What does Werner Herzog's nihilist penguin teach us? (2017)(lwlies.com)
lwlies.com
What does Werner Herzog's nihilist penguin teach us? (2017)
https://lwlies.com/article/werner-herzog-penguin-encounters-at-the-end-of-the-world
42 comments
I like Herzog's work, but that's a really tricky one. Herzog only became involved after the film was completed, and then edited it down to make more salable. I liked Herzog's version, but I liked the original even more once I found it.
While Herzog certainly made it more popular, he lost a lot of accuracy by forcing it to tell the story he wanted it to tell. It certainly shook my faith in Herzog as a documentarian. He's a good artist, but you shouldn't trust him when it comes to facts.
The full original by Dmitri Vasyukov (Дмитрий Васюков) is available in four parts (one for each season) on Youtube. Here's the first quarter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttItxwzgbUs
While Herzog certainly made it more popular, he lost a lot of accuracy by forcing it to tell the story he wanted it to tell. It certainly shook my faith in Herzog as a documentarian. He's a good artist, but you shouldn't trust him when it comes to facts.
The full original by Dmitri Vasyukov (Дмитрий Васюков) is available in four parts (one for each season) on Youtube. Here's the first quarter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttItxwzgbUs
Yes, I also love how it shows the seasons and the practical work involved in the lives of people living in the taiga through the year.
Totally different but Little Dieter Needs to Fly is one of my favorites
Totally different but Little Dieter Needs to Fly is one of my favorites
I like that one as well. I just rewatched it again. One of the trappers in the movie is Mikhail Tarkovsky and I just learned he is actually the nephew nephew Andrei Tarkovsky, the film director.
I would describe it as a faustian penguin, not a nihilist penguin. The other day there was a story here about a coyote that swam to alcatraz (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46674433).
When we look at an animal that does such a thing, we characterize it as a strange and suicidal act of a disturbed creature hurtling it's life force into the abyss. But when man does the same thing, it is a heroic and uniquely human act of exploration.
If you go onto an island or some mountain range or some other type of isolated pocket of the world, you may be surprised to find that life exists there. But there is only one way in which this is possible: at some point in time, some living thing had to abandon its old world with little regard for its personal survival.
When you factor in the probability of survival in the new world, and the requirement of finding a sexed pair on the other side you realize that this takes many living things, integrated over a long period of time.
Life pushes boundaries and explores new environments. It has to start from something. Clearly some amount of mania is a requisite for success in the long term in order to overcome reason in the short term.
When we look at an animal that does such a thing, we characterize it as a strange and suicidal act of a disturbed creature hurtling it's life force into the abyss. But when man does the same thing, it is a heroic and uniquely human act of exploration.
If you go onto an island or some mountain range or some other type of isolated pocket of the world, you may be surprised to find that life exists there. But there is only one way in which this is possible: at some point in time, some living thing had to abandon its old world with little regard for its personal survival.
When you factor in the probability of survival in the new world, and the requirement of finding a sexed pair on the other side you realize that this takes many living things, integrated over a long period of time.
Life pushes boundaries and explores new environments. It has to start from something. Clearly some amount of mania is a requisite for success in the long term in order to overcome reason in the short term.
> When you factor in the probability of survival in the new world, and the requirement of finding a sexed pair on the other side you realize that this takes many living things, integrated over a long period of time.
Seems to me you've described how lone adventuring animals are not the source of dispersion to remote areas.
Seems to me you've described how lone adventuring animals are not the source of dispersion to remote areas.
> When we look at an animal that does such a thing, we characterize it as a strange and suicidal act of a disturbed creature hurtling it's life force into the abyss. But when man does the same thing, it is a heroic and uniquely human act of exploration.
I'd say that that's mostly because the man in question is rational. They strategize, they collect resources, and they do whatever they can to make sure they can return. The penguin can't do that. It doesn't have a goal in mind, or any way to sustain itself while it wanders. It just goes.
I'd say that that's mostly because the man in question is rational. They strategize, they collect resources, and they do whatever they can to make sure they can return. The penguin can't do that. It doesn't have a goal in mind, or any way to sustain itself while it wanders. It just goes.
Human explorers aren't necessarily terribly rational. A bunch of ordinary human pride is involved.
