I find that in engineering circles theology and the notion of the existence of God is one of those 'moral taboos.' And advocating more nuclear power stations or private gun ownership.
It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century.
There was plenty of gun control enacted in the late 19th and early 20th century. It was targeted toward black southerners, however, and AFAIK rarely made it to the US Supreme Court. The laws were usually ruled more-or-less constitutional.
>Personal ambition is overrated, and we're actually just buying into the lies of Western culture that we have to become the Ubermensch to be happy.
Completely agreed. In actual fact, most such people aren't even real ubermenschen.
They have no mission, no true values of their own that they will impose on the world. Their ambitions are not only the small beer of rising in wealth but the zero-sum nonsense of rising in social status. Their dreams are forever confined to the cage of the established capitalist system. What's another dollar?
Many so-called ambitious professionals are just more self-deceiving pigs in human clothing.
I wish there were more frank expressions of beliefs that go against the status quo. I strongly agree with you, even as my core moral values and ambitions line very well up with the chase of my personal ambitions.
Forget God -- a belief in any transcendent property or existence or even a rejection of pure reductionism is typically greeted with a scowl and an argument which boils down to "Come on. . . . you really don't believe that."
I'm fairly sure there are professional philosophers who reject strong reductionism as a form of scientism. Don't ask me why, as I'm not trained in philosophy, and I'm told that computer people make utter dorks of ourselves when we try to talk about philosophy without training.
I'm surprised at the mentioning of nuclear power plants. As an insider looking out, is it really that taboo to discuss? As an aside, I feel like the few conversations I've seen on HN surrounding it are well-informed and generally a technical discussion compared to the degenerate mud-slinging that can occur when discussing other topics.
Then again, I'm only exposed to the "Nuclear Power Policy" dialogue occurring in the United States.
Re: gun control, depends where you live. I grew up in a rural area where you'd still be laughed out of the room for suggesting that gun control was a good idea.
This is very true. My state just passed a law with overwhelming support that allows people to have guns in bars again. I did not expect it to be controversial to believe that drinking + guns + crowded rooms was a bad idea, but apparently I was wrong.
From the perspective of someone living in mainland Europe the legislation around bars in the U.S. is quite baffling.
I was over in San Francisco last summer and walked out of a bar pint in hand to tag along for a cigarette break, we were promptly chastised about it. I apologized saying that I'd briefly forgotten what continent I was on.
It's also not unusual to see children milling around with their parents in bars in Europe well into the evening. There's no demand that you have to be of drinking age to be in the establishment, just that you can't be sold drinks if that's not the case.
All in all it contributes to a more relaxed atmosphere around drinking and I suspect to overall moderation and safety around drinking.
If you ban guns in bars then someone who carries a gun around anyway will have to stash it somewhere before they arrive, or risk breaking the law.
I carry a swiss army knife on my keychain because it's a useful tool, I bring that to bars I go to. I don't think I'm any more likely to attempt to stab someone after a few pints than I otherwise would.
To be fair, I've never trimmed stray clothing thread, monkeyed with a car part, or fixed, well, anything with my concealed carry .357. It makes a lot more sense to disallow firearms in bars as they have no constructive purpose at all. The same is not true for a swiss army knife; it is most certainly both a tool and a weapon.
Still, I totally agree with you. The stringent attitude towards alcohol-serving in the United States does stigmatize it's consumption quite a bit, and, IMO, causes a decrease in moderation and safety when compared to a more relaxed Europe.
I do think teenagers should learn to drink with their parents. They should be taught to be responsible with their drinking. The current system creates so much expectation, they learn to drink among other teenagers, that is pretty crazy.
The first option could lead to easier theft of the gun, putting guns into the wrong hands; it also means bars have to be responsible for something they may not want to deal with for moral or political (i.e., PR) grounds; the second amounts to a stigmatization of gun owners in the form of an undue burden upon them and no one else.
Make what you will of those arguments, but note both options could also be applied to car keys of people entering a bar (check your keys so we can evaluate your intoxication before giving them back). In fact, one could note that cars are a tool much much more often used by the intoxicated to murder (commit manslaughter, if you like).
>It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room.
You're right in general, though as <cadlin> points out modern forms of "gun control" do have late 19th century racist roots. But outright criminal prohibitions on personal possession of firearms -- which we had in the U.S. in some areas before the Supreme Court's Heller decision -- would have been unthinkable. So would effectively complete bans on carrying weapons both concealed or openly, which some areas still have until the Supreme Court rules in the next 2A case up for arguments this fall.
> But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century.
It depends on who you talk to. If you were in a room filled with libertarian-minded engineers at Google or Microsoft, and there are plenty of them, you'd be the one laughed out of the room. Or if you were in a diner in most rural areas of the United States. But in certain coastal enclaves, yes, "gun control" has come to have a religious import.
Though the taboo-to-question topic I thought of first when reading pg's 2004 essay (a well written one, too) was anthropogenic global warming.
Not in the same way. I know the chairman of the Calguns Foundation (hoffmang on Twitter), who's also for HN purposes the chairman and CEO of a ~200-employee Silicon Valley recurring billing/subscription management startup. My understanding of his position, and I may of course have it wrong or be misremembering, is that he's okay with some form of background checks, perhaps via proof of backgroundcheckness, for ownership as long as you can actually own the firearm you want. He's okay with regulations on open or concealed carry as long as you can have some form of reasonable carry.
This is the opposite of the extreme near-religious positions of folks who want to ban guns. See Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) telling 60 Minutes she wanted an "outright ban" on all guns -- "Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in" -- but didn't have enough Senate votes for it.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/01/Reminder-...
So you pick two people, one moderate and one extreme, and pretend they're representative?
Most people's opinions on this stuff is somewhere in the middle (i.e. there should be some regulations on guns but some private gun ownership should be allowed). There are extremists on both sides. On one side it manifests as "ban them all" and on the other side it's "no regulation whatsoever".
Discussing God is a completely practical taboo, though.
Most people, perhaps all people, don't arrive at their opinion on religion through rational thought. I make this claim due to the obvious fact that there are a lot of contradictory religious beliefs out there, and if most people used rational thought then you'd expect most people to have similar beliefs. They don't, thus most people aren't rational about it.
Since most, perhaps all, people are irrational about it, there's no point in discussing it. It's just going to cause anger and pain. Better to avoid it.
Really? I find that philosophy and the God question, faith etc is really the opposite to a taboo - it's what we mostly seem to end up discussing in the pub after the tech talk has died down. But we are British techs, which may make a difference.
It's all logic at the end of the day - or at least that's the path we take in talking about it.
Theology maybe. I find it difficult to believe that there are engineers against gun ownership and impossible that there are engineers against nuclear power, to the degree that both subjects are taboo.
Gun ownership is just fear of a tool. I'd see it in a similar vein as ignorant people thinking that TV rots your brain. Or fearing the RTGs on Cassini/MSL. Any engineer should be able to easily identify that breathless tone people use when they blame the tool for human failings.
Nuclear power stations? An engineering circle where nuclear power is encouraged is more likely. I've got a hard time imagining engineers sitting around reasonably coming to the conclusion that carbon free power in huge quantities is taboo to even discuss.
I've noticed this as well regarding theology and private gun ownership. To begin a discussion about religion with any attitude other than critical seems to incite a very negative response among most engineers (and tangentially, people who strongly identify with "internet culture"). An assumption of 'rightness' is very strong on these issues, from both sides.
I have NOT noticed this at all with regards to nuclear power stations. I've found that there is a fairly even divide among 'reductionist' or science-praising mindsets about nuclear being net negative or net positive.
Politics is the mindkiller and all that.[1] For almost every X where you can say, "Were you to advocate X in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century.", it is a good thing that opinions on X have changed. This heuristic isn't perfect, but it should cause you to think more about X.
Funny you should say this. Just the other day I was telling a friend of mine that I really should have been born in the 19th century. Much of what people believed then makes more sense to me than what people think today.
Great point. I'm a Christian and also a scientist. I am very reluctant to share my religious beliefs with peers. And I keep my mouth firmly shut whenever someone cites Dawkins, Harris et.al. on the part of their writings that assesses the general intellectual competency of religious people and (peaceful) religious communities.
A couple of times I've tried the philosophical argument, but I get shot down every time. It's easier to just stuff it.
I think that's a separate issue. As a general social rule you aren't supposed to bring up religion or politics at a general social gathering since people have strong opinions driven by their group affiliations.
It hijacks conversations, starts fights, and doesn't accomplish anything since people will be arguing from an emotional reaction.
That doesn't mean you can't ever discuss politics and religion, just be understanding if other people aren't interested in your views.
Exactly. Even in Paul Graham's own essay, some things are always forgotten. He's smart enough to question why the Church/Italian state attacked Galileo for repeating Copernicus' ideas, who was a celebrated hero of the church.
And nobody ever realizes that Galileo was not at all interested in the scientific facts (well he was, up to the point he went insane and became a political agitator and generally a lunatic, read his letters, you'll see that I'm actually quite polite here). Rather he was organizing demonstrations and violence because the church owed him a different kind of state (needless to say, with him on top) because the earth rotated around the sun (amongst many other "reasons", most of them quite insane). This case was then dug up later to justify ripping the catholic church out of Germany. That failed, but the story about Galileo stuck.
Some of our historical heroes ... aren't heroes. Socrates is a similar situation. Celebrated philosopher. Speaker at nearly every forum (meaning the weekly meeting where their direct democracy happened). He was an advocate, a statesman, a philosopher.
And then they execute him. Wait. What ? Nobody ever seems to think that they've probably skipped over small part of the story here.
An inaccurate summary was that Socrates' students were involved TWICE with actions that led to the military sacking of Athens, with very strong suspicions of him having ordered them to do so. This "just happened" to occur right after one of the first times he didn't get his way in the forum. The first time he got off with a stern warning, execution of every one of his students involved that sided with the occupying force, and a promise not to have any students for 2 years, which he promptly ignored. Then it very nearly happened again, and again his students were helping the enemy army. Then he was executed together with his students.
There is at least a decent case to be made that Galileo was executed for organizing violent protests against the state (using, amongst many other things, the idea that the earth rotated around the sun as a rallying idea).
Likewise, Socrates was likely killed for organizing the military conquest of Athens when he couldn't democratically get his way in parliament twice (and for having a habit of sleeping with the wives of other Atheneans). Not because Atheneans were afraid of science.
Neither of them were very nice people. Not that horrible people can't be important forces of good in history, but you should at least note that this is so. E.g. Kemal Ataturk, an early 20th century figure that a lot more genocidal than Hitler. He also ended the 1.5 millenia long war of muslims against the west and the east, and frankly without him we would not have a modern time. He ended it because he thought it was a waste of money, effort and most of all, lives, not because he was against war. He just didn't believe the objective was worth the cost. Still, his importance in making our current mostly democratic world possible is at least on par with Churchill. But he is a monster, personally responsible for several ethnic extermination campaigns, no doubt about that.
> There is at least a decent case to be made that Galileo was executed
Where do you get that he was executed?
Also, regarding differences between Copernicus's treatment and Galileo's. Copernicus didn't publish a lot of his material, nor was it widely known, until late in life. Galileo basically stepped into the controversy that had developed after Copernicus died. Essentially, there was little controversy in Copernicus's time because it wasn't widely known, and those that did know his theory didn't have a reason (yet) to view it as controversial or "wrong".
This is my point. Galileo didn't advance knowledge by his acts, that was already done (within the scientific community if not within the wider world) (And granted, he did advance knowledge at other times on other subjects). He attempted to use it to change the state by agitating large portions of the population using that fact.
I would even say he was not so much looking to change the state, rather to destroy it, becoming a sort of dictator himself, without any thought to what that would do. This he did after a few years of sending out letter that made it very clear he would immediately execute half the nobility and clergy if he did come to power. It didn't help that he had pissed off all of his teachers and environment with those letters. This is what his trial was really about, and of course it mentioned his rallying cries.Those were not the essence of the trial though.
