11 ms·

Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation

• staunch 13y ago
  Those are not things we cannot say though. Most people I know well think US prisons are a human rights crisis, eating meat is ethically unjustifiable (but delicious), and choosing to die is plainly a human right.
  • jbooth 13y ago
    I bet if you polled the US national population, you'd find the opposite and by a strong margin.
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      • 001sky 13y ago
        A "higher standard" would imply we hunt to extinction all non-vegetarian animals. Methinks that is a paradox. But YMMV.
  • ggreer 13y ago
    I can say those things only because the audience is HN and I don't plan to become a politician. The idea was to get people to think about what future societies would condemn us for, possibly even reconsidering their own views in the process. I didn't say the things I can't say. I even said so. HN users would probably flag a comment containing what I didn't say.
• DickingAround 13y ago
  As much as I might want to agree with some of them, they fail the 'time' test. We've used prisons for a while, same with eating animals.
  • ggreer 13y ago
    That's a good point, but things withstand the test of time until they don't. Slavery. Racism. Subjugation of women. Torture as entertainment. These practices were once as widespread as smallpox and polio. Now, they're as widespread as smallpox and polio.
  • scarmig 13y ago
    World of difference. Eating animals has happened since, well, our first ancestors crawled out of the ocean. Prisons are a radically modern invention, maybe more so than any other government institution. It's just they and their logic are so pervasive we don't recognize them for what they are. See: Foucault, Bentham.
    • sliverstorm 13y ago
      What do you mean prisons are a modern invention? Prisons/jails have been around since the dawn of history. Or are you wrapping ancient Egypt into your notion of radically modern. (Ok, maybe ancient Egypt didn't have many cells with walls and bars for windows, but they sure had prisoners chained to things)
      • scarmig 13y ago
        Prisons originated in the 18th century. Before then "prisons" were more or less temporary affairs, usually just a makeshift holding chamber where people were kept before the actual punishment was meted out (death, torture, or mutilation). But the idea of a building where people are isolated and placed under permanent bodily control for months or years on end by the State (for the betterment of society, or fixing of the individual, or punishment, or whatever) is very much a product of the Enlightenment.
• natecavanaugh 13y ago
  I think there's a flaw here in your assumption. You're assuming that because a society is in the future, that they will be more correct than where we currently are. However, there are societies that had atrocious human rights violations that linearly came after ones with comparatively less human rights issues. Secondly, I think you're assuming a moral/ethical high-ground in those statements, but I don't think those are necessarily proven.
• Meekro 13y ago
  The downside of rehabilitation is that it's really easy for the criminally minded to take advantage of. For example, if you have an opportunity to make millions from insider trading and the only risk if you get caught is that you'll get a stern talking-to about ethics, lots more people would be willing to risk it. And meat is just so tasty!
• coolsunglasses 13y ago
  #1 is only partly correct insofar as some people that can be helped. Sociopathy is permanent and uncurable. It's also common among people with a criminal record. Sifting those out from otherwise lost but psychonormal individuals is not trivial.
  • esrauch 13y ago
    There is still a very wide margin between the US prison system and a system that simply detains offenders.
    • coolsunglasses 13y ago
      Sure, but we should set realistic expectations on who can be rehabilitated and who cannot. That's part of the intent (however misguided and misapplied) behind three strikes laws, the assumption is that repeat offenders are more representative of those that cannot be rehabilitated. Which isn't far from the truth, but we're not really rehabbing them at the moment.
  • guard-of-terra 13y ago
    Sociopaths can be motivated to behave. I believe most sociopaths don't commit major crimes (maybe they could but benefits are none or don't outweight consequences). There are some people who are sociopaths and can't control themself but they are a minority of a minority. Most crimes have a motive, don't they?
  • epsylon 13y ago
    > Sociopathy is permanent and uncurable. It's also common among people with a criminal record. Also common among CEOs and politicians. See? Being a sociopath doesn't automatically make you a murderer!
• oskarth 13y ago
  While you may be right that future generations will condemn us for them, none of those things are remotely controversial enough. You can say any of them in almost any setting and people will mostly yawn. Many people think prisons should be banished, or at least severely limited (especially US prisons); there are plenty of popular vegetarians out there; assisted suicided is just your average polarizing subject. This is what pg wrote five years ago, referencing this essay: Just as well I've avoided saying most of the "things you can't say," or 90% of the people who read that essay and think "hear, hear" would hate me instead.... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=255492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=255492)
  • sillysaurus3 13y ago
    It's pretty interesting to think that most people who like someone might hate them if only they knew what their true thoughts were, and that someone can be acutely aware of what most people would hate them for.
