←back to thread

Gandhi's Letter to Hitler (1940)

(www.mkgandhi.org)
116 points wslh | 6 comments | 17 Nov 24 04:55 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
amatecha ◴[17 Nov 24 06:17 UTC] No.42162344[source]▶
The degree of wisdom and truly "evolved" thinking demonstrated in this letter is deeply inspiring. Simultaneously, it conversely seems to support the idea that you can't really reason with fascists because their hunger for power (and destruction) is essentially insatiable and they won't stop because someone spoke some convincing words.
replies(3): >>42162476 #>>42162658 #>>42166055 #
throwaway10oct ◴[17 Nov 24 07:06 UTC] No.42162476[source]▶
I respectfully disagree because Gandhi's approach may seem idealistic, but in reality, nature functions on the basis of survival of the fittest.

Nonviolent methods often require the possibility of violence as a backdrop to be effective. Otherwise, they might not yield the desired results.

While Gandhi's philosophy sounds nice in theory, it may not always be the most practical in real-world scenarios.

replies(7): >>42162504 #>>42162558 #>>42162601 #>>42165691 #>>42166509 #>>42167007 #>>42167760 #
1. callmeal ◴[17 Nov 24 07:28 UTC] No.42162558[source]▶
>nature functions on the basis of survival of the fittest.

And we have to watch out for thinking that "fittest" implies "strongest". "Smartest" or "most devious" as in the Cuckoo (https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/birds/facts-ab...) also meet the criteria.

replies(2): >>42165388 #>>42175314 #
2. corimaith ◴[17 Nov 24 17:19 UTC] No.42165388[source]▶
The fittest are by definition those who reproduce the most.

In our modern world, the "smartest" and "devious" are headed to a dead end with below replacement birth rates while the "dumb" rednecks and religious are set to eventually become the majority.

replies(2): >>42165510 #>>42188597 #
3. PhasmaFelis ◴[17 Nov 24 17:36 UTC] No.42165510[source]▶
The Idiocracy theory. The trouble is that the traits behind the birthrate differences you're observing aren't genetic but financial: it's not genetically "dumb" people who have more kids, it's poor people, and genetic lines that transition out of poverty generally see commensurate birthrate drops.

If poor people were going to "outcompete" and wipe out rich people, it would have happened a long time ago.

Also, "religious" have been steadily declining for a while, so that theory doesn't work out. (Of course, the idea that most bad behavior stems from religion, and everyone would be nice to each other without it, is another fallacy.)

replies(1): >>42167287 #
4. ◴[17 Nov 24 21:10 UTC] No.42167287{3}[source]▶
5. cholantesh ◴[18 Nov 24 18:24 UTC] No.42175314[source]▶
As well as 'those who play well with others'.
6. callmeal ◴[19 Nov 24 22:04 UTC] No.42188597[source]▶
as PhasmaFelis pointed out, it's not the "dumb" and "religious", it's poor people, and the reason is simple - children are a source of "mostly free" labor, as the capitalist class here has (re)discovered.

https://fortune.com/2023/05/25/labor-shortage-child-teenage-...