6 ms·

“Humans Are Not Smart Enough to Have Ideas That Lie Beyond Challenge and Debate”

30 points by colinprince 5y ago

powerbroker 5y ago
If you are the last woman alive, and there is one man alive, you must produce children. Contradict me, assuming you are not the alien species that tried to wipe us out.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- KerrAvon 5y ago
  OK, how about this: why should the human race persist? What makes humans so superior to other forms of life?
  - polishdude20 5y ago
    Not saying it needs to but hey, if other forms of life are procreating by default, I think humans are allowed to make that simple choice as well.
  - skissane 5y ago
    Whether or not it should, it will. You might not believe that you are under any duty to reproduce, but there are many religious ultra-conservatives in this world who believe that they have a sacred duty to do so. Given the very high birth rates of many such religious groups (the Amish, Hasidic/Haredi Jews, Quiverfull Evangelicals, Traditionalist Catholics, Salafist Muslims, etc) – and that many of them do an excellent job of retaining their children in the faith (some of these groups continue to sustain >90% retention rates even after multiple generations) – humanity isn't going anywhere. But the more that secular (and religiously moderate/liberal) people choose not to have kids, to have fewer kids, to start families at a later age – the more they are helping to create a future in which people like them are going to be outnumbered by religious ultra-conservatives, and are likely to have no choice but to make compromises with that ever-growing population which they'd rather not have to make. Unlikely you or I will live to see it–but it might be only a century or two away.
- hirundo 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Mov... There are people who unironically belong to this movement who would urge this woman not to mate. I don't agree with their arguments, but I believe that they should not be beyond debate. I'm not smart enough to identify their values as inferior on some absolute scale, and given their values their arguments may well be sound.
- jimmydef 5y ago
  There's nothing to contradict as you have not provided any argument to support the claim that these two last humans must produce children.
- solveit 5y ago
  This completely misses the point of your hypothetical, but if you only have two humans left your descendants will inevitably die out due to inbreeding. Two individuals isn't enough genetic diversity to sustain a species. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    I don't think that this is an absolute truth. This would depend on the genetic distance between the parents (and if parents and their childrens would procreate again).
- notriddle 5y ago
  If there are only two humans left, then it’s already too late. We need a breeding population of around 50, or we will suffer genetic collapse (the actual number is much higher, to be able to actually evolve, but you need at least that much to avoid catastrophic genetic drift). https://moscow.sci-hub.st/1832/d4805799591a7b5e7843531b9aeb020e/shaffer1981.pdf https://moscow.sci-hub.st/1832/d4805799591a7b5e7843531b9aeb0...
  - skissane 5y ago
    The arguments of that paper are for wild animals; it is open to question how true they would be for humans. Non-human animals get most of their adaptability from their genetics, and relatively little from culture; humans get a huge amount of their adaptability from culture. Humans may need less genetic variability to survive than other species do. It would also depend on how much of human knowledge and technology the sole surviving breeding pair would be able to retain. I don't doubt the odds would be against human survival in such a scenario, but I think we have to question how applicable research on other species is for humans – humans are capable of things no other species can do.
powerbroker 5y ago
Here's another. The number one, in the mathematical sense, remains the same value, regardless of the time or galaxy that you discuss the number 'one'. Mind you, I'm not describing the 'one' as tied to a physical quality like temperature, mass, heat transfer etc.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  I'm going to challenge this based on the idea of fractal geometries, wherein a universe exists in which the number 1 doesn't exist.
- throwawaymaths 5y ago
  That's not really true, there is a mathematical system where 0=1. It's just... Not very interesting, aside from it's existence.
  - skissane 5y ago
    That's not really true, there is a mathematical system (maybe even more than one) where "0=1", but when we say "1", we are not talking about what "1" refers to in such a system, we are talking about what "1" refers to in some mathematical system(s) in which "0≠1"
    - throwawaymaths 5y ago
      Nope. One is the multiplicative identity and zero is the additive identity. There's no a priori reason why the same number can't be both.
matt-attack 5y ago
I'm sort of curious. All the talk about Universities shutting down debate and any sort of ideas that lie outside of the accepted left-wing doctrine. Is there anyone here on HN that supports this notion? That supports the suppression of contradictory ideas? That would protest if some horrible right-winger came to give a talk on your campus? Would love to actually hear from one of these individuals who would actually protest, actively try to stop a dissenting opinion from being spoken on campus. Is there just one of you here?
- _moof 5y ago
  Just want to point out that there are ways to protest that do not prevent the other person from speaking. Standing silently in the back of the room with signs, for example. I would wholeheartedly support such a protest.
  - matt-attack 5y ago
    Well that’s just more speech which is of course welcomed. What’s happening on campuses is quite different.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - atoav 5y ago
    Maybe this is a US thing, but during 8 years of studying (media science among other things) I never once have seen an occasion where I would've seen use in protest. Sure there are people with differing opinions and political backgrounds, but in the end there is a minimum bar of merit people have to cross. It is not like we are inviting edgy "controversial" youtubers who cite papers they only have read the titles from to construct theories that have been falsified half a century ago without any interest in the actual field. Even if you study philosophy (like I did as well) the debates are typically extremely focused on the subjects at hand. So what you won't see is some guy from a political party trying to shoehorn what they already belive into a theory of everything held together by good will and hand waving. This is just not worthy of any discussion at all and would drag down the level of debate. Of course that could depend of the field you are studying in, but you are either interested in the truth or you are interested in making a political point. Both at once is rarely the case.
_moof 5y ago
If you're trying to come up with something that lies beyond challenge and debate right now, you're missing the point.
morelisp 5y ago
Society has never had "academic institutions that pursue truth over any other concern" and thankfully never will. This mythologizing of universities past feels acceptable to liberals because it flatters their current values, but is ultimately a boring "good old days" reactionary turn.

30 points by colinprince 5y ago

If you are the last woman alive, and there is one man alive, you must produce children. Contradict me, assuming you are not the alien species that tried to wipe us out.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
KerrAvon 5y ago
OK, how about this: why should the human race persist? What makes humans so superior to other forms of life?
- polishdude20 5y ago
  Not saying it needs to but hey, if other forms of life are procreating by default, I think humans are allowed to make that simple choice as well.
- skissane 5y ago
  Whether or not it should, it will. You might not believe that you are under any duty to reproduce, but there are many religious ultra-conservatives in this world who believe that they have a sacred duty to do so. Given the very high birth rates of many such religious groups (the Amish, Hasidic/Haredi Jews, Quiverfull Evangelicals, Traditionalist Catholics, Salafist Muslims, etc) – and that many of them do an excellent job of retaining their children in the faith (some of these groups continue to sustain >90% retention rates even after multiple generations) – humanity isn't going anywhere. But the more that secular (and religiously moderate/liberal) people choose not to have kids, to have fewer kids, to start families at a later age – the more they are helping to create a future in which people like them are going to be outnumbered by religious ultra-conservatives, and are likely to have no choice but to make compromises with that ever-growing population which they'd rather not have to make. Unlikely you or I will live to see it–but it might be only a century or two away.
hirundo 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Mov... There are people who unironically belong to this movement who would urge this woman not to mate. I don't agree with their arguments, but I believe that they should not be beyond debate. I'm not smart enough to identify their values as inferior on some absolute scale, and given their values their arguments may well be sound.
jimmydef 5y ago
There's nothing to contradict as you have not provided any argument to support the claim that these two last humans must produce children.
solveit 5y ago
This completely misses the point of your hypothetical, but if you only have two humans left your descendants will inevitably die out due to inbreeding. Two individuals isn't enough genetic diversity to sustain a species. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
- pvaldes 5y ago
  I don't think that this is an absolute truth. This would depend on the genetic distance between the parents (and if parents and their childrens would procreate again).
notriddle 5y ago
If there are only two humans left, then it’s already too late. We need a breeding population of around 50, or we will suffer genetic collapse (the actual number is much higher, to be able to actually evolve, but you need at least that much to avoid catastrophic genetic drift). https://moscow.sci-hub.st/1832/d4805799591a7b5e7843531b9aeb020e/shaffer1981.pdf https://moscow.sci-hub.st/1832/d4805799591a7b5e7843531b9aeb0...
- skissane 5y ago
  The arguments of that paper are for wild animals; it is open to question how true they would be for humans. Non-human animals get most of their adaptability from their genetics, and relatively little from culture; humans get a huge amount of their adaptability from culture. Humans may need less genetic variability to survive than other species do. It would also depend on how much of human knowledge and technology the sole surviving breeding pair would be able to retain. I don't doubt the odds would be against human survival in such a scenario, but I think we have to question how applicable research on other species is for humans – humans are capable of things no other species can do.

powerbroker 5y ago

Here's another. The number one, in the mathematical sense, remains the same value, regardless of the time or galaxy that you discuss the number 'one'. Mind you, I'm not describing the 'one' as tied to a physical quality like temperature, mass, heat transfer etc.

robbedpeter 5y ago
I'm going to challenge this based on the idea of fractal geometries, wherein a universe exists in which the number 1 doesn't exist.
throwawaymaths 5y ago
That's not really true, there is a mathematical system where 0=1. It's just... Not very interesting, aside from it's existence.
- skissane 5y ago
  That's not really true, there is a mathematical system (maybe even more than one) where "0=1", but when we say "1", we are not talking about what "1" refers to in such a system, we are talking about what "1" refers to in some mathematical system(s) in which "0≠1"
  - throwawaymaths 5y ago
    Nope. One is the multiplicative identity and zero is the additive identity. There's no a priori reason why the same number can't be both.

matt-attack 5y ago

I'm sort of curious. All the talk about Universities shutting down debate and any sort of ideas that lie outside of the accepted left-wing doctrine. Is there anyone here on HN that supports this notion? That supports the suppression of contradictory ideas? That would protest if some horrible right-winger came to give a talk on your campus? Would love to actually hear from one of these individuals who would actually protest, actively try to stop a dissenting opinion from being spoken on campus. Is there just one of you here?

_moof 5y ago
Just want to point out that there are ways to protest that do not prevent the other person from speaking. Standing silently in the back of the room with signs, for example. I would wholeheartedly support such a protest.
- matt-attack 5y ago
  Well that’s just more speech which is of course welcomed. What’s happening on campuses is quite different.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- atoav 5y ago
  Maybe this is a US thing, but during 8 years of studying (media science among other things) I never once have seen an occasion where I would've seen use in protest. Sure there are people with differing opinions and political backgrounds, but in the end there is a minimum bar of merit people have to cross. It is not like we are inviting edgy "controversial" youtubers who cite papers they only have read the titles from to construct theories that have been falsified half a century ago without any interest in the actual field. Even if you study philosophy (like I did as well) the debates are typically extremely focused on the subjects at hand. So what you won't see is some guy from a political party trying to shoehorn what they already belive into a theory of everything held together by good will and hand waving. This is just not worthy of any discussion at all and would drag down the level of debate. Of course that could depend of the field you are studying in, but you are either interested in the truth or you are interested in making a political point. Both at once is rarely the case.

_moof 5y ago

If you're trying to come up with something that lies beyond challenge and debate right now, you're missing the point.

morelisp 5y ago

Society has never had "academic institutions that pursue truth over any other concern" and thankfully never will. This mythologizing of universities past feels acceptable to liberals because it flatters their current values, but is ultimately a boring "good old days" reactionary turn.