What Now? with the Pandemic

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: What Now? with the Pandemic

Post by LuckyR »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: February 3rd, 2022, 6:24 pm
LuckyR wrote: January 11th, 2022, 2:55 am
JackDaydream wrote: January 10th, 2022, 4:50 pm @ gad-fly
It is hard to know what comes next. There are so many ambiguities. In some places, it is hard to get any face to face interaction. But in other places people mingle freely.

It is even the same with climate change. Ecxcees or complete minimalism? How does one determine the consequences of each action and find the right balance? I know that you are in favour of thinking about climate change and I am not in disagreement. It is simply that each of us is trying to find a way forward daily; trying to juggle the odds, and our own footprints in the chains of causality.

It is not easy, even if one really cares. Emotional concerns about the wellbeing of others and the environment need to be met with rationality. Navigating all of this is complex.
Not that hard. Omicron is the end of the pandemic. Highly contagious yet not that virulent. Thus everybody not otherwise immune can get mild disease, develop immunity that way, then everyone has some form of immunity and it basically becomes the flu: never goes away, kills tens of thousands of the vulnerable every year and there is an updated shot available every year. Been there, done that.
The future isn't always a repeat of the past. The current situation is unlike any that we had before.

Few people would know and understand the things I am about to say but for those who do, the truth is a bit more bleak.

For those of you that understand biology in general, you are aware that any population of living species that reaches its sustainability limits becomes particularly vulnerable to epidemics. Unlike any species before us, we (well, some of us) understand the threat and can respond effectively to the challenge. However, the fact that nature attacks with epidemics the type of populations that have grown excessively doesn't imply that humans have realized the importance of sustainability and of controlling population growth.

No, we think we're just above this kind of scourge prepared by nature for the overpopulated areas.

As a result, we have kept increasing vaccination, which improved survival rates and so the human population over the past 50 years has become as dense as ever and this means that any successful virus able to defeat measures against it will be spreading like wildfire and because of all the transmission, there will be continuous mutations that will succeed in achieving their natural goal to control the population.

Even if the virus itself never kills too many people, it draws people in different camps (vaccinated or free of vaccine) and the fight that results of that (if it brings any casualty) should be considered as part of the virus' casualties too as it aims to reduce the population.

We have yet to fully realize what is going on, and the intellect needed to understand it means that this truth unvealed here is sure to remain under the radar of journalists, doctors, and politicians for some time to come.
Could you explain what the red paragraph means?
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: What Now? with the Pandemic

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

LuckyR wrote: February 4th, 2022, 4:51 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: February 3rd, 2022, 6:24 pm
LuckyR wrote: January 11th, 2022, 2:55 am
JackDaydream wrote: January 10th, 2022, 4:50 pm @ gad-fly
It is hard to know what comes next. There are so many ambiguities. In some places, it is hard to get any face to face interaction. But in other places people mingle freely.

It is even the same with climate change. Ecxcees or complete minimalism? How does one determine the consequences of each action and find the right balance? I know that you are in favour of thinking about climate change and I am not in disagreement. It is simply that each of us is trying to find a way forward daily; trying to juggle the odds, and our own footprints in the chains of causality.

It is not easy, even if one really cares. Emotional concerns about the wellbeing of others and the environment need to be met with rationality. Navigating all of this is complex.
Not that hard. Omicron is the end of the pandemic. Highly contagious yet not that virulent. Thus everybody not otherwise immune can get mild disease, develop immunity that way, then everyone has some form of immunity and it basically becomes the flu: never goes away, kills tens of thousands of the vulnerable every year and there is an updated shot available every year. Been there, done that.
The future isn't always a repeat of the past. The current situation is unlike any that we had before.

Few people would know and understand the things I am about to say but for those who do, the truth is a bit more bleak.

For those of you that understand biology in general, you are aware that any population of living species that reaches its sustainability limits becomes particularly vulnerable to epidemics. Unlike any species before us, we (well, some of us) understand the threat and can respond effectively to the challenge. However, the fact that nature attacks with epidemics the type of populations that have grown excessively doesn't imply that humans have realized the importance of sustainability and of controlling population growth.

No, we think we're just above this kind of scourge prepared by nature for the overpopulated areas.

