3 ms·

He has a good, larger point but this article is plagued with those little, annoying inaccuracies and misprepresentations which, for me at least, completely ruin

He has a good, larger point but this article is plagued with those little, annoying inaccuracies and misprepresentations which, for me at least, completely ruin it. > Here is what we know from a scientific point of view: There is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe. There is no way to make a value judgement "from a scientific point of view." This is just the first from a collection of his moral convictions (we should live as long as possible, affecting our neighbours as little as possible). Nothing particularly wrong with having those but why dress them up in science? > many other things are just as natural—such as dying at the ripe old age of thirty. People may have on average had life expectancies in the 30 years range but that was because of child and infant mortality. Adults weren't dropping dead at 30. And then some silly js sticks this to every paste: > - See more at: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion#sthash.r9agKEEk.dpuf http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion#st... So sloppy.

burntsushi 13y ago
> There is no way to make a value judgement "from a scientific point of view." I'm not sure if your familiar with Sam Harris' other writing, but one of his shticks is applying a scientific approach to morality.[1] Not that I necessarily agree with him, but wanted to point out that there's a bit more substance there than some off-the-cuff remark. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)#The_Moral_Landscape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)#The_Moral_L...
- md224 13y ago
  I haven't read a lot of his stuff (although what I have read/heard I mostly respect), but I'm not super comfortable with how he just waltzes over the is/ought divide. But this brings up a larger issue: where do we draw the line between this kind of health-centric utilitarianism and the ability for humans to indulge in pleasurable but potentially self-destructive behaviors? When I was younger, I basically cheered whenever laws were passed to further restrict the sale / usage of cigarettes, because I knew they were harmful and that was all that mattered. But as I grew older, and I realized that the depth of the human experience goes beyond mere self-preservation, I became less sure of this monolithic approach to public policy. I guess my point is that I find that Mr. Harris's essay, while aimed at allowing us to see why religious beliefs are so hard to dislodge, kind of illuminates an opposite idea: that perhaps in our crusade to rid the world of "irrational" behavior, we risk compromising something fundamental to the human experience. The problem is agreeing on where we draw the line.
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    > utilitarianism I personally draw the line that cuts out as much utilitarianism as possible. > I became less sure of this monolithic approach to public policy. I've been a voluntaryist for several years now, so I'm quite on the same page as you. :-) I really was just trying to be fair to Sam Harris. (I both strongly agree and disagree with many of the things he claims.) > I guess my point is that I find that Mr. Harris's essay, while aimed at allowing us to see why religious beliefs are so hard to dislodge, kind of illuminates an opposite idea: that perhaps in our crusade to rid the world of "irrational" behavior, we risk compromising something fundamental to the human experience. The problem is agreeing on where we draw the line. Absolutely. Although, I do view recreational wood burning as a different kind of "irrational" than claiming things based on revealed knowledge. The former can be a reasoned judgment about one's preferences, while the latter is necessarily logically flawed. I believe both types of "irrational" are impossible to eradicate. I share your hesitation with the notion that we might even want to eliminate "irrationality" in the first place.
Raticide 13y ago
Add this to AdBlock to stop the 'See more at' crap: ||addthis.com^$third-party ||addtoany.com^$third-party ||sharethis.com^$third-party
a1369209993 13y ago
> There is no way to make a value judgement "from a scientific point of view." It seems obvious from context that he is using "not good to breathe" as a colloquial synonym for "causes damage to your lungs / other body systems" (which is not remotely a value judgement), rather than "morally wrong to breathe". > And then some silly js sticks this to every paste That though, I agree is utter bullshit (and malware, for that matter).
tokenadult 13y ago
Adults weren't dropping dead at 30. To the contrary, adults died in young adulthood in early prehistory. That is, surviving infancy and childhood still led to a harsh life with high mortality, with most human beings dying before age fifty. The last time this came up in a Hacker News thread, I forgot to refer to the better source[1] I know about Pleistocene human mortality. Looking up just now, I see that there is an even more current and specific source[2] that reports "An assessment of younger (20–40 y) versus older (>40 y) adult mortality distributions for late archaic humans (principally Neandertals) and two samples of early modern humans (Middle Paleolithic and earlier Upper Paleolithic) provides little difference across the samples. All three Late Pleistocene samples have a dearth of older individuals compared with Holocene ethnographic/historical samples. They also lack older adults compared with Holocene paleodemographic profiles that have been critiqued for having too few older individuals for subsistence, social, and demographic viability. Although biased, probably through a combination of preservation, age assessment, and especially Pleistocene mobility requirements, these adult mortality distributions suggest low life expectancy and demographic instability across these Late Pleistocene human groups. They indicate only subtle and paleontologically invisible changes in human paleodemographics with the establishment of modern humans; they provide no support for a life history advantage among early modern humans." [1] The Nature of Paleolithic Art, by R. Dale Guthrie, a biologist who specializes in Pleistocene megafauna (including Homo sapiens), a fascinating book studded with references to the research literature. http://www.amazon.com/The-Nature-Paleolithic-Dale-Guthrie/dp/0226311260/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Nature-Paleolithic-Dale-Guthrie/dp... [2] Late Pleistocene adult mortality patterns and modern human establishment. (PMCID:PMC3029716) http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3029716/reload=0;jsessionid=cKtfkE1l5N52Zyt675Gn.42 http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3029716/reload=0;jsessionid... I would be delighted to see any references you have to clarify our understanding of this subject.

