Yes, in the sense that the accident made me think of the Darwin Awards.
To trace the whole process, I read an article that commented on how people on social media were mocking those who perished in the accident and calling them stupid etc. This made me think again of the Darwin Awards and I had a look to see if there is anyone who shares my opinion about them (that they are callous and mock the dead with no consideration for their families, pretty much as the article says). I went to the wikipedia page of the Awards and found the name of the author of the article under the "Reception" section. Having read the above article, I thought it was a good one to post on HN.
The people who most laugh about Darwin Awards can usually be found punching down at people who are just less fortunate, and mocking other people who are just struggling with life.
> To oversimplify natural selection into “if you’re dumb, you might die and that’s good for the future of humanity” is absurd. There are many reasons why smart people do dumb things, like drive recklessly, use dangerous substances, or are careless with weapons. Their children might never follow that behavior.
This type of argument doesn't sit well with me. "Oh it's complicated and not a guarantee, merely a correlation.. so the initial claim is entirely false." It's the old "behavior is 100% genetic or 100% environmental, no middle ground" false dichotomy, just camouflaged a little.
You can apply this "it's complicated" to every phenomenon that you'd rather not understand - there's always extra detail affecting things that is poorly understood. E.g. there are many reasons short giraffes fail to produce offspring, but not being tall enough to reach leaves is one of them. It is a simplification (maybe some would have grown tall, but just didn't get enough food?), but a useful and legitimate one.
I agree with her points about schadenfreude and judging people, but just because we find something morally distasteful does not make it factually untrue.
5 comments
[ 15.6 ms ] story [ 81.8 ms ] threadI assume that the context for posting this blog post from 2017 now is the recent submarine implosion.
To trace the whole process, I read an article that commented on how people on social media were mocking those who perished in the accident and calling them stupid etc. This made me think again of the Darwin Awards and I had a look to see if there is anyone who shares my opinion about them (that they are callous and mock the dead with no consideration for their families, pretty much as the article says). I went to the wikipedia page of the Awards and found the name of the author of the article under the "Reception" section. Having read the above article, I thought it was a good one to post on HN.
This type of argument doesn't sit well with me. "Oh it's complicated and not a guarantee, merely a correlation.. so the initial claim is entirely false." It's the old "behavior is 100% genetic or 100% environmental, no middle ground" false dichotomy, just camouflaged a little.
You can apply this "it's complicated" to every phenomenon that you'd rather not understand - there's always extra detail affecting things that is poorly understood. E.g. there are many reasons short giraffes fail to produce offspring, but not being tall enough to reach leaves is one of them. It is a simplification (maybe some would have grown tall, but just didn't get enough food?), but a useful and legitimate one.
I agree with her points about schadenfreude and judging people, but just because we find something morally distasteful does not make it factually untrue.