Amia Srinivasan, in a wide-ranging conversation with Tyler Cowen:
I also think one error that is consistently made in this discourse, in this kind of conversation about what’s innate or what’s natural, is to think about what’s natural in terms of what’s necessary. This is a point that Shulamith Firestone made a very long time ago, but that very few people register, which is that — and it was actually made again to me recently by a philosopher of biology, which is, “Look what’s natural isn’t what’s necessary.”
It’s extraordinary. It’s not even like what’s natural offers a good equilibrium point. Think about how much time you and I spend sitting around. Completely unnatural for humans to sit around, yet we’re in this equilibrium point where vast majority of humans just sit around all day.
So, I think there’s a separate question about what humans — as essentially social, cultured, acculturating creatures — what our world should look like. And that’s distinct from the question of what natural predispositions we might have. It’s not unrelated, but I don’t think any of us think we should just be forming societies that simply allow us to express our most “natural orientations.”
There's much more at the link.
The first time I read anything by Tyler Cowen was on you're blog sometime ago.
ReplyDeleteSure it was a remark about feminist academics, I could not make full sense of it, it struck me as odd, like someone attempting to arrive at a balanced perspective but not quite making it.
Could not quite put my finger on it, 'awkward'/ 'hesitant, 'uncomfortable'. Sense that what was motivating the line of thought was left unsaid.
I thought the interview was a bit of a car-crash. The incel label in particular, whole thing fell apart at that point for me.
He is an interesting thinker, who clearly thinks about what he is saying and reads widely.
I generally enjoy his interviews.
I found that an awkward and uncomfortable read
interview style/ questioning distracting.