4 ms·

Granfalloonery like this is what humans are best at. Everything we involve ourselves in is "made up", but that doesn't keep it from existing. The book Sapiens

Granfalloonery like this is what humans are best at. Everything we involve ourselves in is "made up", but that doesn't keep it from existing. The book Sapiens suggests the word "intersubjective" (I don't know if this came from somewhere else) for things that exist entirely because a quorum believes they exist: - National identity - Nations as a whole - Tribes - Religion - Money - Civil rights

rvo 9y ago
Of course. It's what separates us from the beasts and animals. Sapiens also talks about how humanism is completely made up. Who says a human deserves rights? Why should humans not own other humans? Because we built up a moral system on made up beliefs, largely religious in origin. And that is good. Otherwise why protect weak humans? Why not just behave more "naturally", like animals?
- betenoire 9y ago
  Tribalism seems to be pretty animalistic. I assume superstitious behavior is common too, who knows what kind of internal barking goes on when the bells ring.
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  I'm absolutely not being critical of any of this. I think it's pseudo-magical that we've built a moderately-functional society out of 10 billion humans spread over an entire planet.
  - ygaf 9y ago
    I absolutely appreciate your post for exposing the threadbare premise of the video.
- adventured 9y ago
  The beauty of longer term surplus, storage, savings, preservation, investment, etc. That's fundamentally why we can do it and animals can't. If humans were unable to store or save, billions of people would die off rapidly. As a species we'd largely stop being so generous & kind with each other. Famines would be common (again). We'd never be able to successfully support such an immense population scale. Operating by a year to year razors edge, is incredibly risky and difficult. Inevitably the mistakes will hammer you. Instead of 10 steps forward and 9 steps backwards (leading to quite slow net population growth), today we're able to make 10 steps forward and maybe 1-2 backwards, leading to immense success overall (whether we're talking about % that make it to old age, or % that survive infancy). If other animals could store their productivity (including surplus productivity) for 50%-100% of their life span (or more), much less widely distribute/trade it for further self-benefit, it seems like it would lead to fascinating consequences over many generations of evolution.
dnautics 9y ago
IIRC intersubjective refers to coordinated interpretations of scientific measurement. If you make two measurements of course they aren't exactly the same, ever, and every measurement is not perfectly objective anyways (you are using your subjective judgment to say that that number from the readout is a 3 and not a 4). You could include in your list: -Science
Cacti 9y ago
- corporations - governments
lazaroclapp 9y ago
Sure, but it sometimes is useful to remember that those fictions are indeed fictions, and can be changed. Doesn't mean they are not useful fictions. Doesn't mean they should be changed. Saying they are meaningless because they are fictions is, of course, absurd. Civilization is built pretty much exclusively of useful fictions. But is good to remember we can change the set of fictions we collectively believe in. Think about rights and legal codes. When the law supposedly comes from god, like it did in many ancient societies, it makes no sense to ask whether it is just or unjust, as it can't be changed except by an act of god. When you recognize that law is human made, that doesn't mean it holds no power, but it means humans can change it, and unjust laws can be repealed when enough humans agree they are unjust. So is with nationality. Is not a fact of nature, is a distinction we agree on because it serves a purpose. Is that purpose necessary? Is it just? Is there a viable path towards changing it? Maybe, maybe not. But acknowledging it is made up allows us to at least ask those questions.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  > Sure, but it sometimes is useful to remember that those fictions are indeed fictions, and can be changed. But they aren't necessarily even fictions. "Malcom Turnbull is the Prime Minister" is a true statement, even though it is (a) only true in a certain time and place and (b) it is a statement about purely social constructs.
vlunkr 9y ago
Yeah, but the alt-right believes in National Identity therefore it is different and bad. /s
sjbase 9y ago
I think you'd find the philosopher Jean Baudrillard really interesting [0]. He wrote extensively about how humans create structure/models/frameworks around everything that approximate the "real" world into something we can work with. He calls them simulations, and i think he goes as far as to argue that it is in fact the "real world" underlying those simulations that doesn't exist; or ceases to exist once it's been simulated. 0: Excerpt from his book Simulacra and Simulation - https://web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html https://web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Baudrilla...
pmarreck 9y ago
- Value - Beauty - Music - The top of Maslow's hierarchy

rvo 9y ago

Of course. It's what separates us from the beasts and animals. Sapiens also talks about how humanism is completely made up. Who says a human deserves rights? Why should humans not own other humans? Because we built up a moral system on made up beliefs, largely religious in origin. And that is good. Otherwise why protect weak humans? Why not just behave more "naturally", like animals?

