We have vaccines that are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus.

We also have a large number of people being fed misinformation by social media and the anti-vaxxer crowd who refuse to be vaccinated, willing to take their stand on this issue -- during a pandemic. Not huge income inequality, not the tax cuts for rich people, not the destruction of the environment, not the fact that corporations can buy our politicians, not the gutting of voting rights and abortion rights. No, they're willing to quit jobs and debate endlessly about getting a jab in their arm.

Just worth reflecting on this stupefying situation.

An Israel study — MondoR

You mean THE Israel study -- the one you keep clinging to and pinning your hopes on, which has not been peer reviewed, and with which there are other studies that show quite the opposite. Incidentally, the Israeli study also emphasizes the importance of vaccination -- completely contradicting the point you're trying to make.

But you go with the Republican politician on youtube. I'll stick with the medical experts.

Free market capitalism works. — T Clark

Point me to one country where they have free markets.

What do I mean when I say "capitalism works?" It creates a market that gets resources to the places they're needed in a more or less efficient manner. — T Clark

Capitalism does not create markets. You can have markets in any system. You had markets in ancient Greece, you have markets in communist China. China is also highly efficient at getting resources to places they're needed. Is that capitalism?

Problem - often, usually? capitalism does what it does with no regard to it's employees, the surrounding communities, or the world at large. The involvement of large corporations can make things much worse. Solution - 1) govern regulation 2) labor unions and 3)...? — T Clark

Returning to the policies of the 1950s and 60s would be a start -- much higher taxes on the wealthy, a much better regulated financial sector, and an ideology of corporate governance that prioritized employees, innovation, and infrastructure along with shareholder dividends (as opposed to the "shareholder primacy" doctrine of Milton Friedman). You look at where the profits started shifting during the 1980s: buybacks and dividends, shrinking all the other investments to employees and infrastructure, and leading to stagnant wages, destruction of unions, precarious jobs, less corporations overall and, ultimately, less growth.

I'd like to offer two points.

First, it's true that the profit motive is a very basic aspect of capitalism. But making a profit, and markets generally, have been around for a long time.

What's different about capitalism is the relationship between employer and employee. That's the dynamic that separates capitalism from feudalism, slavery, and economic/political systems. This is a point the economist Richard Wolff makes repeatedly, and which I'm echoing here. I think it make sense.

Second, you're quite right about the assumption that businesses (especially corporations) exist to make a profit. But this idea, surprisingly, is relatively new. It can be partly traced back to a famous 1970 article by Milton Friedman, titled A Friedman doctrine‐- The Social Responsibility Of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.

This idea spread throughout the universities and business schools. Around the same time, you had the mobilization of the business community, partly in reaction to the 1960s movements and the writings of Ralph Nader. They felt under threat. The call to arms is the now-famous Powell Memorandum, written to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which outlines a number of actions that should be taken by businesses.

Currently, there is a big shift away from the Friedman Doctrine (also called "shareholder primacy") and towards "Stakeholder Capitalism," as stated in the Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable mission statements. You hear guys like Larry Fink of BlackRock and Mark Benioff of Salesforce talking this up a lot now.

So some of the ideology is beginning to shift. On the left, there's been a greater push towards New Deal-era policies, including the "regimented capitalism" which was predominant in the 50s and 60s. A large chunk of the Democratic establishment are still neoliberal. The right, however, are becoming even more corporatist and authoritarian -- what's often called more "libertarian." This is embodied in Mitch McConnell.

So no, it's not a fair system. But if we recognize what's going on, we can change it for the better. I think stronger unions is a fine start, but also voting for more progressive candidates like Bernie Sanders and AOC is helpful as well. The government should be working to regulate these industries, workers should be given the option to run the factories themselves, there should be workers on the board of directors, there should be a strong safety net put in place given that we're the wealthiest country on earth, taxes should be changed, etc.

What I am not fine with is antisocial behavior, i.e. behavior that will risk the lives of many for no good reason. If you don't care that your neighbors might die because of you, if you are going to systematically ignore the needs of others with whom you share a society, then you are not fit to live in that society.
— Olivier5

That just doesn't make any sense. — Isaac

It makes perfect sense. The fact that you struggle with truisms doesn’t mean they don’t make sense.

They don't believe these measures are necessary to avoid the net cost of millions of lives.

They don't believe it because their governments have told them it and their governments routinely lie. — Isaac

Yes, we all know this has been politicized. We also know that the anti-vax movement and social media misinformation contributes to all this.

