[Apocryphon]

I've addressed this idea in a sibling comment. I think at least some superstition is inevitable in any subculture. Consider how many tech 'holy wars' might involve baseless beliefs about how a text editor or programming language or whatever being not only superior because of personal preference but because it's inherently more optimized. Treating anti-micro-plastics as a "religion" rather than a subculture based on a meme deserves a bit more nuance.

1. Is it based on inherently irrational, unfactual beliefs, e.g. anti-vaccination or anti-5G myths?

2. If we consider religion as a way to explain complex phenomena using just-so stories (the pop anthropology / layman idea of primitive man inventing Zeus to explain lightning), then what intellectual or emotional need does anti-microplastics belief validate?

[cobbzilla]

> Treating anti-micro-plastics as a "religion" rather than a subculture based on a meme deserves a bit more nuance.

Agreed, and I think we satisfy your two conditions and many more.

If I read you right, question 1 pertains to irrationality, and question 2 pertains to powerful storytelling.

OK here’s one example that shows you are on the right track, but there is still more.

My ex-wife is gluten free. This single choice never comes alone. in my ex-wife’s case, she also believes in the healing power of crystals and essential oils. (Irrationality checkbox); I cannot describe her vision of cosmic creation but I guarantee it involves witchcraft/folk magic and differs from traditional dogma (Storytelling checkbox).

BUT THERE IS AT LEAST ONE MORE VERY IMPORTANT CHECKBOX! A good religion also prescribes a proper way to behave and act in the world for maximum benefit in the afterlife. In these newer religions, the afterlife is “the health of the planet”, so one must do everything in this life to ensure you do not hurt that future.

[Apocryphon]

To be fair, that wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list of criteria for what constitutes a religion, nor is the second one really a criterion for inclusion, just a couple of points I was thinking of. For the first, I would hesitate to label microplastics skepticism as baseless as the other two examples I listed, as there seems to be some studies that suggest they're not great for the human body? But sure, forming an entire belief system about how they're the anti-panacea for all of modern ills is certainly unfounded.

The second is more prescriptive-suggesting than descriptive. What motivates the desire to create single scapegoats for all of modern ills? Maybe a breakdown in public trust in science, lack of comprehensive medical education, spread of misinformation, political polarization (lots of these health fads end up embroiled in culture wars), etc. So that's a host of issues to work on. And at the same time, the anxieties they are preoccupied with- widespread changes to people's bodies, for one - do need explanations for, otherwise people will flock to just-so stories.

Your introduction of a third point about how a modern pseudo-religion provides a call to action to achieve a desirable afterlife that actually exists in this life (e.g. some unspecified healthy future) is rather inspired. Reminds me of the phenomenon of how secular cults of political personality now appear to be moving in on traditional spirituality. Superstition, it would seem, can exist even without belief in the overtly supernatural.

[sublinear]

All culture is shared ignorance. These comparisons to religion are inverted. Religion was born out of cultures needing to herd their people.

You're right that the debate about plastics is mostly meaningless noise by people who don't really care. Taking advantage of uncertainty while it still exists is a lucrative game.

None of this is comparable to software. Writing software is a choice and the users don't have to care beyond the UI. It's apathy, not ignorance, that holds software back. Text editors and programming languages are not usually the highest priority choice to make. The majority of software tends to be specialized one-off solutions. We don't exactly have chemists cooking up their own kitchenware materials on the weekend.

[Apocryphon]

Software development creates subcultures, just like any other occupation, craft, human activity. Tech holy wars is a thing, and I'm sure a lot of it dealt with articles of faith just like any other source of controversy.

https://gwern.net/holy-war

https://wiki.c2.com/?HolyWar

I brought them up to illustrate that any endeavor will end up pockets of irrationality as part of the general culture. Doubtless in academia, scientific research, other forms of engineering, etc. there are little superstitions as part of the subculture.

That said, sure; the movement against microplastics is a pop health fad, which is different because it's a consumer-oriented activity whose actual effects are probably impossible to quantify. (As pointed out in a different comment in this discussion thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48836691) Building software produces tangible, measurable outcomes. Though likely far less measurable compared to other forms of engineering!

> It's apathy, not ignorance, that holds software back.

That's somewhat debatable, in that compared to the physical sciences, it sure seems like software engineering involves a fair amount of following traditions of preexisting practices and there's a lot of cargo culting that ends up happening. More of a craft than a science. But that's tangential to this discussion.

[sublinear]

> is different because it's a consumer-oriented activity whose actual effects are probably impossible to quantify

Your perspective on software is that of a consumer, so you're not necessarily wrong. You're in the majority of people using software along with all those people having their "holy wars".

I'm just saying it's not intrinsic to software. The majority of people who write software for a living are silent about this because it's completely irrelevant to their lives.

It's like this with all other creative work too. As they say "a poor craftsman blames his tools", but more generally improvisation is expected when you're supposed to know what you're doing. Professionals can't afford to be helpless. In fact, that's why we have so many competing standards in technology to begin with. Constant reinvention is the most boneheaded way to progress, but my point is that this is in direct opposition to everything you're saying.

You seem to be insisting that there's ignorance where there is just apathy. For every one person whining, the internet has a chorus of hundreds. On the other side of the fence, there are dozens of people who could fix it in their sleep just ignoring it because it doesn't bother them that bad. That's what makes software so different from manufacturing plastic doodads at scale. You at least don't need a factory, but there are probably countless other reasons.

[Apocryphon]

Was this LLM-generated? Because the intent is garbled, each sentence going in a different direction from the previous. (So perhaps not LLM after all.)

[sublinear]

> Was this LLM-generated? Because the intent is garbled, each sentence going in a different direction from the previous. (So perhaps not LLM after all.)

Quoting the entirety of your comment verbatim in case you edit it. It's poor form to overplay your hand and troll instead of discuss.

I flagged your reply, and I suggest anyone reading these should do the same. HN is really going off the rails allowing this, but I know it's hard to rein it all in. At the risk of becoming even more of a hive mind, I think we need users to pitch in some more.

[Apocryphon]

> Your perspective on software is that of a consumer, so you're not necessarily wrong. You're in the majority of people using software along with all those people having their "holy wars".

What do either of those statements mean? You neither say what I am not necessarily wrong about, and the second sentence means that - everyone is using software? The majority and the minority are both doing something?

> The majority of people who write software for a living are silent about this because it's completely irrelevant to their lives.

I’m not sure if this is accurate. Programmers have opinion, taste-based arguments all the time, sometimes based on dubious assertions. People pay attention to the proclamations of Linus Torvalds or John Carmack even when sometimes they’re not necessarily based on evidence, and parrot it as prophecy. Though sure, they are also not the norm, and becoming a public figure changes one’s behavior. (Uncle Bob Martin appears to have turned into a Twitter crank in recent years, for example.)

> It's like this with all other creative work too. As they say "a poor craftsman blames his tools", but more generally improvisation is expected when you're supposed to know what you're doing.

Like what? What are you referring to? What does improvisation have to do with what you were just writing about?

> Professionals can't afford to be helpless.

What is making them helpless? What are they doing or not doing?

> In fact, that's why we have so many competing standards in technology to begin with.

Okay this might be relevant. So you’re saying what I was talking about- tech holy wars based on opinions and superstition- causes competing standards?

> Constant reinvention is the most boneheaded way to progress, but my point is that this is in direct opposition to everything you're saying.

What does constant reinvention have to do with anything? What is an example of reinvention?

> You seem to be insisting that there's ignorance where there is just apathy.

I am not saying that all of engineering is ignorant, I am simply making the banal and obvious observation that any field of human activity will contain pockets of emotion-based conclusions that might not reflect reality.

The original point is that even the most seemingly empirical, scientific, whatever, domain might still involve facets that aren’t so scientific.

What does apathy have to do with it? If you were to rebut my point, you can simply say, “no there is no ignorance.” Why are you contrasting it with apathy?

> For every one person whining, the internet has a chorus of hundreds.

What does this sentence mean? A chorus of hundreds not what, not whining? The internet is full of whining choruses.

> On the other side of the fence, there are dozens of people who could fix it in their sleep just ignoring it because it doesn't bother them that bad.

Fix what? Ignoring what? What are you referring to?

> That's what makes software so different from manufacturing plastic doodads at scale. You at least don't need a factory, but there are probably countless other reasons.

??? Countless other reasons for what? Why are you contrasting software with physical engineering in a way completely irrelevant to my prior comparison?

Finally, I haven’t even touched upon your original response, which starts with “All culture is shared ignorance.” Which, while sounding both profound and impressive at first, is meaningless. All culture is shared knowledge as well. All culture is share norms, mores, values. What does it all mean?

> HN is really going off the rails allowing this, but I know it's hard to rein it all in.

Allowing what? Allowing people to write things? Last I checked people flag plenty of posts, including trolling. Rein what all in? Trolling?