As a result, we have kept increasing vaccination, which improved survival rates and so the human population over the past 50 years has become as dense as ever and this means that any successful virus able to defeat measures against it will be spreading like wildfire and because of all the transmission, there will be continuous mutations that will succeed in achieving their natural goal to control the population.

Even if the virus itself never kills too many people, it draws people in different camps (vaccinated or free of vaccine) and the fight that results of that (if it brings any casualty) should be considered as part of the virus' casualties too as it aims to reduce the population.

We have yet to fully realize what is going on, and the intellect needed to understand it means that this truth unvealed here is sure to remain under the radar of journalists, doctors, and politicians for some time to come.
Could you explain what the red paragraph means?
Yes, I can try to explain.

When it's generally not understood that pandemics aren't truly a disease raging but rather a symptom of a disease raging called excessively dense population then you can't put up a good fight against it regardless of the vaccine sciennce available to you. So, the fact is that similarly to previous pandemics when people didn't know how the disease was transmitted, we generally are ignorant of the root cause now.

Who would get elected trying to promote fewer people growing up in their country? Politicians respond to greed issues and can't even curb emissions of greenhouse gases. So, it's hardly feasible to talk to people into not risking living to try and earn maximum earnings. When people don't want to hear what causes the problems (they may not have the intellect required to understand it anyway), it becomes like the people of past pandemics not wanting to really know what caused the disease because of prejudices and scapegoating.

When you do understand pandemics as nature's way of reducing excessively large populations, your angle on what's going on changes drastically.

For instance, if a bird flies in between two hunters and they both shoot at it when they face each other and they both kill each other, you could realize that the method used by the bird to kill the hunter is the viral method. The viral method to kill is a) not deliberate b) opportunistic c) it uses the victim's own machinery (either natural or cultural).

Now, as a result of this current pendemic, gun sales skyrocketed. The pandemic is therefore making people act in such a way as to increase deadly power within the ranks of it's target. Does that sounds like people understand much about viral threat to you?

But I realize that I can't continue this discussion down this path because the target population certainly does not appreciate what is going on and how their moves is helping the pandemic achieve its goals. Further more, understanding the threat would further raise questions in general about the need for arms in society in general and that would create just more controversy. You aren't supposed to understand that a strong army represents a viral threat to you. No, it's there for your safety and the nation's safety. If you understand the viral threat, you know what's true and what's not, and these notions aren't supportive of the current social order and so these notions will not have broad public support.

Here in my country, we have trucker protests. They are for freedom, for viral freedom and so they are part of the disease or supportive of it. Then there are those who want to try and mitigate the disease by the society's measures. Now with groups fighting each other like that the casualty of such fight is not simply political; it is (or will be) viral casualty, viral strain. But you don't see it that way when you don't understand the viral threat.

This also perhaps explains the reason why you asked clarification here as you, like most people, have a limited understanding of the extent of the viral threat and how it achieves its aim.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: What Now? with the Pandemic

Post by LuckyR »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: February 4th, 2022, 11:24 pm
LuckyR wrote: February 4th, 2022, 4:51 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: February 3rd, 2022, 6:24 pm
LuckyR wrote: January 11th, 2022, 2:55 am

Not that hard. Omicron is the end of the pandemic. Highly contagious yet not that virulent. Thus everybody not otherwise immune can get mild disease, develop immunity that way, then everyone has some form of immunity and it basically becomes the flu: never goes away, kills tens of thousands of the vulnerable every year and there is an updated shot available every year. Been there, done that.
The future isn't always a repeat of the past. The current situation is unlike any that we had before.

Few people would know and understand the things I am about to say but for those who do, the truth is a bit more bleak.

For those of you that understand biology in general, you are aware that any population of living species that reaches its sustainability limits becomes particularly vulnerable to epidemics. Unlike any species before us, we (well, some of us) understand the threat and can respond effectively to the challenge. However, the fact that nature attacks with epidemics the type of populations that have grown excessively doesn't imply that humans have realized the importance of sustainability and of controlling population growth.

No, we think we're just above this kind of scourge prepared by nature for the overpopulated areas.

As a result, we have kept increasing vaccination, which improved survival rates and so the human population over the past 50 years has become as dense as ever and this means that any successful virus able to defeat measures against it will be spreading like wildfire and because of all the transmission, there will be continuous mutations that will succeed in achieving their natural goal to control the population.

Even if the virus itself never kills too many people, it draws people in different camps (vaccinated or free of vaccine) and the fight that results of that (if it brings any casualty) should be considered as part of the virus' casualties too as it aims to reduce the population.

We have yet to fully realize what is going on, and the intellect needed to understand it means that this truth unvealed here is sure to remain under the radar of journalists, doctors, and politicians for some time to come.
Could you explain what the red paragraph means?
Yes, I can try to explain.

When it's generally not understood that pandemics aren't truly a disease raging but rather a symptom of a disease raging called excessively dense population then you can't put up a good fight against it regardless of the vaccine sciennce available to you. So, the fact is that similarly to previous pandemics when people didn't know how the disease was transmitted, we generally are ignorant of the root cause now.

Who would get elected trying to promote fewer people growing up in their country? Politicians respond to greed issues and can't even curb emissions of greenhouse gases. So, it's hardly feasible to talk to people into not risking living to try and earn maximum earnings. When people don't want to hear what causes the problems (they may not have the intellect required to understand it anyway), it becomes like the people of past pandemics not wanting to really know what caused the disease because of prejudices and scapegoating.

When you do understand pandemics as nature's way of reducing excessively large populations, your angle on what's going on changes drastically.

For instance, if a bird flies in between two hunters and they both shoot at it when they face each other and they both kill each other, you could realize that the method used by the bird to kill the hunter is the viral method. The viral method to kill is a) not deliberate b) opportunistic c) it uses the victim's own machinery (either natural or cultural).

Now, as a result of this current pendemic, gun sales skyrocketed. The pandemic is therefore making people act in such a way as to increase deadly power within the ranks of it's target. Does that sounds like people understand much about viral threat to you?

But I realize that I can't continue this discussion down this path because the target population certainly does not appreciate what is going on and how their moves is helping the pandemic achieve its goals. Further more, understanding the threat would further raise questions in general about the need for arms in society in general and that would create just more controversy. You aren't supposed to understand that a strong army represents a viral threat to you. No, it's there for your safety and the nation's safety. If you understand the viral threat, you know what's true and what's not, and these notions aren't supportive of the current social order and so these notions will not have broad public support.

Here in my country, we have trucker protests. They are for freedom, for viral freedom and so they are part of the disease or supportive of it. Then there are those who want to try and mitigate the disease by the society's measures. Now with groups fighting each other like that the casualty of such fight is not simply political; it is (or will be) viral casualty, viral strain. But you don't see it that way when you don't understand the viral threat.

This also perhaps explains the reason why you asked clarification here as you, like most people, have a limited understanding of the extent of the viral threat and how it achieves its aim.
Ha, ha. Good one. Your answer is closer to home. When someone is difficult to understand, they don't get very far blaming their audience.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: What Now? with the Pandemic

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

LuckyR wrote: February 5th, 2022, 4:04 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: February 4th, 2022, 11:24 pm
LuckyR wrote: February 4th, 2022, 4:51 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: February 3rd, 2022, 6:24 pm

The future isn't always a repeat of the past. The current situation is unlike any that we had before.

Few people would know and understand the things I am about to say but for those who do, the truth is a bit more bleak.

For those of you that understand biology in general, you are aware that any population of living species that reaches its sustainability limits becomes particularly vulnerable to epidemics. Unlike any species before us, we (well, some of us) understand the threat and can respond effectively to the challenge. However, the fact that nature attacks with epidemics the type of populations that have grown excessively doesn't imply that humans have realized the importance of sustainability and of controlling population growth.

No, we think we're just above this kind of scourge prepared by nature for the overpopulated areas.

As a result, we have kept increasing vaccination, which improved survival rates and so the human population over the past 50 years has become as dense as ever and this means that any successful virus able to defeat measures against it will be spreading like wildfire and because of all the transmission, there will be continuous mutations that will succeed in achieving their natural goal to control the population.

Even if the virus itself never kills too many people, it draws people in different camps (vaccinated or free of vaccine) and the fight that results of that (if it brings any casualty) should be considered as part of the virus' casualties too as it aims to reduce the population.