    • smtddr 13y ago
      Someone should write a movie where aliens come to earth and do some kind of mind-weapon where nobody on earth can tell a lie for 5 years. It would be the end of society. I don't even know what we'd do; probably just live like wild animals in the forest only worrying about primal needs.
  • lucisferre 13y ago
    If TV news has taught me anything it is that the number of people who vehemently (even violently) disagree with my (probably only moderately) progressive opinions is not small. My guess is most of us just tend to associate with people who have a similar spectrum of opinions and biases.
    • maxlybbert 13y ago
      Yes, that's the point of the old "I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don't know anybody who voted for him" quote ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Kael#Alleged_Nixon_quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Kael#Alleged_Nixon_quo... ). It's hard to remember, but Nixon won a larger share of the vote in 1972 than any previous president, which left McGovern fans somewhat shellshocked. The quote is often used a proof that Pauline Kael was clueless, but, IIRC, she began by saying "many of my liberal friends have told me ...," i.e., she wasn't truly perplexed by Nixon's victory. Instead, she was pointing out that there are downsides to being insular about politics. The difference between you and the vast majority of the population is that you recognize there are dissenting viewpoints held by people you've never met.
• huherto 13y ago
  Agree on all counts. I just hope 3 happens during my life but not 2. I love steak.
  • jaibot 13y ago
    Synthetic meat. Soon, I hope, as a vegetarian who is acutely aware that meat is tasty.
    • 001sky 13y ago
      Its not just tasty, its healthy.
      • brortao 13y ago
        Not any healthier than vegetarianism. http://www.chooseveg.com/health http://www.chooseveg.com/health
        • 001sky 13y ago
          I see diabetes-inducing amounts of sugar...And no protein. Gotta love advertising.
• jaibot 13y ago
  This essay was one the things that made me decide to become a vegetarian a year ago.
  • isamuel 13y ago
    Good on you. I think you're on the right side of history.
    • icebraining 13y ago
      On the side of the winners?
• sliverstorm 13y ago
  #1 & #2 are blocked by technical development. I don't expect people will condemn farmed meat in the days before in-vitro meat had even been done, any more than you or I would condemn hunters of antiquity for not giving game meat a painless death. I don't expect people living in a world where criminals can be "cured" will condemn our use of prisons either, because we can't "cure" criminals yet! Do you catch my drift? It makes no sense to condemn ancient peoples for not doing something they couldn't do.
  • renox 13y ago
    > I don't expect people living in a world where criminals can be "cured" will condemn our use of prisons either, because we can't "cure" criminals yet! Sure, but there are prisons and prisons: based on what I saw, I would very much prefer to be in a prison in Sweden than in the US or in France (to select rich countries where prison SHOULD be better).
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• nostromo 13y ago
  Dude, you're not trying hard enough. :) Most unspeakable thoughts today deal with isms and phobias: sexism, racism, agism, Islamophobia, homophobia. There are others of course. For example, I am not a climate-change denier, but if I was I certainly wouldn't say so on HN! I'm gay so I'll pick on my own group: HIV is ridiculously high amongst urban gay men. To me, it's obvious why this is the case. Evolutionarily, men have had no reason not to try and be as successful with as many partners as possible. Women, who may be saddled with a pregnancy and baby for years, had evolutionary pressure to be more choosy with sexual partners. This created fertile ground for HIV to spread amongst gay men. Now, could a straight person say that without being ostracized from polite society? Probably not! The question I would throw back to pg though is this: are we better or worse off for avoiding these topics entirely? The truth sometimes comes at a cost. Let's say that we found out that white people are less smart than East Asians. What good could come from knowing that? I don't know the answer...
  • paulbaumgart 13y ago
    As I understand it, HIV transmission rates also vary a lot based on what body parts are being used, and asymmetrically so. related: http://nytimes.com/2014/03/15/health/in-rare-case-woman-with-hiv-infects-female-sex-partner-cdc-says.html http://nytimes.com/2014/03/15/health/in-rare-case-woman-with...
  • ucarion 13y ago
    I agree with you about most of those phobias, but I strongly disagree about Islamophobia. I think future societies will be surprised by how much human suffering we permit in the name of being "tolerant". Religions are not all created equal, and no intellectually honest person will claim that Islam and Jainism are equally valid moral frameworks (this is why few people fret about Jainophobia). We know that Islam and its adherents are generous contributors to the surplus of misery in the world. People concerned about the quality of human life will recognize that we were right to be extremely suspicious of Islam. (Note that I'm defining Islamophobia as "deep suspicion of Islam / thoughts informed by Islamic beliefs", especially when it comes to questions of morality and ethics.)
