5 ms·

Richard Dawkins: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.

35 points by tamarindo 16y ago

10ren 16y ago
I don't think Newton would have attributed his success entirely to his DNA: If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.
- robryan 16y ago
  No, but he is right, they would just have to apply the natural advantages they have been given.
harrybr 16y ago
Of all the Dawkins quotes, this one strikes me as weak.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  It's not that weak a quote, it's just that the website does not really add any value by simply repeating it.
  - lovepowerman 16y ago
    I've seen so far is in perfect <a href="http://www.lovepowerman.net>http://www.lovepowerman.net http://www.lovepowerman.net>http://www.lovepowerman.net </a> <a href="http://www.lovepowerman.com>http://www.lovepowerman.com http://www.lovepowerman.com>http://www.lovepowerman.com </a> ibrahim uzun web site admin
  - lovepowerman 16y ago
    I've seen so far is in perfect http://www.lovepowerman.net http://www.lovepowerman.net http://www.lovepowerman.com http://www.lovepowerman.com
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      piss off spammer.
    - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
      Don't just downvote it - flag it. Go here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488063 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488063 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488061 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488061 and click the "flag" link.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        There seems to be more and more of this stuff lately.
extension 16y ago
There's no rule that says two people can't, by simple coincidence, have exactly the same DNA, so the amount of unlucky people is actually infinite. Surprisingly meaningless statement from such a smart guy.
- _polos_ 16y ago
  Smart? He mostly offers superficial pseudo science, which doesn't hold more profound investigation. The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one is (as always) in the details. He sounds smart at first (many people could do the same; only very few are really smart though). He's the perfect guy to mislead you in any wrong direction, if you simply "eat" all of his "science". To me, he's the typical representation of someone able to shout out loud and successfully, without really saying anything really scientific. You have to be scientific, not only sound so. And, science is not absolute -- nothing is absolute -- but he puts science in an absolute position, which is simply not scientific, but already his religion...
  - dmm 16y ago
    > He mostly offers superficial pseudo science What do you mean by this? Are you claiming his work in evolutionary biology is pseudo-science? What part of it? Or are you just angry that he doesn't believe in god and isn't afraid to say so? > The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one Are you claiming he is a pseudo-scientists or a mediocre scientist? > To me, he's the typical representation of someone able to shout out loud What is he shouting about? In my experiences with his writing and speech he makes clear, persuasive arguments which make specific, disprovable claims. You have made extremely strong claims about a respected scientist and provided nothing but your much derided shouting to back it up.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Now I am not the biggest Dawkins fan (I think he is abit of a science zealot - which has it's place but is still uncomfortable) but you're being unfair. He is at least soundly scientific; especially in evolutionary biology. He may dress it up in fancy words, sure.
  - 16y ago
barredo 16y ago
Lets do the math: how many women ever existed? How many years did they were fertile? Then we know the number of ovum/eggs and so: the max number of humans that could have ever been. Right?
- jerf 16y ago
  He's more likely referring to every possible human, which for instance would include every possible other sperm that could have fertilized your egg, in addition to all the opportunities to be pregnant that weren't taken. The numbers get so absurdly large so fast that it's inconceivable.
  - barredo 16y ago
    Yes. You're right :-) That number would be astronomical
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >He's more likely referring to every possible human, which for instance would include every possible other sperm that could have fertilized your egg The one that fertilised it is the only one that could have fertilised it. Perhaps if you're into realist versions Copenhagen interpretation then you can argue that in a largely parallel universe that another sperm may have suited the conditions ...
erikstarck 16y ago
Out of all the possible combinations of human DNA, I wonder what the "perfect" human individual would look like. He or she is hiding there, somewhere, in the probability space of all possible combinations. Must be lonely.
- qq66 16y ago
  Nope, he's right here in my room, typing on HN :)
koningrobot 16y ago
Richard Dawkins' faithful optimism has always bothered me. Even if our species is so special, how does that make us, the individuals, lucky? What good does it do us? Jim Crawford says it better than I: http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/02/richard-dawkins-blindspot.html http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/02/richard-dawkins-bli... and so does David Benatar: http://vorosh.blogspot.com/2008/03/optimism-delusion.html http://vorosh.blogspot.com/2008/03/optimism-delusion.html
- avar 16y ago
  What good does it do you? Well, the atoms that are you are now eating, sleeping, farting and posting comments on HN. That's pretty interesting, given that it's much more likely that they'd be undergoing nuclear fusion as part of a star, or clumped together as a planet or an asteroid. Dawkins is pointing out how neat this is as a way to get people interested in science. As Feynman pointed out, it's neat to take the world from another point of view.
- kirse 16y ago
  At some point Dawkins has to rationalize (or shall I say 'irrationalize', for a man so concerned with logic) away the consequences of his diehard belief in an evolutionary process explaining our existence... So to Dawkins, being the pawn of a purposeless, intelligence-devoid, purely natural process -- slowing marching his way to death, only to be forgotten within a few centuries -- probably doesn't sit well with him. For most people, they choose to ignore the reality that Evolution simply lays down the fact that one's existence is both purposeless and meaningless. Well, one does have a purpose - replicating their species. Of course, the optimistic delusion starts when people start bullshitting about "doing good for humanity" and "living for the moment" and all sorts of other drivel that really just serves to help them ignore the bigger uncomfortable reality of how incredibly useless and meaningless they are on the timeline of the infinite.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    You seem to be pretty dismissive of our irrelevance on the solar scale. For me it is always humbling; being an infatessimably small part of the grand scheme. Far from feeling meaningless it sets me free :)

