11 ms·
Evolutionary biologist slays the beast of Individualism
- aerodog 6y agoI was in my teens when I started reading the Fountainhead. After 50 pages, I could see how she was heroizing Howard Roark and never finished it. One thing I could tell at that age was her worldview didn't seem to value mercy. So f- that!
- pjmorris 6y agoSeems like the right time to roll out this old gem: “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
- EvilEy3 6y ago> I was in my teens when I started reading the Fountainhead Here's your problem.
- BartekG 6y agoBecause mercy is the opposite of justice. Justice is giving to others what they deserve - reward for achievements, punishment for crimes. Mercy is whthholding punishment for crimes and giving rewards for nothing.
- lebuffon 6y agoJust to show how language affects understanding, the word "charity" comes from the Latin caritas meaning something from the heart. The semitic word used where English uses charity means more like justice or "do the right thing". It also implies that the right thing may in fact involve giving to those who have too little ie: they "deserve" more because they were dealt a bad hand, not because of their achievements.
- cafard 6y ago> She wisely noted that “Art is the essential medium for the communication of a moral ideal.” Good grief. Tolstoy did his damnedest to ruin War and Peace on just that assumption, but was fundamentally too good a novelist to do so.
- Dumblydorr 6y agoRand's philosophy has not held up well, given the strains of unfettered capitalism. How would she suggest dealing with the tragedy of the commons, climate change for instance, or net neutrality, right to repair, open source software, helping others on forums such as this? According to Rand, every comment on this forum is pointless because it doesn't gain us dollars, therefore we are doing nothing of value, unless this leads directly to employment (anyone want to hire me?)...In my view, her philosophy was very weak.
- nautilus12 6y ago"helping others". Is that whats happening here?
- mettamage 6y agoWhile I haven't experienced it, I have seen examples of people being hired as a result of HN. I think this is because HN kind of serves as a water cooler chat forum for people that are interested in tech + science (in the broadest possible sense). Sometimes job offers are a result of that. Note: I did get some help with prepping my resume among other things.
- bitexploder 6y agoAre you any good with Python? :)
- oetnxkdrlgcexu 6y agoI would like to gently suggest that you have probably misunderstood why Rand wrote what she did and communicated it the way she did. She, in her lifetime, bore personal witness to the rape, slaughter, and enslavement that was not only allowed but encouraged by a moral philosophy that placed the importance of an undefinable "group" above any individual. She spent her life's work trying to take the strongest possible opposition to that philosophy. Her goal was to create moral arguments that could stand in opposition to any of the many tenets of group moral systems. She communicated her ideas brusquely, which is not an effective method of communication, because she was "over that shit". The driving moral principle behind her beliefs was that the strength of a group of people does not have the moral right to abuse the freedom of an individual person, regardless of their practical power to do so. Furthermore, by respecting those individuals rights, society would be better served by those individuals. Allowing evolutionary competitive mechanisms to operate in social spheres would produce better results overall. Was everything she said correct? Obviously not. But, that can be said of anyone that ever produced any idea. Her fundamental driving principle, and the way she explored it, are both interesting and useful to think about. Tens of millions of people have been subjected to democide in the last century, as a direct result of group-based moral systems. As it has been said, groups do-not and cannot suffer, only individuals can suffer. As to your individual points, she might say that nothing so far has resolved the tragedy of the commons, that net-neutrality is only a problem because the government has granted ISP monopolies by force, that right to repair is only a problem because governments have granted IP monopolies by force, that any individual may contribute to OSS if they desire but should not be forced to if they do not desire, and that anyone may contribute to a forum if they desire but should not be forced to if they do not desire. I would personally have different answers for some of these questions.
- geitir 6y agoIsn't it a little arrogant to title your article about your opinions that?
- mumblemumble 6y agoI am guessing that the author picked the title, "I have come to bury Ayn Rand," and an editor added the subtitle.
- blunte 6y agoAlso, these days the complexity of our creations is such that almost never could one person really personally succeed without the contribution of others. A common complaint among some groups is that they worked really hard and built successful businesses, and they shouldn’t be taxed to pay for services that do not benefit them. But they neglect to account for the infrastructure, relative availability of educated workforce, and even regional economic stability which allows others to reliably consume their products.
