[observer987]

The paradox of living in this day and age is witnessing astonishing advances in science, while enduring the increasing levels of anti-intellectualism that pervades society like a cancer.

[dang]

Ok, but please don't post generic tangents to HN. They make the threads less interesting, more tedious, and (possibly as a result) tend to turn them nasty.

[EnigmaFlare]

I think all the really obvious and influential products of science and technology happened in the 20th century and now we're so comfortable because of those that we take it for granted. Then people find reasons to hate it because they forget how bad things were without it (previous generations). Same goes for political stability.

Another aspect is that a lot of intellectualism is really activism with "intellectuals" trying to impede other people's lives for the sake of some arrogant moral purpose.

[autoexec]

> now we're so comfortable because of those that we take it for granted. Then people find reasons to hate it because they forget how bad things were without it (previous generations). Same goes for political stability.

I'm not sure that most people are really all that comfortable. They're a lot more distracted though certainly.

I think there are a lot of different reasons people today have a problem with science and technology. Some are scared of it. Some just don't trust it, which can be entirely fair depending on the degree/situation. Some see that the regulations, oversight, and accountability we expect and depend on to keep us safe aren't working like they used to or like we thought they would.

Mostly I think people see not only what we've gained, but also what we've lost and could/should have again. Reliable and repairable products that weren't designed to exploit and work against the interests of the person who paid for them for just one example. We've had many trade offs, where they've improved things in some areas while making them worse in others. It hasn't always worked out in our favor. It's also frustrating when you see that amazing things are now possible, but we can't have them because of politics, or greed, or fear of change.

Personally, I hope people never stop wanting and expecting better from science and technology. Especially in those cases where what previous generations had was better than what we're expected to accept today or where we've created problems previous generations never had to put up with.

[Aerroon]

I think what societies need is a feeling of hope and improvement. As long as people feel that things are getting better they are happy.

[Angostura]

> Another aspect is that a lot of intellectualism is really activism with "intellectuals" trying to impede other people's lives for the sake of some arrogant moral purpose.

OK, I’ll bite -examples?

[mschuster91]

In Germany, unlike every other European country (maybe except the Polish, not sure if they're doing the same with Auschwitz?), we have every generation of school children visit a Nazi Konzentrationslager once - precisely to avoid forgetting how bad it was, by showing the actual, undeniable evidence. And on top of that the Nazi dictatorship is usually an entire year's worth of history lessons in schools.

Despite the far-right being on the rise as well as everywhere in Europe, they still have a harder time here, which I think is mostly due to these two education policies.

[agumonkey]

when the ratio between education and society sophistication flips you get problems. It's a strange group dynamics still.

[nathan_compton]

Do you really think there is no intellectual work to be done on moral subjects? That morality is entirely in the realm of folk intuition? If you thought very hard about some moral question and came to another conclusion than most of society, what would you do about it?

Would you have called intellectual abolitionists people trying to impede other people's lives for some arrogant moral purpose?

Like, I get it, nobody likes a woke-scold, but it is still weird to complain about the idea that an intellectual who comes to a moral understanding might want to act on that new understanding/change the world/convince others.

[autoexec]

In the US you also have situations where all that science means that effective treatments exist but they are entirely out of your reach because of insane healthcare costs.

I can't imagine having to watch a loved one slowly die knowing that you are surrounded by doctors who could save them if you only had the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars they demand or if you'd been living in basically any other developed nation on Earth.

[ffgjgf1]

> In the US

I’m certain that the US is in no way unique in that. Countries with universal public healthcare care systems do cost-benefit analysis all the time and access to the newest effective treatment options outside of the richest/most developed countries (or even in them) is far from guaranteed. e.g good luck buying latest cancer drugs from the US on an East European salary after your local healthcare system bureaucrats have rejected them because they are too expensive and/or are taking a year or two to decide of they are worth buying.

> or if you'd been living in basically any other developed nation on Earth.

That’s just beyond absurd, unless you think that only Switzerland and a handful of other rich countries are “developed”. Yes getting some minimum/acceptable level of care when you’re not rich might generally be easier. Getting access to latest or even experimental drugs (most of which are developed in the US)? Not so much..

[beaeglebeachedd]

That's because we subsidize the world by investing in a massive portion of the science and tech for producing medicines. Then when those costs are recouped via sales to our consumers the whole world laughs at us while ironically many of them would be up shits creek without the advancements they get to piggy back off of.

Healthcare and medicine needs overhauling but it's maddening watching these downstream foreign benefactors damn the golden goose they'd be fucked without.

[tim333]

I'm not so sure about rising levels of anti-intellectualism overall if you look globally. I looked at some stats over my lifetime and globally from Our World in Data 67m people had post secondary education in 1965 vs about 1.07bn now so up 16x. (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-level-ed...)

Also in the 1970s the Cambodians were searching out their intellectuals and executing them and the Chinese did a slightly less extreme version in the cultural revolution whereas now you get none of that and China is becoming a science superpower.

Admittedly some in the US seem to be pushing antivax and climate denial but it's not like the past events. Also it seems a bit local. I'm a Brit for example and see almost no climate denial here. A bit of antivax maybe.

[__rito__]

It's because of absolute penetration of social media in all levels of society everywhere.

It makes the most stupid and uneducated person think that they are equal to the top minds of present day in many aspects.

[cm2187]

Some of the anti-vax movement during covid (I presume that's what you have in mind) is anti-intellectualism but some of it is not.

You can hold both opinions that an mRNA vaccine is an incredible new technology that has enormous potential, while a new technology that had never been tested on humans shouldn't be forced on people for whom the benefit was marginal at best (kids, healthy population under 50, people who already had covid).

And you can hold both opinions that health authorities clearly misbehaved or acted in a moronic way (lying about masks, origin of the virus, forcing vaccines on people who had already been infected, telling you you can't go outside, except if it's to protest for BLM, etc) while acknowledging that coming up with a vaccine against a new virus in only weeks is a technological wonder.

It's absurd to be systematically anti-intellectual, but also some healthy skepticism is well warranted.

[Propelloni]

It's like poker. You can have this lucky draw on the river, but most often you don't. You cannot built your strategy on lucky draws and those people weren't, even when not everything worked out. You and I are still alive, so I think they did a good job.

[account42]

Right, a lot of the problem with anti-intellectualism is actually the people who define their viewpoint as The Science and try to shut down those who disagree as being "against the science".

[yieldcrv]

its only been a small gap in time where anti-intellectualism was segregated from society. you could always just be in your tiny circles of elite higher education.

only thing thats changed this time is anti-intellectualism is given a microphone.

[tonymet]

what does this have to do with the story?

[ted_dunning]

There is the metaphorical irony as well. That cancer of anti-intellectualism is often caused by the viral misinformation.

[teh_infallible]

I suppose that’s another way of saying we’re seeing controversial advances in science.

[oopsallmagic]

You don't need to take HIV medication, but you don't need to prevent the rest of us from enjoying the benefits of modernity, too.

[javawizard]

Not sure what you're saying, can you elaborate?

[speed_spread]

Anything new can be controversial if you're allergic to change.