    • 13y ago
• mantrax 13y ago
  1. Prison. The philosophy of prison as punishment is wrong, but the idea of keeping a murderer isolated from potential victims isn't. So don't throw out the baby with the bath water. 2. Animals, just like humans, die. There's no way around it. Even if the entire world decides not to eat a particular goat, that goat will die. And when an animal dies, it gets eaten - no exception. Either by microorganisms, or higher level organisms. The problem isn't why animals die, it's how animals live. Even if an animal is bred for food, it doesn't have to lead a miserable life, and it doesn't mean we should not respect that life on its own merit. So again, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. 3. I agree. But say, if an old animal wants to die, can I eat it?
  • icebraining 13y ago
    2. Is true, but if you have to wait around for the goat to die of old age or sickness, that doesn't make for a particularly healthy meat business. And killing it is not justifiable simply by the fact that eventually it would die anyway.
    • mantrax 13y ago
      In nature most animals do not die of old age or sickness. In fact, dying of old age or sickness is the most horrifying and prolonged death possible for any life form. It's torture. Being hunted and dead in the span of hours, or even minutes is far more "humane" (I hate the etymology of this word). Preserving an animal's life artificially until it's so old it dies from its age is what is actually unnatural (also see the original point 3). So the focus should not be on extending an animal's life length, but improving those animals' life quality. And actually if you would replace "animal" with "human" in anything I say, it still applies. This is how you know I'm not discriminating against an animal's life. Which would be pure ignorance.
• lucisferre 13y ago
  Surprised how many people seem to have skipped over your last statement and focused on whether or not 1, 2 and 3 were really things you couldn't say. I'm pretty sure I can guess what it is you can't say though.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• drzaiusapelord 13y ago
  Oh come on. These are all fairly popular opinions amongst a lot of people. I believe deterrence is important thus the prison status quo is fine. Try saying that at a party full of educated people. Everything thinks we can just teach people moralism and how to be good. In reality, you can't treat some/most and things like sociopathy are real.
  • girvo 13y ago
    I agree with you. But are all criminals sociopaths? Not even close...
• sdegutis 13y ago
  1. It's true they don't focus enough on rehabilitation and too much on punishment, and that sucks. 2. Eating meat is very natural. Even animals do it. 3. Nope. So completely and utterly wrong.
  • ggreer 13y ago
    Eating meat is very natural. Even animals do it. The Patrician took a sip of his beer. "I have told this to few people, gentlemen, and I suspect I never will again, but one day when I was a young boy on holiday in Uberwald I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs. A very endearing sight, I'm sure you will agree, and even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged onto a half-submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to its day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature's wonders, gentlemen: mother and children dining upon mother and children. And that's when I first learned about evil. It is built in to the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior." -- Terry Pratchett, Unseen Academicals I find that paragraph to be a perfect rebuttal to appeals to nature. Hat tip to ChronoDAS for bringing it to my attention: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ud/rationality_quotes_march_2010/1p32 http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ud/rationality_quotes_march_2010/1p...
  • kansface 13y ago
    Can you really not think of other natural things (ie, things that animals do) which we don't?
  • MichaelGG 13y ago
    >2. Eating meat is very natural. Even animals do it. First, we are animals. Second, "nature" isn't a good reason for anything. "You can't get an ought from an is." I still love meat, but I'm aware that animal treatment is certainly a moral issue that is not adequately addressed. 3. Any reason other than "my religion says so"?