But denying reality doesn’t give you special rights to harm others, nor does it exempt you from the reality of increased risk (which is why the unvaccinated are overwhelmingly the ones getting hospitalized and dying— despite what they “believed,” oddly).

Suppose I “don’t believe” in smoking bans and drunk driving laws. Do law enforcement and courts take that “reason” seriously?

Suppose I believe I have the right to infect others with my infection. Is that a good enough reason to do so?

What people believe and why they believe it is an interesting question. But when lives are on the line, there’s incomplete information, and time is of the essence— there’s simply no room for delay. Besides, the questions will always outnumber the answers, and there’s no reason to believe that any amount of evidence will change minds.

Thus, vaccine mandates are a necessity. For those who don’t want to participate, they should have the decency to quit their jobs and remove themselves from crowded places.

This is a legitimate use of state power, backed by medical expertise.

People disagree— fine. People disagree about the election, claiming it was “rigged” — those people lose over and over again in court, and for good reason: they’re wrong. The evidence, and reality, are simply not on their side.

When you mistreat people like that, don't be surprised if some actually do become anti-vaccers.
— baker

People base their health care decision on how they get treated on an online forum? How stupid can some people get? — Olivier5

This reminds of the claims made about Trump voters. I think it’s mostly true that we should be polite to one another, but to make blatantly bad choices for yourself, your family, the community, the environment, etc., simply because you’ve been made to feel stupid, or condescended to, or feel dismissed, or perceived to be looked down upon— that’s as irrational as the person is who’s doing the condescension.

So I say to the “vaccine-hesitant” crowd the same as to “on the fence” voters: grow thicker skin, ignore those who are rude, and find someone to educate you or answer your questions and concerns who’s more friendly, polite, and compassionate.

You probably won’t find much of that online. But there are plenty of credible web sites that do explain these things. That’s where I get my information. It’s very easy. If you’re looking to be educated on a philosophy forum, I think that’s a mistake.

People are getting strokes from the covid vaccines, they are dying from the covid vaccines. — baker

143 strokes out of 10 million shots for the Pfizer vaccine, last I checked. Which is much better than the strokes caused by COVID infection — and still extremely rare any way you slice it.

So what’s your point here exactly? That negative side effects exist? That cases of strokes and blood clots exist? Is that really all you want acknowledged? Fine— consider that done. I don’t see many arguing against that, however.

There’s also similar risk involved in taking Tylenol.

As someone who’s taking the vaccine already, what exactly are you driving at here?

One case presented out of 5 billion doses is a freak case, yes. 5,000 cases would be freak cases, in that sense.
— Xtrix

They are not simply rare freak cases. There are many more of them. — baker

No, there aren’t.

What was being discussed in the conversation you quoted me from was an example given — one — of a death. Side effects would be a different discussion.

The point about rareness is purely statistical. Given that 6 billion doses have been given, one case is extremely rare— but 5,000 cases would be very rare as well.

man, it's not about faction — Michael Zwingli

What's not about "faction"?

Fine, let's leave labels aside. Do we agree that our government should do something about climate change, as the science community is telling us needs to happen?

If so, as I assume, then there's simply no question as to which political party is more susceptible to being pushed to do something about this issue. We know it's not Republicans, because as a party they either reject it outright as even a problem, have it low on their priorities, or argue nothing should be done about it -- there's almost no climate plan in any major Republican candidate since John McCain in 2008. This is stupid on every count, including financially and electorally. The younger generation, including young conservatives, count this as a major issue in their lives and will vote according.

Worth quoting:

We’ve been down this road before. Whenever faced with some mandate imposed in the interest of the common good, some of us act like they just woke up on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall. “There’s no freedom no more,” whined one man in video that recently aired on “The Daily Show With Trevor Noah.” The clip was from the 1980s, and the guy had just gotten a ticket for not wearing his seat belt.

It’s an unfortunately common refrain. Can’t smoke in a movie theater? Can’t crank your music to headache decibels at two in the morning? Can’t post the Ten Commandments in a courtroom? “There’s no freedom no more.” Some of you seem to think freedom means no one can be compelled to do, or refrain from doing, anything. But that’s not freedom, it’s anarchy.

Usually, the rest of us don’t agonize over your intransigence. Often it has no direct impact on us. The guy in “The Daily Show” clip was only demanding the right to skid across a highway on his face, after all. But now you claim the right to risk the health care system and our personal lives.

So if you’re angry, guess what? You’re not the only ones.

The difference is, your anger is dumb, and ours is not. Yours is about being coerced to do something you don’t want to do. Like that’s new. Like you’re not already required to get vaccinated to start school or travel to other countries. For that matter, you’re also required to mow your lawn, cover your hindparts and, yes, wear a seat belt. So you’re mad at government and your job for doing what they’ve always done.

But the rest of us, we’re mad at you. Because this thing could have been over by now, and you’re the reason it isn’t.

There’s a saying that goes “I can’t reason you out of something that you didn’t reason yourself into first.” — Ignance

I like that -- thanks.

i had thought this was an exercise of satire, has this thread really dragged out all of the closet conspiracists? is that the reason for this many pages? — Ignance

The original purpose was different -- but apparently it's hit a nerve.

If a theory is predictive then it is presumed correct until it is falsified.
Scientists are trustworthy.
Therefore the theory is correct. — Benkei

How you got this out of what I said, I have no idea. But I have no real beef with you generally. My point was simply that it can be rational to trust people (including experts) if there's good evidence to do so. I'm not arguing in favor of blind faith.

"You people", lol. Just so we are clear, to what people do you think I belong? — Merkwurdichliebe

Among the anti-vaxxer crowd. Or just plain staunchly ignorant.

This is why we should care that everyone is being vaccinated unless, of course, they want to isolate themselves from society, which is their choice.
— Xtrix

I disagree. Rather, if you think going out into society is a risk to your health and life, then YOU can choose to dig into your den of cowardice and stay put. — Merkwurdichliebe

You're too stupid to understand, I realize, but it's not about fear -- and it's not about me.

Your ignorance doesn't trump public health. Which is why the states are stepping in and mandating vaccines. Take a look at New York. So you go ahead and "disagree" all you want -- it matters not.

The vaccinated can still get breakthrough cases, and some who want a vaccine can't get one. I'm vaccinated, and I'm not afraid of the virus. That means exactly NOTHING when discussing vaccination. We should all get vaccinated -- they're safe, they're effective, and they help stop the spread. 6 billion shots given around the world, 100s of millions of people fully vaccinated. Serious side effects? Extremely rare -- better odds of getting hit by lightning.
— Xtrix

Ok. And your point is...what exactly? — Merkwurdichliebe

:rofl:

Apparently the point is not to talk to imbeciles.

I view it as more loathsome, as uglier in liberals though, because of the duplicity involved, — Michael Zwingli

Fine. But this analysis is fluff. Do we really prefer climate deniers who want to "make coal great again," claiming it's a "Chinese hoax," or do we want someone who acknowledges climate change and does something about it (albeit way too little, like Obama)? Yes, I can't stand Obama, but was he a better president on this issue than Trump? Without question.

There's also the influence that Bernie Sanders and the progressive wing is having on the Democratic establishment and even Joe Biden, which is a very good thing indeed. If anyone is still "on the fence" about this, I don't know what more they need.

If you prefer blatantly corrupt corporatists like the Republicans, who smile as they give away a trillion dollars to the corporate sector, jacking up the debt, all while claiming they care about working families (as they try desperately to take away their healthcare), then you're simply a Republican at heart, whatever claims you want to make about being a libertarian and hating "both sides."

No neutral observer with his head screwed on right would ever prefer the Republicans to Democrats, at this point -- however distasteful they may find Democrats (as I do too, especially establishment/DNC/Obama-Clinton ones). It's simply insanity, in my view.

I'm sorry but it was you who brought up money as a/the reason why climate activists have slipped up in their mission to get the movers and shakers of the world to act.

When I ran with that and took it to its logical conclusion - greed - you object. That's odd and, might I add, incoherent. — TheMadFool

There's a very easy way to check this, you know.

The simple fact is climate change, suppose it's true, hasn't produced the desired effect at the level of society - governments, the powers that be - where it could be dealt with in the right way. Why?
— TheMadFool

There are some obvious reasons— mostly money. The fossil fuel industry is massive, and they lobby, bribe, and propagandize very well. — Xtrix

Yes, money seems to be the prime suspect. It's the obvious choice from any list of reasons why there are climate deniers. My question then is, does the buck have to stop there? I'm calling for a deeper analysis of money. Greed seems to stick out like a sore thumb but then that's how mother nature - evolution - made us over millions of years with good results — TheMadFool