The base on the actual South Pole, far on the interior of the continent, isn't McMurdo where much of that documentary was filmed, it is Amundsen-Scott, and it's named for two teams of explorers who first reached that pole in the same summer, Amundsen (whose team reached it first and returned alive) and Scott (whose team was second and all died)
Scott's plan was crap. To a considerable extent that view is hindsight, but even at the time Scott must have known Amundsen's plan was better. Certainly by the time they reached the Pole and found that they'd been beaten to it, he will have been sure. By that time he was in extreme danger, slowly starving and with a long trek back to any permanent shelter - it would have taken excellent luck (which he didn't get) to make it home alive, and in any case he'd been beaten to the pole.
The base on the actual South Pole, far on the interior of the continent, isn't McMurdo where much of that documentary was filmed, it is Amundsen-Scott, and it's named for two teams of explorers who first reached that pole in the same summer, Amundsen (whose team reached it first and returned alive) and Scott (whose team was second and all died)
Scott's plan was crap. To a considerable extent that view is hindsight, but even at the time Scott must have known Amundsen's plan was better. Certainly by the time they reached the Pole and found that they'd been beaten to it, he will have been sure. By that time he was in extreme danger, slowly starving and with a long trek back to any permanent shelter - it would have taken excellent luck (which he didn't get) to make it home alive, and in any case he'd been beaten to the pole.
It has been a while since I read Nietzsche but what exactly does trekking off into the unknown or even certain death have to do with nihilism? Maybe active nihilism but even that would be a stretch, not to mention it would make the penguin inspiring rather than depressing.
This is Nietzsche’s will to power in its most unforgiving form.
The will to power is not mere survival or dominance over others; at its apex it is the drive to impose one’s own meaning on existence, even when that meaning is written in self-destruction.
It is like Empedocles and the volcano.
Empedocles does not leap to escape mortality; he leaps to overreach it, to force the cosmos to acknowledge his claim, even if the price is erasure.
The penguin would rather perish as itself than endure as something lesser.
The will to power is not mere survival or dominance over others; at its apex it is the drive to impose one’s own meaning on existence, even when that meaning is written in self-destruction.
It is like Empedocles and the volcano.
Empedocles does not leap to escape mortality; he leaps to overreach it, to force the cosmos to acknowledge his claim, even if the price is erasure.
The penguin would rather perish as itself than endure as something lesser.
Yeah, this is using nihilism in the colloquial sense that is closer to a synonym of “aimless” or maybe “doomed”. The penguin can’t possibly be a nihilist except for in the sense that all animals are nihilists
Interesting, I've seen videos about this nihilistic penguin the last few days on Instagram... Feels like content regurgitation, but I don't know who's creating and who's recycling it at the moment.
(On HN there's often a story from one site one day, and a few days later the same story reported by a different news site..)
(On HN there's often a story from one site one day, and a few days later the same story reported by a different news site..)
It seems to have come from the US Department of Homeland Security - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7WqVx9x89s
Huh.. considering the penguin that wanders off alone ends up hungry and dead, that seems like the appropriate animal for Trump's Amerikkka...
Internet commentator and political analyst made a reference to this a few days ago https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/2015810397295583630
I suspect it was something like that.
I suspect it was something like that.
The article itself seems to predate this:
> It’s a decade since the film officially premiered at the 2007 Toronto Film Festival, and it remains one of Herzog’s finest achievements.
So it would seem the article is nearly a decade old.
> It’s a decade since the film officially premiered at the 2007 Toronto Film Festival, and it remains one of Herzog’s finest achievements.
So it would seem the article is nearly a decade old.
It was big on TikTok a few months ago, which makes sense that it's on Instagram now.
The Trump administration posted it.
Why nihilism and not just confusion? If you stick me in the Sahara Desert, I might just start marching deeper into it, because I want to get out but have no idea where I am. I think birds have a magnetic sense, maybe this penguin just got that messed up?
The researcher in the film says the penguins can "become disoriented" and it's not made clear in the film whether that _always_ results in the penguins venturing off to the centre of the continent or if that's just what happened to the one they got footage of.
(2017)
History of the meme and resurgence in the last month:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/penguin-walking-toward-mounta...
History of the meme and resurgence in the last month:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/penguin-walking-toward-mounta...
Huh? I was expecting at least one or two Nietzsche or Dostoevsky quotes but this article completely fails to go beyond what is obvious to anyone who has seen those 3 minutes of the documentary.
[deleted]
That's how new species happen. Over time, the penguins who get sufficiently tired of all the other penguins' shit march off to the edge of the map, and when they finally get lucky, enough of the smart, independent minded penguins survive to produce a new generation. The new adventure flock eventually garners enough members to march back to the feeding grounds and seize the territory from the loser normy penguins.
Thus the arc of the universe bends towards badass penguins.
Thus the arc of the universe bends towards badass penguins.
The whole point of the sequence is that there's no chance that these "badass penguins" are going to make new species. There's no food where they're monomaniacally heading. They're going to die.
This particular one wasn't going anywhere useful.
That's presumably why the comment said "when [collective they] finally get lucky", not "when [individual they] inevitably get lucky".
A certain percentage of your species having genes encouraging risky/stupid behavior is likely somewhat useful.
That's presumably why the comment said "when [collective they] finally get lucky", not "when [individual they] inevitably get lucky".
A certain percentage of your species having genes encouraging risky/stupid behavior is likely somewhat useful.
A lone penguin wandering off is never going to create a new, badass species. There would need to be an entire group of penguins breaking off to establish a new population and eventually a new species. And they don't necessarily become more badass, just different; whatever alleles the founders had will be more consistently expressed in the new population, and eventually they may diverge enough to be a new species. Regardless, this penguin is marching off to die alone.
> A lone penguin wandering off is never going to create a new, badass species.
Sure. But two might.
Or the behavior may sometimes benefit the colony a few coves over with some new genes every so often.
See also: Homosexuality in various animals, including humans. Individually, not great for your genes' survival. Collectively, seems to have enough of an advantage to the species to not be selected out.
Sure. But two might.
Or the behavior may sometimes benefit the colony a few coves over with some new genes every so often.
See also: Homosexuality in various animals, including humans. Individually, not great for your genes' survival. Collectively, seems to have enough of an advantage to the species to not be selected out.
> Homosexuality in various animals, including humans. Individually, not great for your genes' survival.
Alot of theories, mostly the less rigorous ones, rely on group selection. But the strongest ones rely on classic genetic selection where homosexuality does directly benefit their genes, and specifically the homosexuality gene. For example, one well-known experimental study looked at siblings and, IIRC, found that the sisters of male homosexuals were more fecund. One of the theories was that a gene which in men promoted homosexuality had the effect in women of promoting reproduction by increasing sexual attraction to men. Genetic selection through survival and reproduction principally acts on genes singularly, not the whole animal, let alone species, which are derivative effects that we too often conflate with the core dynamic. Of course, an alternative explanation in this case might be that male homosexuals can help provide more resources to their siblings, which given the degree of genetic relatedness doesn't require relying on a group selection effect; but it's more tenuous and less plausible than the explanation relying on a very straight-forward selection effect directly increasing replication success of a specific gene. Reproductive success isn't about whether the specific molecular copy of a gene replicates successfully through a lineal chain, but the success of any copy of itself, anywhere, no matter how distant from a shared meiosis event (or, in principle, any shared meiosis event).
The wandering penguin notion can be analyzed in the same way. A gene that induces wandering, which in all but an utterly minuscule number of cases results in a dead-end, may superficially seem to be counter productive when judged in isolation. But is it? How are new colonies formed, and who (or what) benefits if and when a new colony grows and thrives? Not just the species, but the specific wandering gene will see massive reproductive success as the new colony grows, at least initially.
Of course, a "gene" is an amorphous thing, and intuitively wandering needs to be attenuated, so maybe the relevant "gene" here isn't just something that makes them wander, but the whole package of DNA that also encompasses regulation of propensity as manifest through the population. But we don't necessarily have to cheat that way, either. Most of the time the wandering gene would be a net negative and find itself slowly winnowed out of the population. But as long as it survives somewhere in the population long enough to induce new colony formation and benefit from a short explosion in reproductive success, it'll survive, at least globally. Heck, maybe in long-established colonies it disappears completely, only to be reintroduced by wandering penguins from younger colonies. We don't need to zoom out and model how it interacts with all the other genes until we've zoomed out so much we end up in the position of positing a group selection effect. That's the beauty of Darwinian genetic selection--all this complexity arises from a very simple dynamic that in almost all cases can be accurately and predictively modeled by just looking at specific genes in isolation, fundamentally independent of the species and, strictly speaking, even of kin groups and individual animals; and what exceptions do exist don't require zooming out nearly as much as people tend to do.
Alot of theories, mostly the less rigorous ones, rely on group selection. But the strongest ones rely on classic genetic selection where homosexuality does directly benefit their genes, and specifically the homosexuality gene. For example, one well-known experimental study looked at siblings and, IIRC, found that the sisters of male homosexuals were more fecund. One of the theories was that a gene which in men promoted homosexuality had the effect in women of promoting reproduction by increasing sexual attraction to men. Genetic selection through survival and reproduction principally acts on genes singularly, not the whole animal, let alone species, which are derivative effects that we too often conflate with the core dynamic. Of course, an alternative explanation in this case might be that male homosexuals can help provide more resources to their siblings, which given the degree of genetic relatedness doesn't require relying on a group selection effect; but it's more tenuous and less plausible than the explanation relying on a very straight-forward selection effect directly increasing replication success of a specific gene. Reproductive success isn't about whether the specific molecular copy of a gene replicates successfully through a lineal chain, but the success of any copy of itself, anywhere, no matter how distant from a shared meiosis event (or, in principle, any shared meiosis event).
The wandering penguin notion can be analyzed in the same way. A gene that induces wandering, which in all but an utterly minuscule number of cases results in a dead-end, may superficially seem to be counter productive when judged in isolation. But is it? How are new colonies formed, and who (or what) benefits if and when a new colony grows and thrives? Not just the species, but the specific wandering gene will see massive reproductive success as the new colony grows, at least initially.
Of course, a "gene" is an amorphous thing, and intuitively wandering needs to be attenuated, so maybe the relevant "gene" here isn't just something that makes them wander, but the whole package of DNA that also encompasses regulation of propensity as manifest through the population. But we don't necessarily have to cheat that way, either. Most of the time the wandering gene would be a net negative and find itself slowly winnowed out of the population. But as long as it survives somewhere in the population long enough to induce new colony formation and benefit from a short explosion in reproductive success, it'll survive, at least globally. Heck, maybe in long-established colonies it disappears completely, only to be reintroduced by wandering penguins from younger colonies. We don't need to zoom out and model how it interacts with all the other genes until we've zoomed out so much we end up in the position of positing a group selection effect. That's the beauty of Darwinian genetic selection--all this complexity arises from a very simple dynamic that in almost all cases can be accurately and predictively modeled by just looking at specific genes in isolation, fundamentally independent of the species and, strictly speaking, even of kin groups and individual animals; and what exceptions do exist don't require zooming out nearly as much as people tend to do.
No, this trait is almost certainly not useful.
Mother Nature doesn't give a shit, that's worth remembering. For the scenarios where two species in an arms race wipe each other out aren't somehow more or less desirable than other outcomes, it's just a thing which happened. Meh.
Mother Nature doesn't give a shit, that's worth remembering. For the scenarios where two species in an arms race wipe each other out aren't somehow more or less desirable than other outcomes, it's just a thing which happened. Meh.
> Mother Nature doesn't give a shit
Sure. That's not required for natural selection to work.
But any species that reliably returns to its birthplace like penguins and salmon and elephants must have some tiny proportion of the population that wanders off and gets lost occasionally to be able to spread to new areas.
Sometimes it'll be a storm or a big ice crevasse that does it, but there's no reason it can't sometimes be this.
Sure. That's not required for natural selection to work.
But any species that reliably returns to its birthplace like penguins and salmon and elephants must have some tiny proportion of the population that wanders off and gets lost occasionally to be able to spread to new areas.
Sometimes it'll be a storm or a big ice crevasse that does it, but there's no reason it can't sometimes be this.
