Hacker News Reader

Comment by jh3 | Hacker News Reader

Well, we're sure as shit not meant to sit in front of a screen all day.

Nature has no intent, we aren't meant for anything.

It's a metaphor. We use lots of metaphors when talking about evolution. They're useful. We say features of organisms were designed and have purposes. It's all metaphor; nothing to get upset over.

It may be a metaphor, but it's also nothing more than a creation-anchor metaphor.

I happen to enjoy figurative language and I'm not going to give it up because other people because abuse it.

Should we throw out the word "theory" because creationists refuse to understand it?

No, it's not useful, it's exactly this kind of sloppy language that has so many people so confused about evolution to begin with. I'm not upset, so you mind your own feelings and don't worry about mine.

In that case we should probably go ahead and throw out the word "evolution" as well. After all, etymologically speaking it's a metaphor with strong teleological connotations. Worse yet, it also hints at predestination. All in all, I'd say it's much more troublesome than "meant to".

PROTIP: Rather than getting cranky about someone using a subtly different meaning for a word from the one you tend to prefer, instead just mentally substitute a word or phrase that falls within your linguistic comfort zones while still capturing the author's intended meaning.

For example, in this case just mentally substitute the phrase "well adapted for" for "meant to".

If you like writing so sloppily that others have to guess your intention, that's your style, it isn't mine; there's nothing wrong with pointing out incorrect usage of words.

You always have to guess their intention — natural human language is inherently imprecise. You simply choose to protest in this case rather than allowing your mind to find a reasonable meaning for their words as you would in most other cases.

For example, you use the word "speaking" here, but nobody is actually speaking. This presents us with the choice of guessing your intent or pitching a fit. (BTW, apparently incorrect usage of words is your style. It's OK — occasional lack of precision is actually the entire human race's style.)

Corrected. I didn't protest anything, I corrected, and it wasn't some random thing, his usage wasn't simply wrong, it was wrong in the way most people are confused about the theory and it needed corrected. One should never write about evolution as if it were intelligent. It's bad enough most of the people in this country don't believe in it, as if facts require belief.

> as if [it] was intelligent.

Should be "as if it /were/ intelligent." Neglecting the subjunctive mood isn't some random thing, and it isn't simply wrong, it's wrong in the way most people are confused about English grammar and it needs to be corrected.

blah blah blah.

meant for x = "narrowly optimal for x with a lot of dependencies on x"

I suppose nature didn't intend for giraffes to eat foliage high in trees, but it has benefited the giraffe to be able to do so.

I'll readily agree we're "not meant to".

However, I'm not sure how to be equally productive without sitting in front of a screen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com