I'm not sure where you're struggling. You asked why society (governments, powers that be) hasn't dealt with climate change the right way. I said there are some obvious reasons (notice this is plural), and said "mostly money." I also mentioned lobbying and propaganda. You took the part about money as the "prime suspect", which is fine, and then went on to talk about greed. You said it's part of human nature, and a primary part. I disagreed, saying I see generosity and caring around a lot as well. To which you then looped back to the beginning and wrote:

So, being money-minded is genorisity then? — TheMadFool

Which is completely incoherent. I never once said climate activists "slipped up" in their mission to push governments and the "powers that be" to act. Rather, the reason for the inaction, as I mentioned before, is largely because this industry earns them a lot of money and do not want it changed. They also buy off politicians, lobby, and use the media to propagandize.

So I don't know what you're talking about. To make it even clearer, here are my two claims:

(1) There has been no state action on climate change because politicians are bought by the corporate sector, especially the fossil fuel industry.

(2) Greed is not central to human nature.

if you and your loved one's have all been vaccinated, then you all are not at risk from the nonvaxxed, and there is no need to be concerned over anyone's health, right? — Merkwurdichliebe

You people really just don't understand, do you?

This is not an individual thing. This is a collective thing. Community -- you've heard of that word, yes? This is why we should care that everyone is being vaccinated unless, of course, they want to isolate themselves from society, which is their choice.

The vaccinated can still get breakthrough cases, and some who want a vaccine can't get one. I'm vaccinated, and I'm not afraid of the virus. That means exactly NOTHING when discussing vaccination. We should all get vaccinated -- they're safe, they're effective, and they help stop the spread. 6 billion shots given around the world, 100s of millions of people fully vaccinated. Serious side effects? Extremely rare -- better odds of getting hit by lightning.

If you want to remain ignorant, fine. But the excuses don't work, and patience is running out. People who want to quit their jobs over this -- good, do so. Tough shit. It's not just about you.

if corporate officers and board members were made personally responsible and subject to swift arbitrary (this being the key word) prosecution for corporate misdeeds, rather than the current practice of generally impotent financial penalty, then corporate oversight would become much easier. But of course, that will not happen, because politicians are whorish animals by nature, who only bite the hands that feed them when the event is within public view. — Michael Zwingli

And not even then. When concentrations of wealth and power want something, they get it. This has been studied very well by Thomas Ferguson and others -- the higher up the income scale, the more you get what you want. Corporations buy off these politicians, and thus the government. They have huge influence through campaign finance (now unlimited thanks to Citizens United) and K street (lobbying), to say nothing of their media (which they own, and which politicians need).

Our efforts at reform should be directed here. Not with claims about big bad government -- which at least we have some say over. Unlike the corporation, where we have ZERO say -- as citizens or employees. There's no vote for your boss. There's no say in where the profits go. They're little totalitarian governments that you can rent yourself to -- and which libertarians have done more to support than almost any other group. All in the name of "freedom" and "individuality" and "liberty," of course.

What gave you cause to seemingly put words into my mouth? No, I don't want tax cuts for the rich, I want tax cuts for everybody, right across the spectrum, and for the federal government to shrink by about 40 percent, and state governments by nearly as much. — Michael Zwingli

So yet another small-government libertarian type -- fine. Even worse than Republicans.

envision the best world as one without government or nation states, or being more realistic, with as little government as possible. — Michael Zwingli

Yes, because government is not the solution to our problems...government *is* the problem. Right?

The size of our government doesn't bother you? — Michael Zwingli

No. What concerns me is who the government serves. If it served the people, I favor that. If it serves corporations and the wealthiest Americans -- which it does -- I don't favor it. That's what we should be changing, not the existence of the government. Ditto for corporate governance -- do we say we want smaller corporations? Perhaps. Better to look at who the corporations serve: the employees, the community it's in, the customers? Or does it serve the shareholders and top executives (which is actually the case)? I'd be in favor of the former; I'm not in favor of the latter.

Talk about shrinking the government, cutting taxes, de-regulating industries to "get the government out of our lives," is a complete and utter joke. We've been living under the policies that come out of such claims for 40 years. People see the results. What it has amounted to is the socializing of the corporate sector (bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks, legislation, self-regulation) and the privatizing of profits. That's all it's been. All under the banner of libertarian-type, neoliberal bullshit.

Sorry if I'm underwhelmed by this position.

The fact that it constitutes over one third of our outsized GDP? It does more than bother me, it frightens me...a gigantic monstrous abstraction claiming power over my liberty and even my life. — Michael Zwingli

Yeah yeah, I've heard all the slogans. Government is the problem. We get it.

So your take on corporations is what, exactly? They should be shrunk too, right? By at least 40%? Does Exxon and the fossil fuel industry generally, who knew of climate change in the 1970s but continued on anyway, lobbying and propagandizing to sow doubt and hamstring any governmental action, frighten you as well? It should -- far more than the government, in fact. Since the corporate sector own the government, and mostly both political parties, are they not also the "problem"? Or are they the solution? Because if it's not government, which is at least partially democratic, what is the solution? The problems don't just go away -- decisions still have to be made.

I anticipate the answer: something about the free enterprise system, the wonders of free markets, etc. Hayak, Friedman, Sowell, Rand, etc. Laissez-faire capitalism as the magic bullet.

All a complete sham.

Governments in general frighten me, as I view them to be working in no interest but their own, which is ytpical organizational behavior. — Michael Zwingli

Describes big business very well. That must really frighten you -- assuming you're actually consistent.

The Government is the only counterweight to The Corporation. It's no surprise that the Right are always harping on about 'the evils of Government', because it's the only institution big enough to hold them to account. Do away with Government and have everything privatized and run by corporate boards for the benefit of shareholders and directors. — Wayfarer

Absolutely right. I wrote the above before seeing this, but you said it more concisely than myself.

Anyway. Let me get this strait...you say you did something about covid, and nevertheless, there are more fatalities — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes, the fatalities and hospitalizations are overwhelming among the unvaccinated -- causing problems in hospitals, and allowing the virus to continue to mutate into more severe forms. If you've missed that, you haven't been paying attention -- or you simply don't want to know.

I agree with you about the wastage in the US. I believe we Australians per capita are slightly worse than the US for CO2 emissions, and there are quite a few countries that are way worse. As far as production of waste goes Canada is the worst, the US third after Bulgaria, and Australia is not in the top ten. — Janus

Yeah, Qatar is by far the worst in the world per capita. Of the larger countries, Canada is worse than both the United States and Australia. All very wealthy countries.

I don't know how you envisage supporting a growing population in anything like the level of prosperity we (in the developed nations) currently enjoy in a world of diminishing resources. — Janus

The lifestyle of the average US citizen is extremely wasteful. We waste and pollute more per capita than almost any country -- I can find the exact numbers, but it's not good. If the world lived the way we do, we'd be toast. I'm not advocating that.

The fact remains that the major contributors to greenhouse gases are China and the US -- 45%. If you add the EU, India, Russia, and Japan -- you get to 70% of emissions. The rest of the world combined is 30%.

Focusing on global population is misleading. If we talk about that, we should restrict it to the United States, the wealthiest and most powerful country in history. Cut that population, and you cut a lot of problems.

And to work out arguments. I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's mind here. But it's better to engage and work out anticipatory argument in your own head, with the help of others, for use where it does count: representatives, community organizing, etc. — James Riley

This is an excellent point and, now that you articulated it, I realize this is definitely a big reason for my participation here. It helps me hone my arguments and familiarize myself with counter-arguments. Most of the counter-arguments are so often idiotic it makes it really an exercise in controlling my temper than anything else, but there have been several which have been worthwhile (although almost never in the political realm, which is discouraging and which makes me wonder a bit about the usefulness and effects of "philosophy").

There’s a much stronger case for eliminating capitalism over reducing population.
— Xtrix

As I understand it the planet cannot sustain both important habitats, soils, fisheries and aquifers and a human population of more than about 2% of the present population. And that would be one of the more conservative estimates. This is simply a question of resources and their sustainable use; I can't see how politics is going to make any difference to that basic equation. — Janus

Well I'm willing to delve into this more if you'd like, but from the arguments I've read it's not very convincing. I used to put overpopulation as one of the more important issues, even underlying the climate crisis -- and of course there is some degree of truth to it. But I've since changed my mind, and I think with good reasons, some of which I mentioned.

However, I think once again this serves as an excuse to do nothing. Reducing population isn't an option -- it's not going to happen. Neither is the destruction of capitalism. If those are our only options, we're essentially toast. But that's really not the case.

Where do you get the 2% number?

Quote from World Economic Forum — Yohan

The Business Roundtable and the US Chamber of Commerce, as well as Big Oil themselves, have now shifted their tones. They acknowledge climate change, and the are now officially endorsing "stakeholder capitalism." Big asset managers, like BlackRock, are using their proxy votes to elect "activist" board members, and shifting their resources into ESG funds. All of this sounds great -- but it's basically greenwashing nonsense. What's interesting is the fact that they're even TRYING to greenwash, and thus not in complete denial -- as that is becoming untenable and unpopular.

We just have to educate and organize?
Sounds simple enough.
So should each of us try to organize groups in our towns or cities? (or find and join)
Demand our mayors and governors and local business leaders participate in meetings? (or maybe they are already and we need to join in) — Yohan

It sounds simple, yes. But as you know, it involves all kinds of issues. Finding the time in our busy lives -- especially working 40+ hours a week, having a family, health concerns or limitations, endless distractions, exhaustion, etc. To say nothing about needing the attention and energy and interest needed to educate oneself, and the access to information and other resources (which can often be hard to find even with a decent library and internet access) -- it won't be found in mainstream media, usually.

That's why other people are important. But there's all kinds of issue there as well: ego, emotion, infighting, differences of strategies and tactics, different priorities, problems with leadership, finding enough people to commit -- finding places to meet, scheduling times that work for everyone to talk, setting an agenda, creating an action plan, and so on and on.

So I say "educate and organize," yes. And it does seem simple when it's just stated like that. But it's very hard indeed, especially in this divisive climate and in this culture that emphasizes individualism.

Do you really think anybody on this forum is going to do anything other than talk about what we all need to do? — Yohan

I have no idea. But I wasn't referring specifically to the philosophy forum.

I have sold my soul to complacency.
I know I ain't gonna do squat. I think its better to be honestly lazy than to pretend to care about climate change, or any of these other issues. True caring about real issues is proven by doing, not by talking on internet forums. Nobody serious about in-acting change would come here to initiate that start. This is where people come to kill time. — Yohan

Probably true, yes. But I know some people engage as well. I was just at a climate strike on Friday, plan on going to protest the last coal-powered plant in the state on the 3rd, etc. I make calls and write letters, sign petitions, donate money, go to meetings, encourage others to register to vote and actually do it, engage with selectman and state reps/senators, etc. It's not CLOSE to enough, and I take absolutely no pride in listing these weak, weak actions. I only say it to show that it's not necessarily ONLY talking.

At least you're honest about complacency. And you're not alone. But regardless, there are things you can do. Plenty of things. Even the smallest actions help. The first thing, however, is to really understand the situation. That's the education part, and the reason for my earlier post -- as a small attempt to give some facts.

Trust isn't rational at all. — Benkei

Of course it is. Not only is it rational, it's also a complete necessity in life. You're confusing trust and faith, I think. There's very good reasons for trusting -- for trusting medicine, science, expertise, family, friends, etc. It's not about blind faith -- it's about the simple fact that we cannot possibly know or do everything ourselves, especially with limited time.

I could be right 99 times, that's no reason at all to trust I'll be right the 100th time. — Benkei

Now you're confusing what I'm saying with a kind of gambler's fallacy. That doesn't apply at all to expertise. If someone has proven over and over again to be an honest person, there's all the reason in the world to trust them. Could it be the case that they suddenly become a completely different person and fuck you over? Yes. Was it therefore irrational to trust them? Of course not.

Pro-vaxxers have a heurestic too, where the most used one is "scientific consensus". Even that is posited as a rational decision making process but it really isn't. But since most people tend to agree with the fact it's a pretty good heurestic they don't get challenged on it. — Benkei

It is absolutely a rational choice, which is obvious in every aspect of our lives. Why? Because there is no possible way to become an expert in everything. We have to trust car companies, engineers, mechanics, drug makers, farmers, pharmacists, doctors, lawyers, historians, scientists, etc. -- all the time.

Regarding this particular scenario, given all this trust, it's a perfectly rational choice to trust experts, particularly when a large majority of them are in agreement.

Could this rational choice end up being wrong at times? Yes. Likewise if you "did your own research" for weeks about a topic, weighed evidence, collected data, ran experiments yourself, and held symposia about it in your living room.

We operate on incomplete information, and have to make the best decisions (given our goals) on the basis of this information. Trusting the scientific and medical consensus when you cannot devote your life to becoming an expert yourself is a rational choice indeed.