Think about it. Suppose you're an autocratic ruler in the middle ages, in Italy. Everybody's writing letters, a lot of them calling for your throat getting slit. One more of these lunatics starts writing letters. Disturbing letters, lots of them. You ignore him, at this point, there's 100 others like him. Then a few demonstrations happen, led by him, with hundreds of people calling for your throat getting slit on the street. This is unnerving, but happens regularly, most demonstration leaders are never seen again, so, again, you probably ignore this. But if he manages to make the demonstrations grow, you've got to react. That's what happened.
Regardless if you agree with the second paragraph, he was not attacked because he claimed the earth rotated around the sun.
Can you cite some sources on Galileo as instigator against the state? I've never heard of this before. Also, did you really mean, in your OP, to say that he was executed? That was the first I'd heard of that, and everything I checked (in an admittedly short search) indicated that he died of old age.
I figured as much. For a while I thought waps was going for an ironic, given the pg post that prompted this, posting. Now I think s/he is serious, but without citations there's no way to know for certain. Either way, I learned more about Copernicus and Galileo trying to figure out what waps was talking about.
That Socrates thing is curious. His crime: "Socrates is guilty of crime in refusing to recognize the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young."
Was that just a convenient law to hang his prosecution on? Why not "inciting others to treason" or some such direct accusion?
Not saying this is the case, but giving bogus reasons makes it impossible to mount a defense. If I say you have invisible murderers at your home, it would be hard to discredit me in front of a jury that believes in invisible people.
It's a less subtle attack than "have you stopped hitting your wife yet?"
The standing of Socrates among his fellow citizens suffered mightily during two periods
in which Athenian democracy was temporarily overthrown, one four-month period in 411-410
and another slightly longer period in 404-403. *The prime movers in both of the anti-democratic
movements were former pupils of Socrates, Alcibiades and Critias*. Athenians undoubtedly
considered the teachings of Socrates--especially his expressions of disdain for the
established constitution--partially responsible for the resulting death and suffering.
Alcibiades, perhaps Socrates' favorite Athenian politician, masterminded the first
overthrow. (Alcibiades had other strikes against him: four years earlier, Alcibiades had
fled to Sparta to avoid facing trial for mutilating religious pillars--statues of
Hermes--and while in Sparta had proposed to that state's leaders that he help them defeat
Athens.) Critias, first among an oligarchy known as the "Thirty Tyrants," led the second
bloody revolt against the restored Athenian democracy in 404. The revolt sent many of
Athen's leading democratic citizens (including Anytus, later the driving force behind
the prosecution of Socrates) into exile, where they organized a resistance movement.
Are you referring to the Thirty Tyrants? Because that's the only time I can think of that Socrates was involved with tyranny. But the only thing I know of that was that he explicitly refused to be complicit in their tyranny (by helping in capturing an innocent man).
Furthermore, Socrates' death was a single event. There were no other people executed beside him, as far as I know.
"Kemal Ataturk, an early 20th century figure that a lot more genocidal than Hitler. He also ended the 1.5 millenia long war of muslims against the west and the east, and frankly without him we would not have a modern time."
True enough. But then why does the modern Turkish state continue to deny what happened to the Ottoman Armenians? You think they'd have a field day showing how much the Empire sucked.
I might be wrong, but apart from Germany no one has owned up a genocide. I suspect Germans wouldn't have done it if it wasn't forced upon them during allied occupation of Germany.
There's little reason for Turkish to break ground in this regard.
I was going to respond with Germany. Specifically, the East German state did not own up to it like the West despite it being great propaganda for the founding of a communist state.
A government does not gain from showing its society a proper mirror. It runs the risk of losing ground by having "insulted" the guilty older generation and national identity, and simultaneously plants the distrust for itself (it mostly is that older generation) to form a youth revolt (the RAF supposedly formed from this distrust in West Germany.)
It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century.
Always interesting to think about.