Hacker News Reader

Comment by mangeletti | Hacker News Reader

This is part of a greater dehumanization[1] agenda by the parts of the US media industry. I don't have a conspiracy theory about why this is or who is behind it, but it's been going on for a few years now. Once your reticular activating system's habituation filter has opened up on something like this, you cannot not notice such articles when they pop up.

I mean, click-bait or not, the idea of referring to an innate part of the biology of animal life as a "coping mechanism" automatically leads to a form of nihilism.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization

View on HN

> , click-bait or not,

did you read the article? using 'coping mechanism' in the headline reads like an intentional joke, subverting its audience's expectations

replace coping with regenerative or restructural or restorative and you have a clearer take on the article

the authors argument is a biological one

about the benefits of sex, versus asexual reproduction, encouraging and repairing mutations on a cellular level

the idea of it applying to the entire organism is only slightly touched on in the last few sentences, again, as a seemingly mocking jab at the notion of sex being a psychological 'coping mechanism'

to the effect, 'you're right it is a coping mechanism, sex copes well with evolution's affinity for variety quite well'

that said, to directly address your dehumanisation:

sex is a coping mechanism

and it is expression of self, and it is physical form of progeny creation, and it is a social construct, and a whole lot more to a whole lot of different people for different reasons

denying that sex helps some humans cope with other issues seems rather dehumanising to those people

but again, this is just addressing your comment, the article is about something completely different

I'm not so sure it's an explicit conspiracy. I think it's just an outgrowth of Nihilism -- just what naturally occurs when you're jaded towards all the traditional narratives that give meaning to life.

That's an interesting take on it. Also, thinking about how we've come to a scientific understanding of most of the things that were previously sacred magic of sorts perhaps gives us a sense of being above all of it.

I'm not religious and I'm certainly not a proponent of orthodoxy in nearly any aspect of life, but I always feel that trying to transcend naturally existing things is a fool's errand. One example is illustrated by our recent understanding of antibiotics and how they destroy our gut biome, and how that might be a really big problem.

>"That's an interesting take on it. "

You say that like it's novel...

It's been the almost universally accepted opinion in philosophy for the last 100 years or more that post-Enlightenment man is Nihilist because he denies his traditional narratives. It's the big story of the 20th century. Everything from Nazism and WW2, to the divorce rate has been blamed on it... Where have you been?

Oh no, someone doesn't know every little detail of a "universally accepted opinion" in philosophy for the past 100 years... on a technology news website. Shocking. It's almost like not everyone knows everything all the time? Interesting take on it.

Look, I overreacted. In this case, evidently, mangeletti merely misspoke. However, it's common I hear this same complete lack of humanities education in all areas of technology. It is a growing concern of mine.

I'm not worried about "every little detail". I'm concerned with basic areas of human knowledge, foundational elements of a classical education.

I'm concerned that we're creating engineering-educated drones capable of industriously automating away our traditional roles, yet who haven't even had the proper post-Enlightenment education to understand the civilization in front of their eyes.

My "interesting take on it" comment was referring to @spacehome's suggestion that the outgrowth of nihilism is the cause of the supposed emergence of these sorts of dehumanizing articles.

I get the same general feeling, and I try not to be too paranoid about it.

I think it has a lot to do with the instrumentality capitalism wants from its participants -- and we seem to want to use science to make us better cogs rather than better humans. Its a pretty old idea stemming from the industrial revolution -- it just seems that today we're more 'loosely coupled' into the system which gives us just enough of an illusion of freedom. e.g. you can choose a job, but you can't choose not to have a job, you can speak freely, but you'll be monitored etc.

Because of this I have recently had a resurgence of volunteerism and religious soul seeking. I've found it refreshing that these two arenas seek earnestly to humanize through giving.

religion as humanising? seems to be the exact opposite in my opinion, and experience

also, if giving is your metric you'll be better off looking to capitalism and secularists

https://youtu.be/4eBmyABeAa4?t=270

Volunteerism and giving is great, but religion's purpose is to co-opt and channel these altruistic impulses to make people believe that good things can only come from religion (historically linked to the state). You still see this brainwashing today, with people believing that atheists cannot be moral, or that religion makes them a better person. In fact, the most religious are frequently the most immoral. Look at the widespread sexual abuse sanctioned by the Catholic Church, today and throughout history.

As an aside, OPs conspiracy theory about the article titles sounds really silly.

Your comment interests me and I'd like to learn more. What is a "reticular activating system's habituation filter"? I tried googling but all I get is a Wikipedia article about the brain stem and some new-age woo.

IANA Neuroscientist. But I believe the reticular activating system governs wakefulness and attention. It's just a fancy way of saying "once you see it, you see it everywhere".

In what way is this article a dehumanization?

It takes something personal and meaningful and reduces it to a utilitarian biological drive.

Why can't it be both?

You're operating under a false dichotomy, and frankly, it's the type of misguided reasoning in the face of new evidence that leads to farces like the Scopes trial and decades of perceived conflict between science and humanity.

Of course it can be both. That's why it's disturbing that the article completely discards the majority of human experience of sexuality, while literally saying "To understand sex completely, we need an explanation that goes back to the primordial soup of very early complex organisms and the immediate survival pressures they were under."

> discards the majority of human experience of sexuality,

The article is on the biological origin of sex, not the multiple facets of sex in human culture today. That's not evidence of a conspiracy.

> it's been going on for a few years now.

If by that you mean centuries, I'd agree. Dehumanization of classes of people is a feature of human civilization going back to the beginning of human civilizations. Look at the link you posted. Right at the top is a picture that proves the point.

There's no conspiracy. It's what we do, it seems, for better or worse.

This article in particular though, I don't really see it? It's biologists suggesting a model for understanding features of human evolution. It doesn't at all suggest we treat people with disrespect en masse. It doesn't at all suggest we censor a class of humans for political/economic gains.

You want to shine light on a conspiracy to dehumanize? Try going after something that matters. Like wage labor, student debt, consolidation of wealth... All which are truly dehumanizing facets of our society that impact people on a wide scale. This article is biologists comparing notes in a very limited context, with very limited power/authority to subjugate people.

This post reads like paranoid ramblings of someone unable to compartmentalize things into appropriate context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com