I don't like deficit spending by Republicans any more than by Democrats. In my view, both parties are utterly corrupted, and all but worthless to us. These two identifiers have become no more than ways to choose your poison, in my view. — Michael Zwingli

This position is now obsolete. May have been valid 10 years ago -- not anymore. Things have changed. The Republicans have gone off the rails. As bad as some Democrats are, the differences in policies are stark. Take climate change as the easy example. What do the parties say about it, and what do they propose to do about it? One party says it doesn't exist and want to take us over the edge (or just delay and do nothing), the other party acknowledges it exists and has modest proposals like what's in the reconciliation bill.

That's a big difference. There are many others.

The Republicans spend their deficits on tax cuts for their rich constituents -- the corporate sector. For war, for the military, etc. The Democrats are proposing to spend it on child care, free community college, medicare covering hearing aids and eyeglasses, and climate mitigation programs. If you can't see the differences there, and simply consider it all a big "wash," then you haven't been paying attention.

That having been said, the instant bill is garbage, as it includes provisions for the growth of deficits by over the next decade. This is not what is needed by the American government. Rather what is needed is the exercise of fiscal self-control, and keeping spending within the budget dictated by tax revenues. Deficit spending has caused the U.S. to experience the greatest national debt ever imagined, and still growing... A lack of self control, in governments as in individuals, can but lead to disaster, in my view. — Michael Zwingli

So I assume you were against the 2017 tax cuts? I assume you're against the $7 trillion defense budget over the same period of time?

Funny how talk of deficits and the national debt only get pushed by media, and then echoed by people on the internet, when anything that's good for the country is proposed. Never any money for that. Plenty of money for tax cuts for the rich, fossil fuel subsidies, and trillions for wars and defense budgets. Just a reflection of priorities, I guess.

The debt is not a problem at all. The bill proposes pays for itself, but there are also tax proposals for the corporate sector and super-wealthy that also cover the cost. So there's really no excuse.

This is what's in the bill -- which has majority support from the people, incidentally:

• Putting the U.S. on track to run on 80% clean electricity and to cut economy-wide carbon emissions in HALF by 2030
  
• A Civilian Climate Corps that will put hundreds of thousands of young people to work combatting climate change
  
• $400 billion for clean energy that will employ workers across the country
  
• Green, affordable public housing
  
• Native American infrastructure investments
  
• Billions for coastal resilience and wildfire prevention
  
• A pathway to citizenship for TPS holders, Dreamers, farmworkers, and other essential workers
  
• Expanding Medicare to include dental, vision, and hearing
  
• Making community college tuition-free for 2 years
  
• Funding paid family and medical leave, and more.

Civilian Climate Corps? Hundreds of thousands in this Corps?

What does it do? Would it do something that is already done with something other? — ssu

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/11/993976948/reaching-back-to-the-new-deal-biden-proposes-a-civilian-climate-corps

https://www.sunrisemovement.org/theory-of-change/the-ccc-explained/

It is a kind of homage to the New Deal, yes.

So Biden won. But it wasn't in the ballpark of Reagan winning over Mondale in '84 or Roosevelt winning over Landon in '36. — ssu

True, but think about the enthusiasm gap. The Trump crowd and Republican party was nearly unanimous in getting behind him. He had the entire media juggernaut behind him as well -- talk radio, Fox News, millions of social media followers, and help from foreign hackers. He also had, as mentioned, structural advantages in the electoral college. All of that, and he still lost by over 7 million votes.

Yes, he did do better than I would have expected, even given all of that. 75 million votes is a lot. But in the end, he still lost pretty handily. The delay in counting and screaming about fraud didn't allow this to become clear, but the final numbers reflect it.

Lastly, this was against Joe Biden. A boring, bland, centrist, old, establishment candidate that was barely registering any votes prior to South Carolina. This was almost entirely an anti-Trump vote -- for me as well.

So given all that, and especially after Georgia and January 6th, I think it's a silly mistake for Republicans to rally behind this guy still. But they're pretty much out of ideas, and they're afraid of those voters who still love the guy. They're really caught in a bad spot in this respect. All the better for the country, in my view.

Now let's see if the Democrats can do ANYTHING with their slim majorities in terms of the reconciliation bill.

Enough slapping each other on the backs. Get a private room. If you cannot unearth and empathise why anti-vaxxer believe what they do, you're never going to convince them otherwise. They're not irrational or stupid as much as you want to find a reason why you're not able to convince them otherwise. — Benkei

Oh how objective and fair you are.

When people start speaking irrationally, ignoring evidence, and otherwise start talking like Alex Jones, there's no point in pretending to have a rational conversation. That has nothing to do with empathy.