I get what you're saying and all, but when you look back across the hundreds of millions of years of evolution, the whole reason humans exist is the extreme and sometimes arbitrary individual choices and "that never happens" situations that are exceptions to niche saturation. You could take the glass half empty, cold and pragmatic view and focus on the fact that millions, or maybe even tens of millions of antisocial/adventurous/moronic penguins have to get wanderlust and die frozen and alone before you might even get a single successful breeding pair, but who wants to look at life like that?
Most badass penguins don't make it. Being the badass penguin isn't a sensible life goal. The altar of time demands the blood sacrifice of nearly all the badass penguins before progress and change is allowed. Occasionally, though, they win, and new species are born. The exceptions end up forking the timeline, and provide a backdrop of meaning to the sacrifice of all those who came (or went?) before.
The thing I love most is the fact that you can project anything on to the penguin, from extreme heroism, to villainy, to meaninglessness, or even profound cosmic purpose. I'd love to know what the evolutionary psychology / behavior is that actually causes it, though.
Most badass penguins don't make it. Being the badass penguin isn't a sensible life goal. The altar of time demands the blood sacrifice of nearly all the badass penguins before progress and change is allowed. Occasionally, though, they win, and new species are born. The exceptions end up forking the timeline, and provide a backdrop of meaning to the sacrifice of all those who came (or went?) before.
The thing I love most is the fact that you can project anything on to the penguin, from extreme heroism, to villainy, to meaninglessness, or even profound cosmic purpose. I'd love to know what the evolutionary psychology / behavior is that actually causes it, though.
Interesting fantasy but these broken penguins are too infrequent to start something new. They usually just wander off to die alone in the cold.
New species are usually formed gradually while introducing their mutations to the population until they eventually break off as a group. But more commonly there’s usually a geographic barrier that separates an existing group and they gradually just drift apart from each other.
New species are usually formed gradually while introducing their mutations to the population until they eventually break off as a group. But more commonly there’s usually a geographic barrier that separates an existing group and they gradually just drift apart from each other.
> They usually just wander off to die alone in the cold.
Usually! But not always.
Every once in a while, one probably makes it to another colony many miles away, and helps prevent inbreeding as a result.
Or runs into a similar weirdo somewhere in between.
Usually! But not always.
Every once in a while, one probably makes it to another colony many miles away, and helps prevent inbreeding as a result.
Or runs into a similar weirdo somewhere in between.
Penguins live in large colonies and, as a result, generally do not have issues with inbreeding.
https://www.penguinsinternational.org/turns-out-that-not-all...
> The researchers found that the differences between species could be determined by the habitat where a species was found. For example, Emperor penguins occupy the Antarctic continent, breeding mostly on sea ice. Even though they have colonies clustered by geographic regions, the researchers found that juveniles of Emperor Penguins can travel long distances between colonies facilitating “gene flow.”
> The researchers found that the differences between species could be determined by the habitat where a species was found. For example, Emperor penguins occupy the Antarctic continent, breeding mostly on sea ice. Even though they have colonies clustered by geographic regions, the researchers found that juveniles of Emperor Penguins can travel long distances between colonies facilitating “gene flow.”
This leaving the group to die can also be observed in other species (cats and dogs do this too).
So this penguin knew its time was up and didn’t want to mess up the colony with its dead body.
We interpret the behaviour through our lenses and experiences.
So this penguin knew its time was up and didn’t want to mess up the colony with its dead body.
We interpret the behaviour through our lenses and experiences.
Or they find a new feeding ground? Why does the universe bend to “badass penguins”?
The universe really does not care, in a “badass” way. Major league not caring.
It’s our interpretation that something is “badass” mainly because our species has pretty much negatively affected most parts of the environment.
It’s us that are “badass” and don’t “get it” when it comes to nature and the environment.
As someone else points out, there is no such thing as a nihilist penguin, it’s purely us putting a label on behaviour that we - once again - don’t understand.
The universe really does not care, in a “badass” way. Major league not caring.
It’s our interpretation that something is “badass” mainly because our species has pretty much negatively affected most parts of the environment.
It’s us that are “badass” and don’t “get it” when it comes to nature and the environment.
As someone else points out, there is no such thing as a nihilist penguin, it’s purely us putting a label on behaviour that we - once again - don’t understand.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_People:_A_Year_in_the_Ta...