burntsushi 13y ago

> There is no way to make a value judgement "from a scientific point of view." I'm not sure if your familiar with Sam Harris' other writing, but one of his shticks is applying a scientific approach to morality.[1] Not that I necessarily agree with him, but wanted to point out that there's a bit more substance there than some off-the-cuff remark. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)#The_Moral_Landscape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)#The_Moral_L...

md224 13y ago
I haven't read a lot of his stuff (although what I have read/heard I mostly respect), but I'm not super comfortable with how he just waltzes over the is/ought divide. But this brings up a larger issue: where do we draw the line between this kind of health-centric utilitarianism and the ability for humans to indulge in pleasurable but potentially self-destructive behaviors? When I was younger, I basically cheered whenever laws were passed to further restrict the sale / usage of cigarettes, because I knew they were harmful and that was all that mattered. But as I grew older, and I realized that the depth of the human experience goes beyond mere self-preservation, I became less sure of this monolithic approach to public policy. I guess my point is that I find that Mr. Harris's essay, while aimed at allowing us to see why religious beliefs are so hard to dislodge, kind of illuminates an opposite idea: that perhaps in our crusade to rid the world of "irrational" behavior, we risk compromising something fundamental to the human experience. The problem is agreeing on where we draw the line.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  > utilitarianism I personally draw the line that cuts out as much utilitarianism as possible. > I became less sure of this monolithic approach to public policy. I've been a voluntaryist for several years now, so I'm quite on the same page as you. :-) I really was just trying to be fair to Sam Harris. (I both strongly agree and disagree with many of the things he claims.) > I guess my point is that I find that Mr. Harris's essay, while aimed at allowing us to see why religious beliefs are so hard to dislodge, kind of illuminates an opposite idea: that perhaps in our crusade to rid the world of "irrational" behavior, we risk compromising something fundamental to the human experience. The problem is agreeing on where we draw the line. Absolutely. Although, I do view recreational wood burning as a different kind of "irrational" than claiming things based on revealed knowledge. The former can be a reasoned judgment about one's preferences, while the latter is necessarily logically flawed. I believe both types of "irrational" are impossible to eradicate. I share your hesitation with the notion that we might even want to eliminate "irrationality" in the first place.

Raticide 13y ago

Add this to AdBlock to stop the 'See more at' crap: ||addthis.com^$third-party ||addtoany.com^$third-party ||sharethis.com^$third-party

a1369209993 13y ago

> There is no way to make a value judgement "from a scientific point of view." It seems obvious from context that he is using "not good to breathe" as a colloquial synonym for "causes damage to your lungs / other body systems" (which is not remotely a value judgement), rather than "morally wrong to breathe". > And then some silly js sticks this to every paste That though, I agree is utter bullshit (and malware, for that matter).

tokenadult 13y ago

Adults weren't dropping dead at 30. To the contrary, adults died in young adulthood in early prehistory. That is, surviving infancy and childhood still led to a harsh life with high mortality, with most human beings dying before age fifty. The last time this came up in a Hacker News thread, I forgot to refer to the better source[1] I know about Pleistocene human mortality. Looking up just now, I see that there is an even more current and specific source[2] that reports "An assessment of younger (20–40 y) versus older (>40 y) adult mortality distributions for late archaic humans (principally Neandertals) and two samples of early modern humans (Middle Paleolithic and earlier Upper Paleolithic) provides little difference across the samples. All three Late Pleistocene samples have a dearth of older individuals compared with Holocene ethnographic/historical samples. They also lack older adults compared with Holocene paleodemographic profiles that have been critiqued for having too few older individuals for subsistence, social, and demographic viability. Although biased, probably through a combination of preservation, age assessment, and especially Pleistocene mobility requirements, these adult mortality distributions suggest low life expectancy and demographic instability across these Late Pleistocene human groups. They indicate only subtle and paleontologically invisible changes in human paleodemographics with the establishment of modern humans; they provide no support for a life history advantage among early modern humans." [1] The Nature of Paleolithic Art, by R. Dale Guthrie, a biologist who specializes in Pleistocene megafauna (including Homo sapiens), a fascinating book studded with references to the research literature. http://www.amazon.com/The-Nature-Paleolithic-Dale-Guthrie/dp/0226311260/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Nature-Paleolithic-Dale-Guthrie/dp... [2] Late Pleistocene adult mortality patterns and modern human establishment. (PMCID:PMC3029716) http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3029716/reload=0;jsessionid=cKtfkE1l5N52Zyt675Gn.42 http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3029716/reload=0;jsessionid... I would be delighted to see any references you have to clarify our understanding of this subject.