hnthrwawy566

> Because it aligns with my experience, ultimately.

The experience of one person over not even a full lifetime?

That's just laughably dumb. I don't mean to be rude but I also don't know what to say to that.

> survivorship bias

This term is a meme to you and you don't actually understand it. Tell me, what is the meaning of 'survivorship bias' when we're talking about things which have lasted for significant periods of time, over many cycles?

You keep arguing against a strawman. I never claimed that an idea is better just because it was held earlier.

> they were humans too

Yes they were. However I'll put more stock in the ideas that have survived and been promulgated throughout the ages than I would, for example, some poorly thought out perspective from some random guy on HN.

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

> and no-one today would talk about the left ventricle being the source of human hea

No one today would seriously suggest that a low-fat high-carb diet was healthy and yet that's exactly what was advocated by the medical profession up until about 5 years ago.

The delay between the sacrifice and the gratification (and the corresponding neurochemical responses) in real life is often on the order of years or even decades.

In video games the delay is often on the order of minutes or hours.

The real world cannot compete with video games in the same way that milkshakes cannot compete with broccoli.

> At least, we no longer consider things like slavery and sexism OK

No one has ever thought sexism is OK just like no one has ever thought murder is OK. The term contains within it the implicit value judgement.

So long as there is sexual dimorphism among humans there will be a fundamental nature to the relations between the sexes and gender roles. If you would like to keep your mind closed and not think about the possibility that what we have now is not necessarily in keeping with that nature, that is your prerogative.

The author of this piece is clearly incredibly well read and yet it seems she read all of these classical works with disdain for their authors or at least with the deeply held belief that they can't truly be taken seriously. That belief is probably so deeply held that she's not even aware that she holds it.

I know that in my own experience I grew up thinking that way. When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came before us it opens your mind to the lessons of history in a very real way.

>After all, if we cling to this primitive idea that an addictive substance must be eradicated, and if we live in a world in which sex and food are considered addictive, where does that leave us as a species?

Have you considered that this "primitive" idea comes up over and over again among great thinkers and writers throughout human history because there's something to it? Do you think people today live happier, more fulfilling lives because food is superabundant to the point of excess and sexual proclivities are uninhibited?

Why are you so sure?