Is Cultural Technical Debt Sabotaging Our Survival? | Hacker News Reader

Is Cultural Technical Debt Sabotaging Our Survival?

joanwestenberg.com

12 pointslamename4 comments

There are a lot of interesting ideas in here worthy of consideration.

Overall though, I don't like the analogy to technical debt. Software systems are designed to execute very specific things with very specific parameters, always under the direct agency of their human caretakers. Software does not evolve with out direct action by experts who always have a crystal clear goal in mind—when dilettantes and AI-wielding wannabes try the most common outcome is they break the system and its value trends to zero, at which point the system is immediately discarded and forgotten.

Culture, by contrast, is emergent and persistent. It is a natural evolution of behavior, powered by individual incentives. Legibility does not matter. It is not designed, merely influenced. Politicians and demagogues draw attention and make bold claims, but in fact their influence come from tapping into something shared by the diverse lived experience and environment of the populace—their success comes from reading the room and tapping into something that people are already feeling. I would argue their cultural influence is miniscule, like a big wave surfer they are flashy, but they don't control the swell.

For this reason I think "refactoring" culture is just not a thing. To be fair, the article acknowledges this. I just think a better analogy would be vestigial traits in biological organisms. You might not need an appendix, but doing genetic engineering to remove it from all humans isn't really a worthwhile endeavour. In complex evolved systems the best you can do are little nudges, you can't orchestrate a wholesale change.

> In Myanmar, both monks and laypersons twisted the faith into a shield for ethnic violence, targeting the Rohingya minority under the guise of protecting Buddhism from an “Islamic threat.” Driven by historical grievances, xenophobic myths, and a fervent need to guard Myanmar’s “Buddhist identity,” these factions have justified persecution, citizenship denial, and outright brutality—all while draped in saffron robes.

The violence against the Rohingyas is terrible and it's horrible to see Buddhism used as a cover. Japan did a similar thing under WW2 where Zen institutions were "encouraged" to support the war and preach that it was moral and religious.

With that said, the fears are not unjustified. Indonesia was once a bastion of Buddhism and Buddhist thought, now it's a majority Muslim country. In Afghanistan, the Taliban were blowing up ancient Buddhist monuments before 9/11.

Overall this article struck me as maybe well-intentioned but totally unrealistic.

It's a very idealistic way of looking at things. A more materialist analysis would posit cultural trappings are just cover for actions people want to do anyway like you allude to

> The core of Christianity is a worldview that sees itself as the default—morally superior, culturally “pure,” and universally applicable. This mindset has left us with a moral infrastructure that treats anything outside its narrow lens as a deviation or a threat. Ideas around sexuality, gender roles, family structures, and “American values” all trace back to a code written centuries ago, designed to control rather than to adapt. The effects are everywhere: in the way laws still echo puritanical standards, in a foreign policy that often disguises cultural dominance as benevolence, and in a public education system that insists on whitewashed history while marginalizing everyone else’s stories.

Where do you draw the line?

I draw the line when I see old men wearing skirts and nylons, reading stories to kids in school, while pushing for little boys to have their dick cut off (without the parent knowing) as soon as they don't feel well ("oh you don't feel well, that's because this dumb society tells you you're a boy, but deep inside you, see, I know you identify as a girl"). I see that as a treat. This kind of reading happens every in the EU. Some are even famous "performers".

But where do you draw the line? Old men wearing skirts and nylons reading stories to kids in schools (often without the parents knowning) is totally fine?

OK... Another one.

What about a performance where kids were brought to see a naked man, spreading his anus while crawling among vegetables, as part of a performance to "explain biodiversity to kids" or something like that. Happened in France. Parents weren't exactly thrilled and the "performer" was, of course, a misunderstood artist.

Still no line drawing?

OK another one. What about people in southern america, centuries ago, who used to torture kids for as long as possible to extract as many tears as they could from the kid, before sacrificing them to their god?

Is that a line you're willing to draw? Torturing kids for as long as possible to extract tears?

What about natives in northern america and Africa who were eating other humans?

Want a more recent one? What about a terrorist calling his mom, all ecstatic, explaining her he just strangled several jews, including kids, with his bare hands? Certainly that's totally fine because jewish are oppressors?

But, yup, evil white man and evil Christ (I'm no christian but I can recognize that one prophet as a figure of peace: I'm not saying that everything made in the name of christianity was/is peaceful but Christ is at least a figure of peace... Which is definitely not the case for all prophets of all religions btw, so pick your fight wisely).

Fuck your moral relativism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com