  • namenotrequired 13y ago
• existencebox 13y ago
  I'm split on #2. I love meat. I will not stop eating meat. Not only because I trust my personal "instincts" as tuned by millions of years of evolution to inform me to some degree what I need to consume to be effective far more than any conscious decision I might make, (e.g. that I think we're rather "young" in our understanding of how nutrition impacts the body), but because when confronted by that "animals have feelings and we are being cruel", my response is "yes, but that is nature." Two qualifiers. Do I think we could be better? (more humane raising and slaughter) Abso-fucking-lutely. Do I think as technology grows, that we should move to more humane options? I would be more appalled if we didn't. But will I ever "regret" choosing to eat meat, or fault those who do? Not a chance. I'm sure many people will disagree with the following, and I'd hope to hear a response rather than just get downvoted to oblivion, but so long as it is sustainable (which is a BIG qualifier that links heavily with my above statements about technological progress), we are at the top of the food chain, period. I am a predator, and I take pleasure in continuing to be one, to certain degrees. Given that my justification is simply "this is a system that has worked for far longer than humanity has existed" mixed with "but I like it (so long as it does not become destructive to the point of disrupting said system that has existed successfully for so long)" I admit I feel that this is a weak argument. But I've both never found a really compelling counter, nor have I found any particular "holes" in mine. (Aside from the obvious "but it's not sustainable", to which I'd hand wave a bit and blame that more on an unfortunate side effect of market forces than on the choice to eat meat itself, which is also a bit of a reduction problem since the latter powers the former, and turtles all the way down, but I'd mostly respond with that I'd rather look for solutions than knee jerk responses, and personal consumption at this point is NOT going to impact "how things are", perhaps ignoring the wisdom of the whole "be the change you wish to see" etc... (but then, the change I want to see is simply better implementation, not vilification/removal of the "problem", so maybe not?) Wow, this rambled. Sorry about that. This is just an issue that I have convoluted feelings on, as someone who tries to be conscious about both maintainable systems and loving to consume animals.
  • svantana 13y ago
    Yes, I'm taking the bait. I'm sorry but this reeks of rationalization. Let's just have a look at some of your assertions: - we don't understand how nutrition affects the body. True, but there are societies that are vegetarian and have been for centuries. Apparently veggies are healthy! - You are a predator? I don't know you but I'm willing to bet it's been a while since you hunted down, killed, and ate an animal in the wild. - "The system has worked" - with that kind of reasoning you could justify anything from rape, manslaughter, ostracizing, etc. Being civilized means rising above unhealthy instincts. I think you should probably just stick with "it tastes good". Can't argue with that.
• crystaln 13y ago
  I'd add: 4. Criminalization of drug use and possession. 5. Private funding of politics.
• zeteo 13y ago
  And you base your opinion that future societies will condemn these on... what? There's also a significant proportion of the population that would pick abortion, gay marriage and atheism. And they have better demographics.
• csomar 13y ago
  I think religion and god will come first. Most of our issues come from religious books and ideas.
  • icebraining 13y ago
    If my country's is anything to go by, I don't think so. The thing is, people are great at labeling themselves as religious of <faith> while managing to progressively ignore everything that doesn't fit what they actually believe in. Which is why, for example, 60%+ of Portuguese and Spanish Catholics support the legalization of the abortion, let alone milder subjects like contraception and divorce. So since religion as a label will stay for much longer than the actual harmful religious beliefs, people tend to disregard religion as the problem in itself. The ones that harm based on religious beliefs are just considered "fanatics".
• brvs 13y ago
  Is the last sentence referring to government regulation?
• technotony 13y ago
  I think the whole field of biotechnology and genetics. Today many people think we should not be genetically engineering plants or animals, but in the near future we are all going to see the benefit of it. This is most extreme in the case of engineering humans. Most people are horrified at the idea, worried about eugenics or a Gattica type future. But if you really examine what this will do, ie eliminate many forms of horrible genetic diseases or propensity to cancer, then I think you are going to see that this is something we really should do.
• Blahah 13y ago
  I don't really understand how you can think there's a root cause but not be able to say it on HN. Since ggreer says he can't say, can anyone explain what he's getting at?
  • pronoiac 13y ago
    My guess: It's about sympathy and compassion for those not at our level.
• JoshTriplett 13y ago
  > 3. Banning assisted suicide for the elderly and terminally ill. Too narrow a scope. Future societies will condemn us for not eliminating mortality faster.
• bambax 13y ago
  While I agree that prison is a very bad system, I strongly disagree with this: > cure them Why would a violent behavior necessarily be a disease? We are violent creatures, that's part of our nature. (Many other mammals are violent; some species of monkeys kill their own offspring for no apparent reason; lions kill the offspring of a lioness in order to mate with her, etc.) We can choose as a society to try to eliminate all occurrences of violence, but it would be foolish to think we can change human nature (not with societal systems anyways; with eugenics maybe but that doesn't look very palatable). Besides, a majority (or a great proportion) of the people currently behind bars in the US are charged with non-violent offenses; people are routinely imprisoned for crimes that make no other victim than themselves, and that's the greatest scandal of all. There should be no crime when there is no other victim than the perpetrator; that should be part of the bill of rights of all nations (if we need nations, and constitutions, and "rights").
• lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  Agree on the eating meat front, I suspect you will be right on prison - except that slowly classes of crime will become medically treatable which will be a bit like blaming people for dying because they did not know about anti biotics I am however interested in your root cause - is it religion?