- seibelj 6y agoMy issue with taxes is that whenever there’s a funding problem, the knee jerk reaction is to increase taxes rather than make the government more efficient. In business, the pressure is always to be more efficient. As a result, the government trends towards bloat, inefficiency, and waste. And when someone suggests (gasp!) eliminating positions rather than raising ever more tax, some people think you are a heartless jerk, rather than an advocate for prudent and frugal use of limited funds.
- Loughla 6y ago>some people think you are a heartless jerk I think this comes down to a fundamental miscommunication. No one is going to believe you are a heartless jerk for advocating for more efficient, effective practices in government. The values judgment comes in when the services being cut are those that provide tangible, critical value to individuals in society - think social welfare programs. Because cuts are never accompanied by a plan for efficiency, cuts always mean services get worse. Therefore, individuals who receive vital services suffer. Then comes the 'heartless jerk' values judgment. Maybe all budget cuts need to be precipitated by a process evaluation and bloat reduction. The issue is, that game is too easy to rig and too tempting to play; for proof, see literally any large corporation's budget and planning processes. Fiefdoms abound. I don't know how to fix the problem. I have always said that I would gladly pay 75% of my salary in taxes, as long as everyone in society had easy, equal access to high quality education, quality, safe housing, nutritious, safe food, and high quality, timely healthcare. The problem is, any society structured to provide those things will immediately be corrupted by greedy, power-hungry people. Getting a little too philosophical, I think. Anyway. I don't know what the solution is, but I'm hopeful that there is one.
- dfgdghdf 6y agoI only got part way through the article because it makes grand claims, yet misunderstands Rand. Rand believed in individualist politics, and created these hero archetypes in her stories, but she also advocated for cooperation by free individuals. There's even a section in Atlas Shrugged where the protagonist tries to go it alone and finds it unfulfilling. Instead, the utopia in the book is one in which people voluntarily associate to form a society. The click-bait title doesn't help matters.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoAll these "individualism is trash and here's why" type articles do that because they're necessarily written by someone who fundamentally believes group association and/or groups themselves have some sort of inherent good so they have a massive ideological blind spot when it comes to seeing any benefit to doing something as an individual.
- jkhdigital 6y agoIt’s almost as though they actually believe there are no individuals, just group members. Or rather, that what we call an individual is more appropriately described as the intersection of a collection of group memberships.
- dfgdghdf 6y agoYeah, there's nuance here that so many miss. We can understand humans through a social lens when discussing psychology or anthropology. However, we might consider humans through another lens when discussing political theory. It would be entirely consistent to be an ardent individualist politically whilst also believing that humans are social animals who prefer close-knit units. I think the root of the problem is the naturalistic fallacy.
- jkhdigital 6y agoIndeed, it reminds me of Jordan Peterson’s remark that every household is communist.
- asah 6y agomeh - civilization wins, and civilization requires intense cooperation. the logic: 1. win = you pick: military, economy, etc (arguably) 2. winning economy/military = specialization, complex R&D, infrastructure, tools, etc = requires cooperation 3. cooperation = subverting personal desire for greater good. Sure, on a short term basis offensive military/etc efforts can overtake collective ones, but the collective has a massive R&D advantage.
- naringas 6y agobut with individualism we can form a better collective. however it is harder to do, takes longer to get there, and there are some tough patches on the way. because quality takes time and effort (and always encounters failure along its path). it's just more expensive to do things that way.
- Loughla 6y ago>but with individualism we can form a better collective I don't see this, even slightly. Could you please flush out your thoughts a little more to help me understand what you're saying?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- elliekelly 6y ago> but through individualism a stronger collective may be achieved. How so? You haven’t connected the dots between “individualism” and “result: stronger collective” so this seems like meaningless rhetoric.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- menacingly 6y agoThis is a solid point, and doesn't deserve to be dismissed out of hand for wordplay reasons due to the apparent contradiction. Obviously a team made up of self-reliant individuals is stronger than a team made up of not-self-reliant individuals. Inidividuals who don't neglect the resources of the collective (which is impossible), but need them as little as possible, seem pretty clearly preferable to the alternative.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- douglaswlance 6y agoObjectivism means putting your own oxygen mask on before helping anyone else when you're on a crashing plane. People have a gut reaction to it as if it means putting on your own mask and letting others die. If prosocial behavior is the best option for the individual, then the most selfish thing for the individual to do is that prosocial behavior.