35 points by tamarindo 16y ago

10ren 16y ago

I don't think Newton would have attributed his success entirely to his DNA: If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.

robryan 16y ago
No, but he is right, they would just have to apply the natural advantages they have been given.

harrybr 16y ago

Of all the Dawkins quotes, this one strikes me as weak.

jacquesm 16y ago
It's not that weak a quote, it's just that the website does not really add any value by simply repeating it.
- lovepowerman 16y ago
  I've seen so far is in perfect <a href="http://www.lovepowerman.net>http://www.lovepowerman.net http://www.lovepowerman.net>http://www.lovepowerman.net </a> <a href="http://www.lovepowerman.com>http://www.lovepowerman.com http://www.lovepowerman.com>http://www.lovepowerman.com </a> ibrahim uzun web site admin
- lovepowerman 16y ago
  I've seen so far is in perfect http://www.lovepowerman.net http://www.lovepowerman.net http://www.lovepowerman.com http://www.lovepowerman.com
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    piss off spammer.
  - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
    Don't just downvote it - flag it. Go here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488063 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488063 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488061 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488061 and click the "flag" link.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      There seems to be more and more of this stuff lately.

extension 16y ago

There's no rule that says two people can't, by simple coincidence, have exactly the same DNA, so the amount of unlucky people is actually infinite. Surprisingly meaningless statement from such a smart guy.

_polos_ 16y ago
Smart? He mostly offers superficial pseudo science, which doesn't hold more profound investigation. The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one is (as always) in the details. He sounds smart at first (many people could do the same; only very few are really smart though). He's the perfect guy to mislead you in any wrong direction, if you simply "eat" all of his "science". To me, he's the typical representation of someone able to shout out loud and successfully, without really saying anything really scientific. You have to be scientific, not only sound so. And, science is not absolute -- nothing is absolute -- but he puts science in an absolute position, which is simply not scientific, but already his religion...
- dmm 16y ago
  > He mostly offers superficial pseudo science What do you mean by this? Are you claiming his work in evolutionary biology is pseudo-science? What part of it? Or are you just angry that he doesn't believe in god and isn't afraid to say so? > The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one Are you claiming he is a pseudo-scientists or a mediocre scientist? > To me, he's the typical representation of someone able to shout out loud What is he shouting about? In my experiences with his writing and speech he makes clear, persuasive arguments which make specific, disprovable claims. You have made extremely strong claims about a respected scientist and provided nothing but your much derided shouting to back it up.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Now I am not the biggest Dawkins fan (I think he is abit of a science zealot - which has it's place but is still uncomfortable) but you're being unfair. He is at least soundly scientific; especially in evolutionary biology. He may dress it up in fancy words, sure.
- 16y ago

barredo 16y ago

Lets do the math: how many women ever existed? How many years did they were fertile? Then we know the number of ovum/eggs and so: the max number of humans that could have ever been. Right?

jerf 16y ago
He's more likely referring to every possible human, which for instance would include every possible other sperm that could have fertilized your egg, in addition to all the opportunities to be pregnant that weren't taken. The numbers get so absurdly large so fast that it's inconceivable.
- barredo 16y ago
  Yes. You're right :-) That number would be astronomical
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >He's more likely referring to every possible human, which for instance would include every possible other sperm that could have fertilized your egg The one that fertilised it is the only one that could have fertilised it. Perhaps if you're into realist versions Copenhagen interpretation then you can argue that in a largely parallel universe that another sperm may have suited the conditions ...

erikstarck 16y ago

Out of all the possible combinations of human DNA, I wonder what the "perfect" human individual would look like. He or she is hiding there, somewhere, in the probability space of all possible combinations. Must be lonely.

qq66 16y ago
Nope, he's right here in my room, typing on HN :)

koningrobot 16y ago

Richard Dawkins' faithful optimism has always bothered me. Even if our species is so special, how does that make us, the individuals, lucky? What good does it do us? Jim Crawford says it better than I: http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/02/richard-dawkins-blindspot.html http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/02/richard-dawkins-bli... and so does David Benatar: http://vorosh.blogspot.com/2008/03/optimism-delusion.html http://vorosh.blogspot.com/2008/03/optimism-delusion.html

avar 16y ago
What good does it do you? Well, the atoms that are you are now eating, sleeping, farting and posting comments on HN. That's pretty interesting, given that it's much more likely that they'd be undergoing nuclear fusion as part of a star, or clumped together as a planet or an asteroid. Dawkins is pointing out how neat this is as a way to get people interested in science. As Feynman pointed out, it's neat to take the world from another point of view.
kirse 16y ago
At some point Dawkins has to rationalize (or shall I say 'irrationalize', for a man so concerned with logic) away the consequences of his diehard belief in an evolutionary process explaining our existence... So to Dawkins, being the pawn of a purposeless, intelligence-devoid, purely natural process -- slowing marching his way to death, only to be forgotten within a few centuries -- probably doesn't sit well with him. For most people, they choose to ignore the reality that Evolution simply lays down the fact that one's existence is both purposeless and meaningless. Well, one does have a purpose - replicating their species. Of course, the optimistic delusion starts when people start bullshitting about "doing good for humanity" and "living for the moment" and all sorts of other drivel that really just serves to help them ignore the bigger uncomfortable reality of how incredibly useless and meaningless they are on the timeline of the infinite.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  You seem to be pretty dismissive of our irrelevance on the solar scale. For me it is always humbling; being an infatessimably small part of the grand scheme. Far from feeling meaningless it sets me free :)