Could you explain what the red paragraph means?Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2022, 6:24 pmThe future isn't always a repeat of the past. The current situation is unlike any that we had before.LuckyR wrote: ↑January 11th, 2022, 2:55 amNot 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.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.
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.
What Now? with the Pandemic
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What Now? with the Pandemic
- Empiricist-Bruno
- Moderator
- Posts: 582
- Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
Re: What Now? with the Pandemic
Yes, I can try to explain.LuckyR wrote: ↑February 4th, 2022, 4:51 amCould you explain what the red paragraph means?Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2022, 6:24 pmThe future isn't always a repeat of the past. The current situation is unlike any that we had before.LuckyR wrote: ↑January 11th, 2022, 2:55 amNot 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.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.
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.
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.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What Now? with the Pandemic
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.Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑February 4th, 2022, 11:24 pmYes, I can try to explain.LuckyR wrote: ↑February 4th, 2022, 4:51 amCould you explain what the red paragraph means?Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2022, 6:24 pmThe future isn't always a repeat of the past. The current situation is unlike any that we had before.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.
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.
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.
- Empiricist-Bruno
- Moderator
- Posts: 582
- Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
Re: What Now? with the Pandemic
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.LuckyR wrote: ↑February 5th, 2022, 4:04 amHa, ha. Good one. Your answer is closer to home. When someone is difficult to understand, they don't get very far blaming their audience.Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑February 4th, 2022, 11:24 pmYes, I can try to explain.LuckyR wrote: ↑February 4th, 2022, 4:51 amCould you explain what the red paragraph means?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.
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.
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.
- Empiricist-Bruno
- Moderator
- Posts: 582
- Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
Re: What Now? with the Pandemic
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.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023