Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZeroGravitas | Hacker News Reader

I honestly can't tell if the Guardian is trolling with lines like this:

“My goal is to use the lens of literature and philosophy to study and hopefully help repair humans’ relationship to our environments,” they say.

Like, why would you put that quote in an article otherwise?

Possibly they're just idealistic dreamers, but since they regularly feature right-wing controversialists that rile up their usual fanbase, it feels likely that the algorithm tells them that this drives "engagement", possibly without them understanding why, but even before the algorithm was an possible excuse, they've been regularly printing inflammatory drivel to drive sales.

View on HN

literature, maybe not - but philosophy does provide options that aren't just navel-gazing. The philosophical attitude that modernist society takes towards nature is that of material resources to be extracted for economic benefit; obviously this mindset is a big part of how we got to this point. Instead there are philosophical ideas like deep ecology or complex systems theory that point to a different approach.

I think the particular word choice is causing some people to mentally think "you're not part of my tribe, that sounds ridiculous," but that's not a fair assessment of what was said.

How many people on HN have been deeply inspired to build a better future because of SF? I certainly have. And that's exactly what that phrase is talking about.

Literature is a very powerful tool for orienting human goals and finding inspiration to perform feats and labor that we might not otherwise do.

One such work that does exactly this (for me) is Kim Stanley Robinson's recent book Ministry For The Future. A lot of people found it kind of dry, but I appreciated the thoughts about tech and science. It's a fantastic encapsulation if all sorts of the best knowledge on the subject in 2020.

So I'm probably a good example of the Guardian's target demographic, and I highly value the study of philosophy and literature and other humanities. I fully believe that going to zero carbon is the next big global challenge.

I still would pause if I was writing an article about students trying to save the world from climate change and used that line, unless I was trying to undermine them.

Maybe I'm just out of touch, or maybe too in touch with the older generation who have been turned into deniers. But having e.g. read academic papers that argue that Africa shouldn't introduce carbon fees, because it would be bad for Africa, from someone employed by a fossil fuel company, my suspicions are raised that this is intentionally inflammatory.

The article is describing a cult, so the language is going to be quite abstract and obtuse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com