Hacker News Reader

Comment by ianai | Hacker News Reader

Between the zoonotic origins of covid (and just epidemiology generally) and the book “are we smart enough to know how smart animals are” by Franz de Waal I’m really resetting my understanding of life. Animals are just way way smarter than we give them credit for - not the least because of eons of telling ourselves we’re the living beings and they’re the automatons (seriously, go read how Descartes wrote about them). We’re also clearly made of largely similar systems and “parts” since bugs are capable of going between different organisms. Like getting viruses from bats or pangolins or chickens or ferrets to humans. The “software” and “hardware” must all be similar enough for us to a little more humility.

View on HN

I have to disagree. I see the opposite problem. We think too highly of human intelligence, we should be more humble.

Our most important source of intelligence is culture. We copy what we see others doing and that make us think that we are smart. It's the equivalent to see a Mathematical proof and think that we could also have done it.

Most of our behaviour is based on instinct. That is why it's so hard to lose weight or study an uninteresting topic.

It took humanity one hundred thousand years to realize that writing symbols allowed for a good communication system. And we did that by copy and error, a kind of evolutive process. Nobody sit down for hours until they invented writing.

So, you see the glass half full, I see it half empty, I guess.

But there is usefulness in seeing the glass half empty. As, it makes us more aware of our lakings and biases.

This opinion, I formed by reading many other opinions adding one more step on the evolution of knowledge (maybe I'm wrong and it's just a dead end thou)

> Most of our behaviour is based on instinct. That is why it's so hard to lose weight

Obesity is largely a function of culture.

> Obesity is largely a function of culture.

It relates to sugary and fatty food availability. So, yes it's cultural and can be improved by improved the system.

But, its root is the incapability of human beings on avoiding the 'temptation' of unhealthy food.

Asking people to stop eating too much and too bad does not work because our survival instincts tell us that to not eat when you can is stupid. So, changes in availability of unhealthy food are needed to improve the population health.

Your point does not invalidate my point, but both describe our society.

Sure, and I didn't mean to come across as obtuse, my point was that it's hard to find truly culture-insensitive aspects of the human experience.

Even the basics like our tastes in food, and what traits we find physically attractive, are steered by culture. You're right of course that ultimately we're wired to enjoy sugar, fat, and salt, in a way that works against our health when they are available in effectively limitless quantities.

I don't agree with Most of our behaviour is based on instinct. We allow perfect strangers into our homes to fix the plumbing. (Bruce Schneier wrote a great book about this kind of trust. [0]) A baby can learn to enjoy the company of a Malamute. Even our instinct to avoid being eaten by wolves, seems to be negotiable.

> changes in availability of unhealthy food are needed to improve the population health.

Agreed.

[0] https://www.schneier.com/books/liars_and_outliers/

>I don't agree with Most of our behaviour is based on instinct. We allow perfect strangers into our homes to fix the plumbing.

And we stay in the house to keep watch on them.

>A baby can learn to enjoy the company of a Malamute. Even our instinct to avoid being eaten by wolves,

You have to first establish that we have an instinct to avoid being eaten by wolves. And how that would work in humans that don't live where there are wolves for thousands of years.....

Hmmm. It's also a process of blind optimization on the part of companies that sell food. If they stumble into things that are addictive, that short-circuit the reward function in human appetite functions, they make more profit. Industrialization, marketing, high quality feedback mechanisms - they all add up to exploiting the human choice function.

Yes, industrialization of food is a function of culture. It's a tough one to fight against though, because marketing is also a culture generator; it needs constant oppositional effort.

If that is the case, then why are people in the same culture not equally fat?

Because it's not the only factor. Culture is an important factor but not the only one.

Income is another factor. Richer people had access to better food and better medical advice that pressures then to eat healthier.

Genetics are also another factor. Some people are better at accumulating fat than others.

That other elements does not remove cultural influence. You eat what is available to you in your region, what your parents cook, etc.

e.g. A country may tax sugary drinks to reduce availability and that reduces obesity in the country.

Culture is not a source of intelligence.

Intelligence is something you are born with, just like height or skin color.

I also do not understand who you refer to when you say "we." Well, I have a pretty good idea, but as opposed to "you," I prefer not to do mindless generalizations.

watching animals closely and forming relationships with them has led me to some of the most profound, incredible experiences of my life. they can also be great teachers.

and yes, our hardware and software is very similar, even insects and microbes. this is why *-cides are so dangerous.

In the post-Enlightenment post-humanist West there is a tendency like yours to downplay the difference between humans and animals, but I think it misses the point. Intelligence is not the point.

Intelligence was never the categorical differentiator between humans and animals. Firstly, because it is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. Some have said that "culture" is what makes us different, but I'm not convinced of that either - for me, highly sociable animals that travel in herds always appeared to have a culture of sorts. Again, a difference in degree, not in kind.

I tend to agree with the Russian philosophers that argue that the categorical differentiator between humans and animals is "morality". Animals are fundamentally amoral, i.e. nothing they do is "evil". We do not speak of incest, rape or murder among bonobo chimps, for example, because such judgements cannot apply to their actions (although this behaviour is rampant in nature). Moral judgements cannot apply to animals precisely because they have no transcendental purpose in any of their actions, i.e. everything they do is out instinct and survival purposes. Whereas humans frequently act out of a transcendental purpose, such as fighting for a greater cause such as equality for all, creating and worshipping a conception of God, or practicing philosophy. None of these actions have a survival motive (some are actually detrimental to our individual survival). Neither are these actions necessarily instinctual, as humans are certainly capable or creating new transcendental purposes that didn't exist before - and THAT is what makes us human.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com