[globnomulous]

Extinctions followed homo sapiens across the planet millennia before the emergence of the technologies that you seem to think make the world 'complicated.' The Greek work biblos, for book, derives from the name of the region of the Levant (Bublos) that produces much of the best paper in the ancient world, until people denuded it, turning it into a desert. Iran and Afghanistan were green when the Hittites and Babylonians were in charge, if I remember correctly.

Mostly I agree with overall perspective and tenor of the piece, but there's a profound absence of (historical) awareness, paired with a weird, presumptuous, sophomoric sanctimoniousness -- clearest in the strange insistence on using the word "we." If you've ever listened to recordings of sermons from Jamestown, you'll hear something similar: the breathless outrage and stupefaction at what "we" have become and what "we" do and "the world today." It's millenarianism and apocalypticism, and it's just goofy. It's the tone of a kid in his mid-teens who is worked up by his latest epiphany: he finally gets it and is wildly excited to make it clear, and he's performing it and acting it out for his parents, showing how serious he is -- and all the adults in the room know that he's on his way to figuring something out but doesn't grasp that he's trying on an idea and a personality to see how it feels. I hear the same cluelessness in this piece.

[tomhow]

Please don't be curmudgeonly on HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[globnomulous]

> Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.

Could you explain how this applies? I don't mean to be difficult -- really. I appreciate that Hacker News is a great place for discussion, and I very much appreciate that's partly because of the work you're doing.

I'd just like to think that my criticism is thoughtful and is neither rigidly nor generically negative: I pointed out specific omissions and offered an analogy to explain the immaturity and cluelessness that I see in the piece -- not just that the claims are wrong but that the perspective is delivered so badly that it's difficul to take seriously. It wasn't meant to be unkind or a swipe; I didn't call names or sneer; it wasn't a generic tangent. It was the best way I could find to characterize the ways the piece's tone and content work together, undermining it and (almost certainly) rubbing people the wrong way.

[tomhow]

No worries, here are the words/phrases that set off alarms for me:

> a profound absence of (historical) awareness

> weird, presumptuous, sophomoric sanctimoniousness

> strange insistence

> [the whole Jonestown (?) bit as a metaphor – at least a little disproportionate, no?]

> I hear the same cluelessness in this piece

I guess the issue is the number of negative terms and characterizations all crammed into one paragraph. It just seems to lay it on too heavy.

The writer is clearly wrestling with something and trying to process it, and the post has tapped into broader sentiment here, given the amount of front page time and discussion, so the dismissal seemed excessively scathing.

It may be that you underestimated how strongly your words come across to the reader, which is a common pitfall with online discussion forums; words often don't seem as harsh when we formulate them in our own mind as they do when read by others.

[globnomulous]

Ah, that actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining. I'll try to tone it down -- and work on a more neutral brevity. Thanks!

[tomhow]

Great to hear, thank you!

[globnomulous]

Hi, Tomhow, would you mind reviewing my exchange with the user voxl?

[mapontosevenths]

> The Greek work biblos, for book, derives from the name of the region of the Levant (Bublos) that produces much of the best paper in the ancient world, until people denuded it, turning it into a desert. Iran and Afghanistan were green when the Hittites and Babylonians were in charge, if I remember correctly.

I was fascinated by this so I looked it up, it's mostly inaccurate, but your larger point remains valid.

1) The Greeks did refer to ancient Lebanon as Byblos, because they bought their paper from the port. The paper was actually made in Egypt and imported there for resale though. They did, and still do, have big trees in Lebanon. They were famous for the cedars. Most of the ancient cedar is long gone, but its still green.

2) Iran and Afghanistan basically have the same climate now they did then. Desert then, desert now. You may be thinking of Iraq. Mesopotamia (Iraq) did destroy the fertile crescent by over irrigating it for too long and basically salting the earth.

[globnomulous]

Oof, thanks for the corrections.

[patcon]

I say this with respect and appreciation for your thoughtful framing, as I also feel for the author:

I'm not a young man, but I believe your this-has-always-been-the-way-ism, is equally clueless, in shared lineage with all the old-dog elders of past who've been helpless to stop what's happening, as the naive fools do the work of imagining it might be otherwise

Blindness goes both ways (a certain type from the end, as from the beginning), and truth is likely somewhere in the middle

[csallen]

In what way is understanding the historical context in which we live "blindness"?

Correcting someone who believes an old phenomenon is a new phenomenon, is not the same as giving up and saying we should do nothing about said phenomenon. In fact, understanding something is the first and most important step to changing it, especially a pattern or a habit.

[pj_mukh]

I get into the this conversation a lot, when you point out the obvious historical context to "all this change", the response is always "Oh so you want to do nothing?" or "helpless to stop what's happening". That's not the implication of historical context. But it screams for a change in narrative, we aren't helpless, we live in the greatest time, and it can be even greater.

If we are to continue the march of civilization our algorithmic feed driven mania would just be just a blip. But if we give into the hysteria, I am afraid this is the beginning of the end. Our birth rate is dwindling because people are anxious [1], posts like this are not helping.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/07/opinion/birthrate-kids-pa...

[bethekidyouwant]

The amount of women having children hasn’t changed since the 80s about 80% the difference is how many they choose to have

[whackernews]

I think you are both saying the same thing?

[ChrisLTD]

Beginning of the end seems a tad hyperbolic. We aren’t running out of humans.

[socalgal2]

We aren't?

[switchers]

There are plenty if you don't mind what colour or socio economic background they are.

[pj_mukh]

Not for long [1].

[1]: https://openthemagazine.com/india/the-baby-slump-the-fear-of...

[efavdb]

Worldwide poverty rate in 1800 = 81%. Today under 10%.

https://cepr.shorthandstories.com/history-poverty/

[globnomulous]

Could you expand on this?

[carlosjobim]

> Iran and Afghanistan were green when the Hittites and Babylonians were in charge, if I remember correctly.

What would you say is the secret for people who want to live a long and fulfilling life?

[wallst07]

Create a family: Pursue a life that brings others happiness, serve them.

[globnomulous]

Probably just "be lucky."

[jddj]

Jonestown, right? Recordings from Jamestown would be quite a big deal.

[globnomulous]

Oy, yes, correct, thanks for this.

[pfannkuchen]

> Iran and Afghanistan were green when the Hittites and Babylonians were in charge

I thought this was due to natural climate change?