undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnaasking2y ago0 comments

That's just more of what the OP was pointing out: why are you assuming overcoming those limits is good?

This is just natural selection in action: only people who are good at slotting into bureaucracy and being well-behaved cogs in the wheel will thrive in this environment, and other types of humans will die out. This exact same argument suggests we should not tolerate indigenous people who live separate from civilization. Adapt or die right? But this conclusion is typically quite abhorrent to the same type of people who advocate for your position. Can't have it both ways.

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

dvdkon2y ago· 2 in thread

I think both viewpoints (contemporary civilisation is good and we should let "uncivilised" people live without interference) are reconcilable: I can believe that modern bureaucratic liberal democracy is the best system we have, partly because it allows for dissenting views, partly because of other reasons. At the same time I can advocate for letting groups of people control their territory and form states that aren't liberal democracies, since that's yet another form of allowing for dissenting views.

This runs into problems for global matters (global climate change and pollution) and conflicts with an overriding belief in a global morality (depending on how much you are willing to entertain the idea that your idea of morality isn't the "correct" one), but some compromise variation of this idea is certainly self-consistent.

naaskingOP2y ago

Define "uncivilized". If I choose to occupy a national park and live off grid and disconnected from society, do I qualify? Or is some kind of ancestry on a land required? If so, why? Isn't such a requirement kind of arbitrary? Why does my accidental birth into this society necessitate that I must slot into this bureaucracy?

> At the same time I can advocate for letting groups of people control their territory and form states that aren't liberal democracies, since that's yet another form of allowing for dissenting views.

What if they want to home school all of their children, do they have to abide by some kind education standard? The bureaucracy will come for you for any choice it finds unpalatable.

I don't see a way to reconcile these without a lot of special pleading. In the end, a form of natural selection will dominate and only the type of people who can fit well into the most optimal bureaucracies will thrive. Maintaining indigenous rights and the rights of "uncivilized" humans will be simply a curiosity, like how we keep animals in a zoo, rather than some coherent recognition of an inherent right to exist and live apart.

I'm not taking a particular side on this question here, I used to be all pro-civilization, science, research and expansion into space, etc. in the Star Trek sense, but I've increasingly recognized the natural selection aspects of this and the apparently inherent incompatibility with liberty.

TeMPOraL2y ago

> I used to be all pro-civilization, science, research and expansion into space, etc. in the Star Trek sense, but I've increasingly recognized the natural selection aspects of this and the apparently inherent incompatibility with liberty.

Oh, that. I too have a gnawing feeling that progress of technology and civilization is fundamentally incompatible with individual autonomy. At the very least, because to the extent new advancement put more of potentially destructive power in the hands of individuals, the more control the civilization needs over said individuals, in order to protect itself from any of such individuals going rogue and using their power destructively. That's one thought, I have couple more like this, and they all add up to "progress and civilization, or personal autonomy, pick one".

1 more reply

almostnormal2y ago· 1 in thread

> This is just natural selection in action: only people who are good at slotting into bureaucracy and being well-behaved cogs in the wheel will thrive in this environment, and other types of humans will die out.

It would require that slotting into bureaucracy increases the ability and opportunity to procreate for the individual over not slotting into bureaucracy. I doubt that is the case. Strong adherence to a bureaucratic lifestyle significantly reduces the number of offsprings compared to a more chaotic way of living.

naaskingOP2y ago

I think it does to some degree. The chaotic life may lead to more accidental pregnancies, but also higher mortality of every kind. Stable, family-value oriented, borderline conservative belief systems like those circa 1950s US leads to steady population growth. Other systems, like where Western countries are now with negative native population growth and considerably less social cohesion, are possibly less stable long-term. Time will tell.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

dvdkon2y ago· 2 in thread

naaskingOP2y ago

> At the same time I can advocate for letting groups of people control their territory and form states that aren't liberal democracies, since that's yet another form of allowing for dissenting views.

What if they want to home school all of their children, do they have to abide by some kind education standard? The bureaucracy will come for you for any choice it finds unpalatable.

TeMPOraL2y ago

1 more reply

almostnormal2y ago· 1 in thread

naaskingOP2y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse