Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by 10000truths | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

10000truths

> Arts and creativity is a luxury. Freedom to pursue passion is a luxury.

Sure.

> Compassion is a luxury. Self-esteem is a luxury.

No. These are virtues, not luxuries. You don't need a high income to be compassionate or have self-esteem.

View on HN

I'm actually quite disturbed to read that so many people believe compassion has anything to do with material satisfaction. Compassion isn't some bourgeois luxury, it's fundamental to any sort of well-being, be it individual or societal.

If it really came down to the famine, I'd ask why isn't this mentality seen in Bangladesh, who also lost around 5% of it's population to famine in the 20th century? They're some of the kindest, most welcoming people I've been around in the face of a poverty that China no longer knows.

So I'm having a hard time believing that TFA isn't completely off on this one, as I'd expect a society that had 2000 years of contact with Buddhism to have absorbed at least a little of the Buddha's teachings on karuna. Especially one whose main school was that of Mahayana and it's ideal of the Bodhisattva.

This is exactly true. I've seen people share what they have in poor rural South America and India. It seems common.

Japan, post war was desperately poor, but everyone shared what they had. A friend who grew up in rural China in the 60s-70s described very compassionate behavior. Communism is often born of necessity and not political will. Those who cheat and steal are ostracized, if not hunted.

It is during rapid transitions, and it seems during both growth and decline when hoarding and theft become rampant. In steady state, those that remain, work together.

If they grew up in Rural China and weren't telling you stuff about their experiences of "The Great Leap Forward" or "The Cultural Revolution", particularly the extreme amounts of selfishness one had to utilize to simply survive, they, like many people who have had to exist in destitute conditions, They're probably not telling you the whole story, and never will because they do not want to deal with the social judgements from people over actions they took to survive.

There's a good chance that for the survivors from that era, their parents almost certainly did some extremely evil things to survive.

You appear to have no real knowledge of Chinese history, perhaps as bad as that (not) taught in China. Around 1960 when the famine and related purges occurred the population was ~650M so even with the high end of 30-45M dead of starvation over 3 years, it's a few percent. It's horrifying to be sure, but it was concentrated (for political reasons they were exporting grain) in the west and central China where food was grown, while the major population centers were largely spared (still almost 1% died). So no, not every person alive in 1960 was involved in some sort of genocide, or even aware of it. The political elite of course suffered relatively little (until 60-80% of them were in turn purged less than 10 years later), but they were also (as usual) a tiny minority <3% of the population. This purge was called the Cultural Revolution also driven by Mao. Then came Deng, and now Xi. With some periods of relative political complexity in between.

Please study some history and stop assuming literally everyone is evil. That leads to the very expectations, political apathy, and actions that allow this kind of situation. It's unhelpful.

"Why isn't this mentality seen in Bangladesh"

Go ask anyone from, say, Myanmar (especially Arakan state) what they think of Bangladeshi people. You might find that opinion of "They're some of the kindest, most welcoming people I've been around in the face of a poverty that China no longer knows" to not be so widely held.

Maybe you should ask Bangladeshi's what they think of the Rohingya people. It turns out that Myanmar is not the only country oppressing them and refusing to give them citizenship!

The tendency to want to group an entire race/people with opinions based on hundreds of experiences with them, let alone dozens or a few, is the same tendency in us that spawns racism and prejudice. Your experiences have no influence on the reality of "the goodness of a people".

I'm married to a Bangladeshi, so yes I'm very aware of the treatment of the Rohingya at a state and societal level. I have close Bangladeshi friends that have done humanitarian aide work with their communities in Cox's Bazaar. It's a horrible crises.

My comment was responding to the author's argument that compassion only arises when material needs are accounted for, that compassion is some middle class thing. They were arguing that Chinese culture doesn't emphasize it because of their history of war, famine, and poverty. I think that's a horrible misunderstanding of both compassion and Chinese culture, and was merely countering it with an example of a people that have also experienced a famine that had a similar mortality rate who display perfectly normal human levels of compassion and kindness despite that history. I then went on to conclude that the original writer is likely completely off on how they view Chinese culture, that compassion is fundamental to being human and has nothing to do with bourgeois material comfort.

We tend to want to think in binaries -- people are compassionate or not. People are welcoming or not. That's not how reality works though, it's more nuanced. I was in no way arguing that an entire community of people aren't capable of mistreatment of others. Of course they are. But can a people that have experienced a massive amount of trauma and poverty and loss capable of displaying compassion? Of course they are. Because compassion is a fundamental aspect of being human.

> No. These are virtues, not luxuries. You don't need a high income to be compassionate or have self-esteem.

It's not about you, it's about others around you. If they do not have a "high income" (or, in other words, materially comfortable life), you cannot expect them to be comfortable enough to be compassionate or have self-esteem. And then, if they don't, but you do, it's an easy recipe for your compassion to be exploited and your self-esteem to be perceived as danger. It's a self-leveling system.

It's not an individual matter, but a social one. Always has been.

And it's not specific to China - I see it in Poland, a relatively "we've been damn poor forty years ago" country as well.

This flies in the face of my own experience travelling all over the world, where the poorest people would offer me extreme generosity and not accept anything in return.

Maybe it's bias because I'm an "exotic" white guy in many areas and not just a random down on their luck average guy from their own region.

I've also been offered generosity by rich people, as well, but, I will generalize, that mainly came after I demonstrated some proof that I didn't actually need their generosity

Maybe it's country dependent. I have seen what you describe in countries where christianity is the dominant religion and most people in those countries something like 70 to 80 percent identify with it. And religion in those places is most prevalent among the poor, so much so there is a direct relationship between poverty and religion, the more religious, the poorer.

In my personal experience, religiosity correlates with the appearance of kindness but not the actual act of kindness.

100% spot on.

Everyone who downvoted you are the type to step into another pile of dog shit the moment they finish scraping their shoes. Regressing into spirituality doesn't fix this. High trust paired with opportunity does.

not one person has called you out for consistently sounding like AI so I'll be that guy and cop the downvotes, in case a human is involved in the loop I will also respectfully provide an actual response - did you have a way or some evidence to back the possible insights contained in your strangely metaphored comment?

Hah, that's pretty funny. I expect to be downvoted on HN half the time, but since you asked I'll do you a favor and confirm I'm not AI. You might want to take a break.

Right back at you, I'm not sure what the deal is lately with some comments insisting on quotes or citations or "proof" of anything. To me, they seem like gambits by paid trolls. I'm just making observations from experience.

Something to ask yourself is where the honest truth is supposed to come from if it's always borrowed from somewhere else. People are free to make up their own minds.

Have you ever been to truly starving places? Not taking about poor countries, literally starving places, like, Syria in WWI. Where if you don't steal from your neighbor, your kids will die of hunger. That's the kind of environment where compassion is a luxury. A lot of China was like that _even if for a short time_ in the last century. That leaves deep scars.

Not a lot of the world is like that today, you'd have to go pretty far out of anything considered tourist-friendly to see conditions similar to Mao-induced famine.

Yeah, but older rural people in China are often exactly like the post you're responding to, anyways.

There are definitely SOME aspects of generosity tied to abundance and some not. Some might offer you the cup of cleanest rainwater found in their plot of rubble and others might chase you away using the stolen phaser gun tucked under their clothing. Or maybe it's more influenced by inequality within the society rather than absolute material abundance.

> This flies in the face of my own experience travelling all over the world, where the poorest people would offer me extreme generosity and not accept anything in return.

orrrr maybe poor people you've encountered are poor exactly because they are generous in competitive environment - and non-generous became rich and successful

The "white" privilege is pretty much all of it.

One's compassion reservoir capacity is proportional to one's capacity to fulfill its own needs first. You fill your cup first before you pour into others.

Why are tech millionaires, Kushners, Trumps, higher management so sociopathic then?

Because compassion is emotional and they are all emotionally vacuous.

Parent said it’s a requirement. You have the option to develop compassion once your needs are fulfilled.

If you are starving, you don’t even have that option. You need to prioritize your survival.

Also, poor people produce art and are creative. Art and creativity are oftentimes reault of not being able to afford comfortable middle class boring life, having issues you deal with, needing to distract yourself from hopelessness.

Even historically, quite a few art or music styles came out of poor or disturbed communities before they got commercialized. It is as if upper middle class HN programmers tended to think that creativity or art is only when you do something expensive or take an expensive art class.

The best cuisines in the world don't come from the wealthiest societies. In my opinion.

Maybe, the toxic environment will grind you enough until you don’t have these things anymore. And leaving the toxic environment is a luxury.

The communists in China actively tried to replace old virtue (it was barely alive in China pre-revolution anyway) with new virtue. New virtue was hollow, shallow, empty and fake.

you completely missed the point.

It's amazing to me how ignorant this comment is. Someone is teaching you something about a culture you don't understand and you're chastising them (or condescending to an entire nation).

> No. These are virtues, not luxuries.

According to your particular ethics. Has it ever occurred to you that the ethics you have isn't universal but is simply an artifact of your culture?

Compassion and self-esteem are not artifacts of culture or ethics. They're intrinsic to humanity. The manner of expression of these virtues can vary among different cultures. The audience of these virtues can vary among different beliefs and ethical frameworks. But the virtues exist in every society.

You know what else is instinct to humanity? Survival.

If you can hardly find food or medicine, there is very little room left in your brain for virtues.

This is why religion was developed to help people cope. Society collapses quickly when there is scarcity.

We saw a small glimpse of that in COVID with people hoarding basic toiletries in US and leaving others in need hanging.

> They're intrinsic to humanity.

I have to daily remind myself that people on here probably haven't had a single liberal arts class (like philosophy or anthropology) because they're stemlords.

> But the virtues exist in every society.

And also not too bright. brother you're literally commenting on your own response to a post about how such a virtue is potentially absent in some society

> These are virtues, not luxuries

I'm only speaking from my own experience here. When I've seen stressed out people who are expected to believe in "virtues", they just become more dishonest to hide their bad behavior.

The bell curve of human behavior stays the same no matter what time or place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com