betenoire 9y ago
Tribalism seems to be pretty animalistic. I assume superstitious behavior is common too, who knows what kind of internal barking goes on when the bells ring.
InitialLastName 9y ago
I'm absolutely not being critical of any of this. I think it's pseudo-magical that we've built a moderately-functional society out of 10 billion humans spread over an entire planet.
- ygaf 9y ago
  I absolutely appreciate your post for exposing the threadbare premise of the video.
adventured 9y ago
The beauty of longer term surplus, storage, savings, preservation, investment, etc. That's fundamentally why we can do it and animals can't. If humans were unable to store or save, billions of people would die off rapidly. As a species we'd largely stop being so generous & kind with each other. Famines would be common (again). We'd never be able to successfully support such an immense population scale. Operating by a year to year razors edge, is incredibly risky and difficult. Inevitably the mistakes will hammer you. Instead of 10 steps forward and 9 steps backwards (leading to quite slow net population growth), today we're able to make 10 steps forward and maybe 1-2 backwards, leading to immense success overall (whether we're talking about % that make it to old age, or % that survive infancy). If other animals could store their productivity (including surplus productivity) for 50%-100% of their life span (or more), much less widely distribute/trade it for further self-benefit, it seems like it would lead to fascinating consequences over many generations of evolution.

dnautics 9y ago

IIRC intersubjective refers to coordinated interpretations of scientific measurement. If you make two measurements of course they aren't exactly the same, ever, and every measurement is not perfectly objective anyways (you are using your subjective judgment to say that that number from the readout is a 3 and not a 4). You could include in your list: -Science

Cacti 9y ago

- corporations - governments

lazaroclapp 9y ago

Sure, but it sometimes is useful to remember that those fictions are indeed fictions, and can be changed. Doesn't mean they are not useful fictions. Doesn't mean they should be changed. Saying they are meaningless because they are fictions is, of course, absurd. Civilization is built pretty much exclusively of useful fictions. But is good to remember we can change the set of fictions we collectively believe in. Think about rights and legal codes. When the law supposedly comes from god, like it did in many ancient societies, it makes no sense to ask whether it is just or unjust, as it can't be changed except by an act of god. When you recognize that law is human made, that doesn't mean it holds no power, but it means humans can change it, and unjust laws can be repealed when enough humans agree they are unjust. So is with nationality. Is not a fact of nature, is a distinction we agree on because it serves a purpose. Is that purpose necessary? Is it just? Is there a viable path towards changing it? Maybe, maybe not. But acknowledging it is made up allows us to at least ask those questions.

adrianratnapala 9y ago
> Sure, but it sometimes is useful to remember that those fictions are indeed fictions, and can be changed. But they aren't necessarily even fictions. "Malcom Turnbull is the Prime Minister" is a true statement, even though it is (a) only true in a certain time and place and (b) it is a statement about purely social constructs.

vlunkr 9y ago

Yeah, but the alt-right believes in National Identity therefore it is different and bad. /s

sjbase 9y ago

I think you'd find the philosopher Jean Baudrillard really interesting [0]. He wrote extensively about how humans create structure/models/frameworks around everything that approximate the "real" world into something we can work with. He calls them simulations, and i think he goes as far as to argue that it is in fact the "real world" underlying those simulations that doesn't exist; or ceases to exist once it's been simulated. 0: Excerpt from his book Simulacra and Simulation - https://web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html https://web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Baudrilla...

pmarreck 9y ago

- Value - Beauty - Music - The top of Maslow's hierarchy