more greedy people will just show up but I would counter argue that e.g. Alexander the great wouldn't have gotten off the ground if people could have just sent a twitter to warn everyone else what he was up to.

The same technology that people use for freedom, powers that be can use for more nefarious purposes. Technology in of itself is amoral and neutral. It's rather about who uses it more effectively. Today, the general populace perhaps has an advantage in that they're maybe more savvy than governments. Not necessarily will be the case all the time though. And besides that, it depends on whether people would love what Alexander stood for and would actually prefer to follow him. Look at what happened in Germany. Nobody better cite Godwin's Law here. Mein Kampf is seriously a great example of how a single idea, communication, or piece of media can rally the people to a cause that people in hindsight realized was incorrect. Technology can likewise be played by both sides.

> Unfortunately, revolutions are nothing new. Bigger revolutions happened in the past quite impactfully without such technologies.

3 major drivers of the European revolutions of the 1840s (the longest period of sustained, international revolutions in history) were newspapers, trains and telegraphs. Like today's internet, they were loosely controlled by the state. Information could pass from capital to capital within hours, sometimes within minutes.

The key dynamic is not the medium of transmission; it is whether the state has yet managed to control it.

Modern logistics (c.f. Walmart) is a hugely significant technological breakthrough, and is arguably the foundation of our modern economy. It's not obvious to consumers because it happened behind the scenes, but don't neglect it's significance.

Modern logistics developed mainly during the Second World War and post-war period, along with the computer revolution. My point is however that the last few decades have seen a refinement of more revolutionary changes in the first half of the twentieth century.

For example, from 1902 - 1960 we went from the Kitty Hawk to the jet passenger plane. From 1960 we went from the jet plane to .... ? We're still flying around in planes developed in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Sure, maybe they have better navigation systems, they might be safer and so on, but these are refinements rather than revolutionary changes.

So you're saying if any trend reaches an asymptote, technology is dead? Did you expect planes to be the size of skyscrapers by now? In any case the limiting factors there are economics, not technology. We could build a flying skyscraper, if we really wanted to.

In any case the standards of technology are always the thing that's changing the fastest. In the early 20th century, it was transport and chemistry. Today it's computing and biotechnology.

In 1900, noone could predict jumbo jets of 1960s. In 1960s, noone could predict we would still be flying same jumbo jets of 1960s in 2010.

I mean, it's 60 years. Imagine yourself transported to 2070 only to find people still using Twitter from their Android phones.

People would probably be shocked by how cheap airfares are now though. Aviation technology has favoured seat cost over speed and that does show.

Show a 1960s jet passenger the price tag on a cheap around-the-world ticket, and his eyes will fall out.

Physical laws and economic realities constrain technological progress. In the case of aircraft the possibilities allowed these laws and realities were exhausted in 60 years. No point being upset about it.

> I think "human nature" is a bit of a red herring. We don't currently have any scientific way to separate how much of how people behave is social/environment programming and how much is "human nature".

That's not really true. The problem is that the "blank slate" view had a complete victory in the political class but the research hasn't been backing it up.

Larry Summers and James Watson were both run out of their jobs for publicly asking the wrong questions.

With that background "libertarian socialism driven by a scientific approach" sounds like a bit of a lie.

"I think "human nature" is a bit of a red herring. We don't currently have any scientific way to separate how much of how people behave is social/environment programming and how much is "human nature"."

Nope. There's been lots of good research in the last several decades. We are not "blank slates", behavior is largely genetic ("human nature"):

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-16/world/pinker_1_behaviors-...

The point of the OP was IF the rich kid works just like the regular kid, then he'll still be ahead.

One of the reasons people get rich is to provide for their kids. That's a more realistic motive than providing for society as a whole, and a more noble motive than funding hedonism.

I wouldn't want to live in a society where rich kids don't have an advantage, because that's a society with either debased rich people or no rich people.

"A society where rich kids don't have any advantage" is reductio ad absurdum.

No one is talking about that. We're simply talking about meritocracy, which has been the path of progress since the Enlightenment.

It in no way debases the rich if Johnny can't get into a top university because his Daddy can't buy his way in.

Hard work is very different from skills/talent or luck. The OP is claiming that the rich kid has a different/better personality skill set from the regular kid based on his wealth, and I disagree with that. I believe the rich kid has more opportunities, yes, but I don't believe rich kids are bred to have a better personality to take advantage of those opportunities. Therefore, it falls upon our society which looks at other factors instead of valuing merit for merit's sake.

Let's assume the two kids are just as driven as each other, with the rich kids having more opportunities. I do not believe that the rich kid will always have the social skills, technical skills, brains, passion, or dedication to take advantage of those opportunities. The rich kid may be a very mediocre person by merit, but because the regular kid doesn't have access to these opportunities, our society will select the rich kid for this opportunity because he looks good on paper and for lack of other merited kids to pick from. So yes, the rich kid will be ahead PURELY because he had exclusive access to an opportunity or because society wanted to pick a better resume, but NOT because the rich kid has a better skill set or is more well adjusted than the regular kid based on their wealth backgrounds. This disproves the OP's point.

I'm not sure you've really disproved anybody's point.

Consider that a rich kid's parents will likely spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more) on their child's education, on everything from the best preschools to a top prep school to an Ivy League university. Do you really think those schools offer nothing in exchange for all that money, aside from some better social connections and big names on someone's resume?

It's very, very difficult to reduce the impact of a lifetime of educational and social advantages down to something like "different/better personality skill set," and I think in doing so you are woefully underestimating what kind of benefits those advantages bring.

I'm not underestimating the benefits of those advantages at all. But those are opportunities bought with money. I know plenty of my peers from Ivy League schools who had the personality/skills to take advantage of everything their private schools and Ivy League upbringing had to offer - studying abroad, discussing with the best professors, etc. But I also know plenty from this same group of peers who have had access to these opportunities but are still softspoken and shy, or nervous when speaking with people, or have insecurity issues, or are elitist snobs who turn people off, so on and so forth. Sure, maybe they took Calculus in high school and have a PHD in whatever metaphysics but does that mean they are better adjusted to take advantage of all the opportunities that money has bought them? In fact, if you have 2 kids, one rich and one average, the rich one being socially ill-adjusted (because his parents were hyper-ambitious) and the average kid being happy-go-lucky, smart, and resourceful (because his parents nurtured his childhood with love and taught him the skills of problem solving and confidence), assuming they had the same opportunities, which do you think would do better in an interview? Obviously I'd like the say the latter, but that then brings up the point of whether society values the better resume and lesser merit or vice versamore.

This only works if you can compare a rich kid and a regular kid who had the same opportunities, particularly educational but also in terms of their friends, etc. Otherwise there's no control. Presumably, we spend all this money on education so that it results in more success for the same amount of work later in life.

One thing I've noticed, anecdotally: kids who grew up in Manhattan have parents or know parents who were investment bankers, corporate lawyers, etc. This gives them a leg up in getting into those professions over kids whose parents were in more common occupations, if only because they know more about those industries. It has nothing to do with their attitude. I'm guessing that it's no coincidence that lots of successful actors and musicians have successful actor parents, too: Charlie Sheen, anyone?

"Libertarian Socialism"? Best oxymoron ever.

Its sad how inconstant political terms are. Liberal today implies support for a lot of programs it didn't in Jefferson's time.

I don't understand 'anarcho communism' -- wouldn't that be the overthrow of government to establish communism? How is it different than regular communism?

"Liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms. Obviously their absolute meaning changes as the median relative to which they are defined changes.

As for anarcho-communism, it distinguishes communism involving a strong central authority from communism involving no or decentralized authority.

Only to those in the U.S. In most of the world, "libertarian" means left-wing, and anti-capitalist.