I would argue the most interesting non-medical paragraph is this one:
The Polynesians did not have lodestones with which to make compasses, and their navigation system does not emphasize the stars, but the sea itself. The different wave patterns are studied and observed, as many, improbably, as fourteen simultaneously. (...) Navigating by wave train alone, the waves were best felt with the testicles; the navigator on each canoe had a special cabin he hunkered in. The idea, however, of making sense out of an interference pattern involving more than three or four wave systems is mind-boggling. The mathematical complexity of a fourteen-source interference pattern would appear more than can be held by any human brain. Or scrotum.
A) I started to say "best" but felt that would be more open to argument. So I used the phrase "most interesting" in hopes that it would be accepted that what an individual finds "most interesting" is personal.
B) I'm actually very fascinated by a lot of stuff having to do with human sexuality (though that is not really what this is about) and not terribly shy about discussing it. However, I have found that it is best to tread lightly in that regard as a woman in a male dominated forum. So I thought it best to leave out any references to testicles the article made. :-D (On previous occasions, making similar observations has resulted in downvotes here.)
I also refrained from speculating out loud about some of the causes of issues described in the article. I do have some thoughts and I read the article because it fits very nicely with my interests in getting myself well against very long odds, but what I believe to be true is very far from accepted/conventional wisdom on such topics. It often gets either ignored or downvoted here. :-/
I did refrain from asking whether this particular navigation technique contributed to the prejudice that women can't drive...
> what I believe to be true is very far from accepted/conventional wisdom on such topics. It often gets either ignored or downvoted here. :-/
I had a weird experience on HN some time ago when I tried to argue that death was actually a good thing and was immediately downvoted.
It seems people downvote comments they perceive to be "contrarian", ie insincere and artificially opposed to mainstream; the problem of course is that it's very difficult to discriminate ingenuous from disingenious contrarian opinions.
Just because one thinks different does not mean they do it on purpose. And in the end, only the truth should matter; even if a point is actually being argued disingeniously, this fact alone doesn't make it wrong...
I, too, have never found appreciating the upside to death a common or popular view. I'd be interested to know your social circle; it sounds much more interesting than mine.
My social circle mostly wants to live forever, but that's because I've surrounded myself with transhumanists and libertarians, who are a lot less deathist than the population in general. :)
That is an astounding thing to say. I can not think of anyone that I know personally who thinks that death is a good thing. Can I ask what country you are in, and what religion and/or spiritual tradition, or philosophical tradition, are you arguing from?
I'm in the US, was raised as a Christian, and I'm talking about the mainstream view as reflected in the reaction of people whenever the possibility of preventing aging comes up. If you ask, "Do you think death is a good thing?", most people will say, "Of course not!", but when you ask about the possibility of extending life well into the second century, or living for millennia, suddenly objections are all you hear. In fiction, people who live for a very long time are mostly portrayed as being depressed about it -- "I wish I could die" is a common theme in vampire fiction, for example. People seem to want to live another year, but to think that living for another hundred years would be an awful fate.
There's a whole industry of people who try to convince people not to attempt to extend their life another year or another six months, but instead just die "with dignity", as though it's not dignified to live longer.
It's startling to me that you haven't seen at least the edges of this if you've been paying attention to "bioethics" (a too-self-congratulatory name, in my opinion) and similar debates.
I get far worse treatment for such views elsewhere, so I'm not terribly concerned. I was basically posting in the middle of the night, unable to sleep. I felt it was a bad time to try to make such comments. Short version (fwiw): I think a lot of this has to do with body chemistry and (unrecognized) infection rather than calories per se.
I'm probably the stereotypical "woman driver" and was happy to let my husband drive when I was married. I currently live without a car and am happy to not have to deal with the issue of driving. Though, honestly, I have difficulty imagining how this particular navigation technique could contribute to such prejudices concerning women. Still, it was interesting that men were (apparently) literally better equipped for this than women.
The Polynesians did not have lodestones with which to make compasses, and their navigation system does not emphasize the stars, but the sea itself. The different wave patterns are studied and observed, as many, improbably, as fourteen simultaneously. (...) Navigating by wave train alone, the waves were best felt with the testicles; the navigator on each canoe had a special cabin he hunkered in. The idea, however, of making sense out of an interference pattern involving more than three or four wave systems is mind-boggling. The mathematical complexity of a fourteen-source interference pattern would appear more than can be held by any human brain. Or scrotum.
And apparently, it's true!
http://www.cseg.ca/publications/recorder/2008/09sep/sep2008-...