- mrow84 6y agoWhat if prosocial behaviour isn't the best option for the individual?
- douglaswlance 6y agoI can't think of any situations in which that would be the case.
- disposekinetics 6y agoNot paying into social security would very likely lead to better outcomes for me, but not for society as a whole. Edit: The current gun rights debate in the USA is if making it more difficult for hobby marksman is worth the collective safety.
- douglaswlance 6y ago>Not paying into social security would very likely lead to better outcomes for me, but not for society as a whole. You should get some of that money back. Also, by not paying, you would be fined by the government. It's ultimately not overall a benefit to you. >Edit: The current gun rights debate in the USA is if making it more difficult for hobby marksman is worth the collective safety. Thinking about the collective, as suggested, doesn't make any sense. Individuals responsibly owning and carrying firearms is self-beneficial and prosocial. Individuals irresponsibly owning and misusing firearms is self-harming and anti-social. This is the whole point of the Objectivist point of view.
- 6y ago
- lupire 6y agoI dislike HN titles that are opinions that read as claims of fact. The original articles have the "Opinion" or "Ideas" tag so it's in context, but HN lacks that, making it tacky. I guess I need a trigger warning for bombastic opinions.
- jamesgreenleaf 6y agoIf you look at Ayn Rand's work less as genuine philosophy or realistic storytelling, and more as comic book superhero sagas, then you may enjoy it a lot more. We all know Batman is not even close to being real, but sometimes it's still fun to watch him defeat cartoonish villains. Any fiction can be stirring and have a motivational or aspirational effect on people. Just don't confuse mythology for reality. I know that Rand did take it seriously, curated a cult following, and probably drank her own kool-aid, but that doesn't mean you have to.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- endisneigh 6y agoI've never really understood "Individualism." There don't seem to be any circumstances in which "Individualism" is superior to "Cooperation" or "Collectivism" (and that in of itself I believe is a false dichotomy to begin with as there are situations in which individualism is necessary to maintain overall collectivism) unless you ignore the fact that the individual is benefiting from past "Collectivist" actions. Rand's Objectivism is not mutually exclusive with Collectivist, nor is it always necessarily Individualist. Personally I believe individuals are becoming more and more far removed from the benefits of "Collectivism" and therefore are wrongly believing their (in)abilities are a result of their actions solely. Your own actions, of course, have an effect on your life, but we don't live in a vacuum. If we collectively pollute the planet and it turns out that pollution makes it harder for children to learn, is it the child's fault for not learning properly or our fault for creating such conditions? Of course, the answer is it's a little of both.
- EvilEy3 6y ago> unless you ignore the fact that the individual is benefiting from past "Collectivist" actions. This. Modern individual can use something built by a group of collectivists and advance alone.
- jd115 6y agoI'm the other way around. I've always found it very hard to convince myself of when and how exactly collectivism is better than individualism. To me, one person is infinitely powerful. Add more than one and limitations begin. By the time you get to the "masses" there's practically no power left and the ability to act productively is so watered down that nothing of unique value is ever achieved (only more of the same). This is not AT ALL to say I don't enjoy cooperation and working / playing together with other people with different viewpoints or alternative perspectives. That's one of the best parts of living on this planet. So I'm not saying there's no value in others, or even that I could exist without others. But I AM saying I only value others for their individualism.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoI am no Rand fan and I think she is an awful writer, technically speaking. Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead could both be about 1/10 as long. ...and yet, there is something inspiring (?) about the characters in her work. I don't know how to describe the feeling. Perhaps someone here knows what I'm talking about. They are brief glimpses of people with true character that don't sacrifice their values for anything. Roark in particular is (mostly) a very sympathetic character. Ultimately, I think her mistake was in transporting her philosophy from art (Roark) to business (Galt). The rebel artist that never gives in to the market and the mob is inspiring. But the businessman and financier? Not so much. That all aside, the sheer amount of angst and hatred thrown toward Rand is interesting in itself. As MLK said, the opposite of love isn't hate, it is indifference, and boy do people love to hate Rand.
- tryptophan 6y ago>That all aside, the sheer amount of angst and hatred thrown toward Rand is interesting in itself. As MLK said, the opposite of love isn't hate, it is indifference, and boy do people love to hate Rand. Yeah it's quite interesting. I don't think I have ever seen another book or people who like it get so much hate, completely unprovoked. Being honest, her books are not that good. The writing is bad to put it kindly; it is obvious the whole story is just a canvas used to paint her ideas onto. However, the ideas they present are really unique, which makes the works very memorable.
- hootbootscoot 6y agoIndeed, monochromatic moralizing with a baseball bat. I would characterize Ayn Rands writings as obtuse. What sort of non-self-aware person terms their personal philosophy "objectivism"? AS-IF you were "objective", Ayn. In my mind, Ayd Rands philosophies are immoral. Most of the problems life on earth faces at this junction in time are caused by human selfishness on the part of individual actors who actively seek to undermine humanities necessary collective corrections 1) environmental catastrophes of all sorts, including climate change 2) extreme poverty, folks without basic health-care, drinking-water, food, shelter, etc. I see Ayn claiming that big bosses "earned it" but I question the extent to which Bezos, Musk, Gates, etc, "earned it"... certainly 6 figure salaries, but the equivalent of entire continents full of nations GDP? It seems like a broken system, bare-minimum. The idea that one could propose the harshness of our economic failed-systems as the exclusive solution to every human issue = implausible at best. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" - is this only true when you want to acknowledge our computing forebears, or does not society provide individuals with tools and materials they would never be able to individually obtain etc? From arms-makers who push for specific foreign policies to oil companies who fund right-wing astroturf movements, the problem has the same origin: The economy and markets are what rule human activities on planet earth. Governments must cater to them, at their peril. The economy and markets treat environmental catastrophes like "the tragedy of the commons" like externalities. Radical Individualism is not a philosophy, it's a religious conviction, and cannot allow any alternative ideas to exist, witness the discourse here and the dismissive manner folks treat a rather decent author (whatever your point of view on their conclusions), versus putting a rather technically-poor writer on a pedestal. Her characters never develop or think a different thought from beginning to end, as the authors moralizing overpowers the frail thread of an attempt at disguising her viewpoint as a story, etc. I can't see how anyone can seriously pick on this Nautilus writer while giving Ayn Rand a free pass. There was a brick factory in the old town I used to live in. The owner died and his son didn't want to run it. They liquidated it. They liquidated 500+ jobs and those 500+ folks went on the unemployment rolls and starting being a social drain in lieu of a social boon. Does society not have an interest in keeping this brick factory running, for the sake of the local economy etc? Could the Camera Municipal simply have insisted that they will find buyers for the factory but that liquidation is not an option? Does society have no rights? Ayn Rand grants society nothing. zero. zilch. Clearly society exists. I have a real issue with the English-speaking worlds lack of reflection on etymology and the actual meaning of words. Thatcher "given A, A does not exist" Teresa May "Diogenes coined a word I don't like" (never mind that cosmopolitan literally means citizen of everywhere, thus contradicting the notion that a cosmopolitan could ever be a citizen of nowhere. hello "words" and "meanings" for 10 points...)
- EvilEy3 6y ago> A prominent evolutionary biologist slays the beast of Individualism. I didn't see anything in the article about slaying the beast of individualism. Just some thoughts of person who misunderstood another author.
- DaniloDias 6y agoMy relationship with ayn rand is frustrating. As young man, I thought her ideas were provocative, but something feels wrong with Atlas Shrugged. I later come to realize that rand is a bad novelist: She is a little too self indulgent with her character’s speeches. She has contempt for the antagonists in her books. She hates them. She cannot relate to them, so they are not relatable. Her antagonists seem to be over the top in their abandonment of logic and common sense. Her worldview is flawed. No one would behave this way. I come to feel like she has some good ideas, but her cynicism about moochers is not supported by the real world. Then 2019 happened and I realize she is right and I can’t decide if I should be more annoyed with her, Americans or myself. SJWs are as bad as the moochers she presents. American politicians and almost everyone in the dc community are craven, awful, dangerous and petty. Instead of recognizing that everything we are experiencing is a symptom of the ethical decline of the country, we are tallying the score of republicans and democrats. We are homogenized and too stupid to save ourselves. Our finishing move is electing a man presenting symptoms of dementia. He seems determined to accidentally start combat between nuclear armed nations through unforced insults, if “nance” thinks it’s ok to do so. I was wrong. Ayn is right. These people will present self destruction as the moral choice. They will rage when you point out why it won’t work. The worst of them default to violence and suppression. It does seem to accelerate. You don’t have to like her to respect her.
- jkhdigital 6y agoThis might be the least thought-provoking article I’ve ever read on Nautilus. The author seems to have misunderstood and caricatured every single idea he argues against.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- macspoofing 6y agoThe core proposition of individualism is that an individual has rights and value, irrespective of their group identity, and therefore should be judged based on their ideas, their conduct and their personal characteristics. This has strong connection to the philosophical foundations of Science where ideas should be judged on their merits and not on the speaker or their group identity and capitalism where individual rights extend to property. The default position of humanity is not individualism by the way, but rather group identity. Historically since time immemorial, rewards, guilt, punishment, rights (etc.) were applied at a group level. This resulted, predictably, in egregious crimes inflicted on huge swaths of people because of their group membership. It's dismaying that there is a huge segment of academia that wants to revert to this more 'natural' state. It's dismaying to see arguments and ideas being dismissed based on the group identity of speaker in academia and mainstream culture. It's dismaying to see academia and mainstream culture level guilt on individuals because of their (immutable) group identity. Individualism was one of the most radical ideas in the history of humanity that ushered our modern civilization. We lose it at our peril.
- dfilppi 6y agoCommies got to be commies
- question000 6y agoIndividualism is whatever I say it is.
- specialist 6y agoThe Agile Philosophy.
- smt88 6y ago> individual has rights and value, irrespective of their group identity Individuals should have rights/value irrespective of group identity. However, individual rights don't exist without a group in general. If you are the only living human, the concept of rights is meaningless to you in general. I live in the US, so my rights are (supposed to be) protected by the state, in case anyone wants to take them from me. If my neighbor decides I don't have the right to live anymore and murders me, then I lost my right to live. I only have the rights that everyone around me agrees to let me keep. > It's dismaying that there is a huge segment of academia that wants to revert to this more 'natural' state. The opposite is true. Academia is where we get much of the evidence that socially-constructed groups (based on religion, gender, race, etc.) are not biological and should not be the basis for granting value and rights.
- yosito 6y agoI read the whole article. It really irks me that a scientist would dress up their ideological views and call it science (or "science-informed"). Whether you agree or disagree with the views presented, if something is more about interpreting how we ought to live, rather than about examining evidence, it's not science. Calling controversial opinions science undermines public trust in science.
- mdpopescu 6y agoMaybe "public trust in science" SHOULD be undermined? I mean, I can definitely understand the appeal of "but my priest / pastor / president / doctor / scientist said that...", but I think it leads to a bad result overall. Man, I am SO BORED today.
- calebm 6y agoCollectivism and Individualism are just poles on the spectrum, but there is a happy middle path.
- disposekinetics 6y agoI think everyone agrees with you but where we would place our countries on that spectrum probably differs to an extreme degree.
- BartekG 6y agoBeware of the middle ground fallacy.
- lordnacho 6y agoThough I lean more toward individual rights than most, I've always had a problem with like-minded friends who pushed Ayn Rand books at me. I just don't get how a work of fiction is going to convince me that the world works a certain way. Obviously I could write a story where people were collectivists and everything turned out just fine. If you want to convince people of how the world works, use real-world evidence. Make your case for why more individualistic societies have fared better/worse, dig out stats, and tell me how you see the connections. As for economics, the more I studied it in and after college, there more I see that ecology is what economics courses actually need to contain. The interaction of agents with the environment, leading to changes in both, is just like the economy. All the weird stuff you see on Attenborough has a business-world analog. It's also a refreshing pause from applying inappropriate mathematical abstractions that eat up a heck of a lot of time.
- nahuel0x 6y agoThere is a beautiful book in the same line of thought, but from 1902 and by a classic anarchist, Kropotkin [1] and also a comment about it by Stephen Jay Gould [2]: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolut... [2] https://www.marxists.org/subject/science/essays/kropotkin.htm https://www.marxists.org/subject/science/essays/kropotkin.ht...