We have yet to fully realize what is going on, and the intellect needed to understand it means that this truth unvealed here is sure to remain under the radar of journalists, doctors, and politicians for some time to come.
Could you explain what the red paragraph means?
Yes, I can try to explain.

When it's generally not understood that pandemics aren't truly a disease raging but rather a symptom of a disease raging called excessively dense population then you can't put up a good fight against it regardless of the vaccine sciennce available to you. So, the fact is that similarly to previous pandemics when people didn't know how the disease was transmitted, we generally are ignorant of the root cause now.

Who would get elected trying to promote fewer people growing up in their country? Politicians respond to greed issues and can't even curb emissions of greenhouse gases. So, it's hardly feasible to talk to people into not risking living to try and earn maximum earnings. When people don't want to hear what causes the problems (they may not have the intellect required to understand it anyway), it becomes like the people of past pandemics not wanting to really know what caused the disease because of prejudices and scapegoating.

When you do understand pandemics as nature's way of reducing excessively large populations, your angle on what's going on changes drastically.

For instance, if a bird flies in between two hunters and they both shoot at it when they face each other and they both kill each other, you could realize that the method used by the bird to kill the hunter is the viral method. The viral method to kill is a) not deliberate b) opportunistic c) it uses the victim's own machinery (either natural or cultural).

Now, as a result of this current pendemic, gun sales skyrocketed. The pandemic is therefore making people act in such a way as to increase deadly power within the ranks of it's target. Does that sounds like people understand much about viral threat to you?

But I realize that I can't continue this discussion down this path because the target population certainly does not appreciate what is going on and how their moves is helping the pandemic achieve its goals. Further more, understanding the threat would further raise questions in general about the need for arms in society in general and that would create just more controversy. You aren't supposed to understand that a strong army represents a viral threat to you. No, it's there for your safety and the nation's safety. If you understand the viral threat, you know what's true and what's not, and these notions aren't supportive of the current social order and so these notions will not have broad public support.

Here in my country, we have trucker protests. They are for freedom, for viral freedom and so they are part of the disease or supportive of it. Then there are those who want to try and mitigate the disease by the society's measures. Now with groups fighting each other like that the casualty of such fight is not simply political; it is (or will be) viral casualty, viral strain. But you don't see it that way when you don't understand the viral threat.

This also perhaps explains the reason why you asked clarification here as you, like most people, have a limited understanding of the extent of the viral threat and how it achieves its aim.
Ha, ha. Good one. Your answer is closer to home. When someone is difficult to understand, they don't get very far blaming their audience.
You are correct. I am not expecting to go far at all. In fact, I am expecting to witness and be a part of something disastrous.

I try and lay blame fairly where it belongs and I now realize that's interfering with the way the world works. (I didn't always have the intellect required to understand this though but that's another story.) So, there is incentive not to keep doing it, especially if you are the type of philosopher who does not love and revere truth.

I do not blame my audience. There is no time for that. If there is any blame in my audience, there is likely much more blame beyond it.

You talk to me apparently describing me as "difficult to understand." Where is the blame for that? With me or you?

For some, when a difficulty appears on the horizon, they see it as a challenge to surmount that may leave them as a better person. For others, when the difficulty apprars, it means it's time to attack a particular scapegoat or to create one. I hope that this latter approach is not what I am perceived as doing here. I hope that people can and will see that my angle is sensible and understandable and is meant to truthfully address the situation.

But I can understand how some people might feel targeted by my approach and as result, focus on me as a scapegoat for all or any trouble. However, I may be much too small to be worth fighting and fighting me might just illuminate more the profile of the issue I am trying to raise.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: What Now? with the Pandemic

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

What now? Well, here in Canada, we now have trucker protests against the pandemic health measures. I wonder if this is a historical first. Is there any precedent to this? Having health care workers escorted by police and having to disguise themselves not to look like a health worker as they go to work?


Is there a precedent to health measures that get people fired from their jobs for not having the antibodies that others feel they should have? Is there a precedent to giving special privileges to people who have developed the desired antibodies in their bodies? At what point are vaccines effective enough to be worthy of having the vaccinated person considered socially clean? I think these are the new and exceptional questions that go along with the what's now with pandemic question.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021