5 ms·

Wow! This is the first time I've learned about Adam Curtis, and he doesn't mince any words. This article is a crash course into the trajectory of politics over

Wow! This is the first time I've learned about Adam Curtis, and he doesn't mince any words. This article is a crash course into the trajectory of politics over the last few decades. The interviewer must be commended here too! As someone who's been fascinated by Richard Dawkins' motivations, it was revealing that as Obama pushed religion outside the White House, the whole Dawkins counter-culture against religion was made irrelevant. It is, however, interesting that Adam Curtis says that people will find a purpose again with the resurgence of religion (Dawkins has a second chance then? Are we in a loop?). I wonder what HN thinks about that.

sleavey 6y ago
You're in for a treat then, he's made lots of documentaries about the subjects in the interview, easily found online. They're permanently available on BBC iPlayer if you're in the UK too.
marcus_holmes 6y ago
I was intrigued that "religion will provide the vision of the future" and also "religion is way of dealing with our fear of death" (I paraphrase). I don't really see how both can be true. I see religion becoming more marginalised and less relevant as time goes on. The evangelists are going further away from the rest of society, which is becoming less religious. Trump helped, I think, by exposing how irrational the religious right are becoming. Also, any religion is increasingly being associated with right-wing, traditionalist, conservative, reactionary politics. There's no religious voice welcoming fluid gender identity or supporting UBI. I don't see religion making a comeback any time soon (thank god). But we do need a replacement for it. Something that gives us meaning. Some use for all those redundant church spaces in our communities - if we're not going to use them for worshipping sky fairies, what are we going to use them for? Because it would be useful to find something that brought the whole community in one place once a week.
- the-dude 6y ago
  Recently I was asked here on HN if I believed in climate science. So there you go.
  - polytely 6y ago
    I think that is an interesting way to phrase that question haha. Of course it is hard to verify is climate science is real without becoming a climate scientist, I think most belief in science rests on the question "do you believe that if you would study the field you would agree with the scientific consensus of that field (the climate is changing due to human activity, which is probably bad for the earth's ability to support our current way of living)".
    - adrian_b 6y ago
      You are right in general, but the case of climate science is special, because in many places of the world you do not need to be a climate scientist, but it is enough to be old and have a good memory. Where I live, in Europe, there is a huge difference between the climate from 50 years ago and the climate now. During these 50 years, there has been a gradual transition from winters when there were 3 or 4 months of continuous snow coverage, like they have been during at least the preceding several hundreds of years, to winters when it might not snow even once, much less cover the ground. So the problem with the belief in climate science probably affects only the people who live in places where the climate change is not obvious yet.
      - ThinkBeat 6y ago
        I live in Norway now and I can see a lot of the changes you mention Correlation does not imply causation One may observe change, but attributing that change one way, or another is a different matter. 500 years is insignificant when it comes to the planet, the sun, and other factors that cand cause variance over longer spans of time. I do not think we know enough yet about those systems to say with 100% certainly what the cause is, esp. when explaining it with extremely short-term attributes. When science has more than one theory for something you can elect to pick one of them, a couple other, or none ago with that based on your own research, the media you chose to consume and your background and friends. Most science these days is so complicated that it is always based on a choice to believe. Unless you PhD in many fields there is no way ou can know for sure if something is correct. Even if someone gives you nice diagrams. Can you really understand and repeat the diagrams? I have never seen an electron. Nor have I never seen an atom. And I certainly haves never seen a quark or a boson, or a gravition (that last one nobody has seen yet). I have seen diagrams and I have seen simplified forumulas that even I can understand. Dark matter is one hypothesis I hope is replaced by something more elegant. I cant see, scientist cant see it. You elect if you believe in it or not. (There has been some recent proof based on gravitational measurements and there have been a theory now that dark matter is just all the matter that never formed into planets) Even in my own field of study of computer science, there are many things I do not understand now, and really grasping it would require another doctorate. All that long stuff just to say that for a lot of science for the vast majority it is a matter of belief. Now if I am not sure if all the changes in climate can be blamed on human impact. I do not think that is relevant to whether we need to cut emissions and pollution. We need to do that no matter what. If 30 years in the future, if I am still alive, and scientist puzzle out that based on new theories, models and evidence the majority of changes had nothing to with human interference we will be much better off in a cleaner and less polluted world Is burning coal casuing a lot of health issues now? Yes it is. Then we stop doing that. Is breathing air filled with polluted smog or car emissions pleasant and good for you? No, we need to do something about it. Almost all issues that people want to change that climate scientists may or may not be climate change, but you can break it down further to arrive at the exact same conclusions for nearly all of it. It is a win / win no matter what.
- pjc50 6y ago
  > There's no religious voice welcoming fluid gender identity or supporting UBI. There are among the nonconformists, although they won't be given media coverage.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    > although they won't be given media coverage I'm curious, why do you think that is?
  - thatguy0900 6y ago
    How can you be a nonconformist religious person? Do you not conform to whatever book you are following?
    - pjc50 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist_(Protestantism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist_(Protestantism) I was specifically thinking of Quakers, who've historically been very progressive. They're so non-hierarchical that it required special legislation for them to marry as Quaker weddings have no "celebrant" taking the priest role.