Also, I think it's completely irrational to think you can convince them otherwise by hugging them to death. If anti-vaxxers have proven anything, in general, it's that they're completely immovable in their position. If you want to keep fighting the good fight, fine. I've spent hours responding to them, in fact -- but I owe them no politeness when they drop their manners.

I see acts of kindness and generosity all over
— Xtrix

Simply declaring greed as central to human nature is a mistake
— Xtrix

There are some obvious reasons— mostly money
— Xtrix

So, being money-minded is genorisity then? — TheMadFool

Here's an instance where I should just ignore a question that is basically incoherent, but I won't.

(1) Being "money-minded" is not the same as being generous -- that's unrelated, not what I said or implied, and basically out of nowhere.

(2) What I was talking about with "mostly money" is taking out of context and was in response to a prior post about the reasons for why media isn't covering the story of climate change as well as they should. I mentioned money, because media is sponsored mainly by advertisers. The larger the audience, the more money per advertisement. If the stories don't get a large audience, or enough eyes or clicks, then there's less money to be made. I mentioned that as ONE reason, among others.

If you have nothing worthwhile left to say, it's not imperative to continue talking for its own sake.

Yes, but arguably our proclivities aren't equally matched - greed/selfishness trumps genorosity/altruism any day. — TheMadFool

So you say— but I see as much evidence to the contrary. Just look at families— your own even— is it true that “greed/selfishness” trumps care for them? Or concern for others’ needs? Or loyalty?

I see acts of kindness and generosity all over. Some want to argue this is selfishness in the end— fine. Then in that case selfishness isn’t harmful, so who cares.

Simply declaring greed as central to human nature is a mistake— one that’s at the core of our rotten philosophy, politics, and economy. We believe it, so we act accordingly. At bottom it’s really nihilism in disguise. With the cover of “sophisticated” philosophy and science.

Life is, all said and done, selfish - evolution made us that way and now we're supposed to feel guilty about how we (mis)managed the situation. — TheMadFool

This is the influence of Rand and Dawkins and the like. But I consider it complete nonsense.

Of course greed, selfishness, excess, pleasure-seeking, hedonism, and so on, are part of human behavior. But so are all the rest. To simply define human beings as selfish animals who care about nothing else except their own material gain and perhaps reproduction is simply missing some very big parts of the story.

Which is in fact what propagandists have cultivated over the years. If you convince everyone that life is a series of accumulations of material goods, that individuals are all that exist, that selfishness is axiomatic, that there’s nothing that can be done because “that’s life,” then you get what we see today: depression, addictions, hopelessness, fear, anger, confusion, isolation, division, mistrust, and general unhappiness.

The doctor who said the vax killed her is part of a big conspiracy to undermine the vax and is paid by FAUX News. — James Riley

That’s how it’s done. Excellent! I for one am convinced.

If there is no enlightenment in enlightened self-interest then you just have greed and that is not what Adam Smith of any true capitalist was about. Greed is what we have now. — James Riley

Adam Smith is the place to start. He warned a lot against most of what we consider capitalism today.

It’s institutionalized greed, yes. It’s a system — a game — with rules and laws that encourage greed. It rests on the ideas of, at bottom, materialism and human nature as basically pathological. It’s a merchant’s philosophy. It’s sick and it has dominated our thinking for over 200 years. Time for it to go.

Turns out anti-vaxxers are anti-medicine.

The deadline for one vote is tomorrow— this week will be crucial. Between these bills and the debt ceiling, it’ll be interesting to see if the democrats can pull it off.

Ah, good old anecdotes. The imbecile’s idea of “strong evidence.”

But Dr. Science thinks it supports his delusional rantings. Which is why I checked it out. Turns out it doesn’t—what a shocker!

It's so much healthier to be informed, than to a obedient lemming.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965703047/vaccines-could-drive-the-evolution-of-more-covid-19-mutants

My advice is to avoid listening to b.s politicians, and a totally corrupt pharmaceutical industry. Do your own research before sticking crap into your body. — MondoR

The article quoted (but not read by Dr. Science):

Mutant coronaviruses can make vaccines less effective. At the same time, vaccines can contribute to virus mutations, but this is a slow process that should be manageable.

“Your own research.” This means: Google something, find an article that you think supports your beliefs, don’t read it or understand it in any way, post it, and then call everyone else dumb for being such fools for listening to experts.

A friend of mine. Someone who was forced to take it against her will to hold on to her job. Murder? — MondoR

:rofl: :rofl: