4 ms·

I'm sure this guy could have written a whiny, scornful article at any stage of mankind's progress. "Earth rotates around the Sun? Who is this Galileo, a Sun-wo

I'm sure this guy could have written a whiny, scornful article at any stage of mankind's progress. "Earth rotates around the Sun? Who is this Galileo, a Sun-worshipper??" Lucky for him, in this timeline he survives to adulthood to write his Substack blog, rather than dying of polio, smallpox and/or the plague. He lives beyond the wildest dreams of a pharaoh and takes it utterly for granted. New Pharaohs indeed.

madrox 5y ago
The author's bio reads "A fellow primate who wonders why we ever came down from the trees." I get the impression he unironically is asking that like a Douglas Adams character. "Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place, and some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no-one should ever have left the oceans."
- civilized 5y ago
  He should take a plane to the Congo and give it a try. Maybe a sympathetic pack of chimps will take him in.
- starkd 5y ago
  I think he wrote that entirely in jest. His larger point is about the folly of mankind's idea about progress. Technology, however invigorating and useful, can easily become another false idol.
  - madrox 5y ago
    I have a hard time believing that assertion given how this article was written. It's full of ad hominem attacks and naturalistic fallacies. This is not mere punditry.
overflowing 5y ago
Critiquing the ideologies of the wealthy and powerful is not the same thing as rejecting the benefits of healthcare. Bezo's achievements are not "mankind's" achievements
- irjustin 5y ago
  > Bezo's achievements are not "mankind's" achievements Why not? If we made it to Mars on Musk's ship... I'd be happy to declare it both his and our win.
anonuser123456 5y ago
> Lucky for him But unlucky for us.
courtf 5y ago
Comparing Bezos to Galileo, what a joke. Back then an equivalent article would have targeted the church, and its author probably would have suffered greatly for doing so, sort of like our friend Galileo... Your obsequiousness, especially pathetic in this age when the stakes are so much lower, would have spared you from facing any similar repercussions I'm sure.
- civilized 5y ago
  Grand rhetoric! But no one is facing any repercussions for their opinion either way, and neither opinion is considered especially virtuous. I'm just saying what I think. So you can spare us the grandstanding.
Barrin92 5y ago
But immortality for the individual is not progress for mankind but the opposite. Stagnation. Death is an evolutionary mechanism, it's a fundamental part of renewal of the species. Biological life dies to introduce novelty, in a cultural sense it is what gives urgency to human action, creating new life. Human immortality is the same thing as the suppression of forest fire. Fires are bad for some individuals but they're vital for the ecosystem. It's the natural version of creative destruction. If you dislike the idea of an immortal company or an immortal government you should be wary of the idea of immortal individuals. One of the longest lived species on earth is the sponge. It is no accident that they're not a very dynamic species. Good ideas always survive, Galileo's contribution to mankind exists without Galileo, but as scientists often point out, science advances one funeral at a time. And that can be taken quite literally.
- madrox 5y ago
  I have a hard time with these arguments...mainly because if we already lived in a world with immortality, and someone came along talking about all the great benefits to society that would happen if we instituted a global end of life program, no one would take them up on it. Consider that while thinking "good ideas always survive."
  - Xplune13 5y ago
    But we don't, do we? We wouldn't even know if we would have anything like today's world. So basing the possible scenario based on a hypothetical situation won't lead us anywhere. It is the same like "If I was the emperor of the world from the start, I would do this and this". My point is, how would you know what you would do when you haven't experienced it yourself? You're basing what you would do on your model of the world which was formed this way (present way) and not the "already emperor" way. So, you wouldn't know anything about how things would be in that hypothetical scenario. I don't know what category I fall into right now, but I do understand that there might be potentially huge (bad) changes because of this that can stagnate the whole species rather than pushing forward. These possible scenarios are based on the real world, so they must be taken into account.
rastagubgub 5y ago
and you enjoy the privilege of whining on the internet and heaping scorn on a blog post civilized, indeed

madrox 5y ago

The author's bio reads "A fellow primate who wonders why we ever came down from the trees." I get the impression he unironically is asking that like a Douglas Adams character. "Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place, and some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no-one should ever have left the oceans."

civilized 5y ago
He should take a plane to the Congo and give it a try. Maybe a sympathetic pack of chimps will take him in.
starkd 5y ago
I think he wrote that entirely in jest. His larger point is about the folly of mankind's idea about progress. Technology, however invigorating and useful, can easily become another false idol.
- madrox 5y ago
  I have a hard time believing that assertion given how this article was written. It's full of ad hominem attacks and naturalistic fallacies. This is not mere punditry.

overflowing 5y ago

Critiquing the ideologies of the wealthy and powerful is not the same thing as rejecting the benefits of healthcare. Bezo's achievements are not "mankind's" achievements

irjustin 5y ago
> Bezo's achievements are not "mankind's" achievements Why not? If we made it to Mars on Musk's ship... I'd be happy to declare it both his and our win.

anonuser123456 5y ago

> Lucky for him But unlucky for us.

courtf 5y ago

Comparing Bezos to Galileo, what a joke. Back then an equivalent article would have targeted the church, and its author probably would have suffered greatly for doing so, sort of like our friend Galileo... Your obsequiousness, especially pathetic in this age when the stakes are so much lower, would have spared you from facing any similar repercussions I'm sure.

civilized 5y ago
Grand rhetoric! But no one is facing any repercussions for their opinion either way, and neither opinion is considered especially virtuous. I'm just saying what I think. So you can spare us the grandstanding.

Barrin92 5y ago

But immortality for the individual is not progress for mankind but the opposite. Stagnation. Death is an evolutionary mechanism, it's a fundamental part of renewal of the species. Biological life dies to introduce novelty, in a cultural sense it is what gives urgency to human action, creating new life. Human immortality is the same thing as the suppression of forest fire. Fires are bad for some individuals but they're vital for the ecosystem. It's the natural version of creative destruction. If you dislike the idea of an immortal company or an immortal government you should be wary of the idea of immortal individuals. One of the longest lived species on earth is the sponge. It is no accident that they're not a very dynamic species. Good ideas always survive, Galileo's contribution to mankind exists without Galileo, but as scientists often point out, science advances one funeral at a time. And that can be taken quite literally.

madrox 5y ago
I have a hard time with these arguments...mainly because if we already lived in a world with immortality, and someone came along talking about all the great benefits to society that would happen if we instituted a global end of life program, no one would take them up on it. Consider that while thinking "good ideas always survive."
- Xplune13 5y ago
  But we don't, do we? We wouldn't even know if we would have anything like today's world. So basing the possible scenario based on a hypothetical situation won't lead us anywhere. It is the same like "If I was the emperor of the world from the start, I would do this and this". My point is, how would you know what you would do when you haven't experienced it yourself? You're basing what you would do on your model of the world which was formed this way (present way) and not the "already emperor" way. So, you wouldn't know anything about how things would be in that hypothetical scenario. I don't know what category I fall into right now, but I do understand that there might be potentially huge (bad) changes because of this that can stagnate the whole species rather than pushing forward. These possible scenarios are based on the real world, so they must be taken into account.

rastagubgub 5y ago

and you enjoy the privilege of whining on the internet and heaping scorn on a blog post civilized, indeed