sleavey 6y ago

You're in for a treat then, he's made lots of documentaries about the subjects in the interview, easily found online. They're permanently available on BBC iPlayer if you're in the UK too.

marcus_holmes 6y ago

I was intrigued that "religion will provide the vision of the future" and also "religion is way of dealing with our fear of death" (I paraphrase). I don't really see how both can be true. I see religion becoming more marginalised and less relevant as time goes on. The evangelists are going further away from the rest of society, which is becoming less religious. Trump helped, I think, by exposing how irrational the religious right are becoming. Also, any religion is increasingly being associated with right-wing, traditionalist, conservative, reactionary politics. There's no religious voice welcoming fluid gender identity or supporting UBI. I don't see religion making a comeback any time soon (thank god). But we do need a replacement for it. Something that gives us meaning. Some use for all those redundant church spaces in our communities - if we're not going to use them for worshipping sky fairies, what are we going to use them for? Because it would be useful to find something that brought the whole community in one place once a week.

the-dude 6y ago
Recently I was asked here on HN if I believed in climate science. So there you go.
- polytely 6y ago
  I think that is an interesting way to phrase that question haha. Of course it is hard to verify is climate science is real without becoming a climate scientist, I think most belief in science rests on the question "do you believe that if you would study the field you would agree with the scientific consensus of that field (the climate is changing due to human activity, which is probably bad for the earth's ability to support our current way of living)".
  - adrian_b 6y ago
    You are right in general, but the case of climate science is special, because in many places of the world you do not need to be a climate scientist, but it is enough to be old and have a good memory. Where I live, in Europe, there is a huge difference between the climate from 50 years ago and the climate now. During these 50 years, there has been a gradual transition from winters when there were 3 or 4 months of continuous snow coverage, like they have been during at least the preceding several hundreds of years, to winters when it might not snow even once, much less cover the ground. So the problem with the belief in climate science probably affects only the people who live in places where the climate change is not obvious yet.
    - ThinkBeat 6y ago
      I live in Norway now and I can see a lot of the changes you mention Correlation does not imply causation One may observe change, but attributing that change one way, or another is a different matter. 500 years is insignificant when it comes to the planet, the sun, and other factors that cand cause variance over longer spans of time. I do not think we know enough yet about those systems to say with 100% certainly what the cause is, esp. when explaining it with extremely short-term attributes. When science has more than one theory for something you can elect to pick one of them, a couple other, or none ago with that based on your own research, the media you chose to consume and your background and friends. Most science these days is so complicated that it is always based on a choice to believe. Unless you PhD in many fields there is no way ou can know for sure if something is correct. Even if someone gives you nice diagrams. Can you really understand and repeat the diagrams? I have never seen an electron. Nor have I never seen an atom. And I certainly haves never seen a quark or a boson, or a gravition (that last one nobody has seen yet). I have seen diagrams and I have seen simplified forumulas that even I can understand. Dark matter is one hypothesis I hope is replaced by something more elegant. I cant see, scientist cant see it. You elect if you believe in it or not. (There has been some recent proof based on gravitational measurements and there have been a theory now that dark matter is just all the matter that never formed into planets) Even in my own field of study of computer science, there are many things I do not understand now, and really grasping it would require another doctorate. All that long stuff just to say that for a lot of science for the vast majority it is a matter of belief. Now if I am not sure if all the changes in climate can be blamed on human impact. I do not think that is relevant to whether we need to cut emissions and pollution. We need to do that no matter what. If 30 years in the future, if I am still alive, and scientist puzzle out that based on new theories, models and evidence the majority of changes had nothing to with human interference we will be much better off in a cleaner and less polluted world Is burning coal casuing a lot of health issues now? Yes it is. Then we stop doing that. Is breathing air filled with polluted smog or car emissions pleasant and good for you? No, we need to do something about it. Almost all issues that people want to change that climate scientists may or may not be climate change, but you can break it down further to arrive at the exact same conclusions for nearly all of it. It is a win / win no matter what.
pjc50 6y ago
> There's no religious voice welcoming fluid gender identity or supporting UBI. There are among the nonconformists, although they won't be given media coverage.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  > although they won't be given media coverage I'm curious, why do you think that is?
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  How can you be a nonconformist religious person? Do you not conform to whatever book you are following?
  - pjc50 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist_(Protestantism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist_(Protestantism) I was specifically thinking of Quakers, who've historically been very progressive. They're so non-hierarchical that it required special legislation for them to marry as Quaker weddings have no "celebrant" taking the priest role.