This is a brilliant post, thank you for your contribution.
I just wonder what kind of alternatives we have that could be effective. Something government sponsored but administered by a third party with a strict constitution regarding moderating only the extremest content? A system of self-moderation in place that isn't destructive, but rather hides content to prevent congestion? I feel like voluntary identification is also a must.
I don't believe so. The state by its nature wants to find equilibrium like practically every other system. One of the paths of least resistance is the manipulation of the public into an unthinking, docile, and generally inert individual. This makes everything much more predictable and controllable, which brings it closer to equilibrium.
You could intuit this sort of outcome, perhaps, from a reading of "Thinking, Fast and Slow". Humans don't really do well with probability, we want definitive binary outcomes that aren't reliant on probability. We want a quiet, well defined day to day. Politicians want the same thing (alongside a disproportionately large allotment of control and wealth in return). Want though, is the difficulty, because the reality is that the underpinnings of practically all human functions and the world in itself are fairly chaotic.
I think you're under the impression it's a noble goal in the name of progress, but [genuine] progress is disruptive in every field. That disruption breaks the equilibrium, and makes the quiet day a rather loud lifetime.
The state is people. There is no difference between "the state" and "its people". If its people are manipulated, the state is manipulated itself.
The state wants compliance as much as the people want compliance, which is certainly one incentive, but it exists in parallel with other, competing incentives.
"The state" doesn't exist as an independent thinking body. I don't think it's healthy to treat it like it does.
I do agree though, the incentives are hidden, non-obvious. Progress is incentivized because it helps the state, and it helps the state because it helps the people.
I disagree with your premise. There has been a stratification of interests since the 70's which has isolated the state and has homogenized the state's interest with that of the elite echelon, they've intermingled to the point where they should be more accurately called the ruling class. Of course the body of the state as a whole is a different discussion, but the mind is what drives it forwards and is certainly interested, singularly, in maintaining current momentum and directionality over utilitarian or technological developments.
Aren't these glamorous tech companies supposed to be employing from the pool of the highest echelons of intellectualism? How is it that they have such exceedingly large valuations but they can't manage to deploy a rationale by which to manage their user-based content?
That argument proves too much, I think. It seems analogous to the question of "Why would anyone ever want higher taxes? If they think the optimal tax rate is higher, they can just pay more taxes."
If one company takes a more principled approach to moderation, and that more principled approach is harmful to revenue, that company will be outcompeted by companies with whatever moderation policies optimize for engagement / revenue / growth. As a result, in the absence of legislation, you get adverse selection i.e. the dominant platforms will be the ones that optimize for engagement/revenue/growth, rather than the ones with good moderation policies.
If you instead have legislation for what "good moderation" looks like, it applies equally to all companies and mitigates the adverse selection problem.
Of course, it is still entirely possible for bad legislation to introduce worse problems than the adverse selection problem. It depends on the object level of what exactly the legislation is, rather than being a blanket "legislation bad" or "legislation good" sort of thing.
It is virtually impossible to not offend anyone, so they choose from the basket of all potential customers or products which they believe will be most profitable. If the ~~nazis~~ alt-right were making them more money than centrists and leftists, they wouldn't have banned them by citing freedom of speech and expression. However, their analysts probably deemed that losing the rest of the user base through the #cancel culture isn't worth it.
I'm speaking less about the leaders, but more of the mass. Silicon Valley has practically been deified as the brain capitol of the US, if not the world, but they're unable to meaningfully address the question? I think not, they're not addressing it, but with a sleight of hand pretending action to subdue their consumer base with a sense of security and imply a democratic process. An act of vanity, which I hope will be seen through.
That's where it gets interesting, though. Assuming you have a democratically elected official with progressive views in any direction, and they're telling people to act for their self-interest, but the current zeitgeist overall is the given idea is immoral or otherwise objectionable, then what process do you use to make the judgement other than an arbitrary one that supplants the "rule of law"?
Consider if Biden dropped a tweet saying "don't observe DST."
That could be dangerous, right? You've got two distinct groups of people that for some reason or another fail to coalesce, all "hell" breaks loose because some people are showing up to work at different times, logistical break down... Do you squelch him? And how does that compare to a non-violent break-in at the capitol to show congress that their representation of the general public is failing a given demographic?
Personally I think that the channel should be wide open to anything but the most unbearable aspects of communication, like child exploitation. You've got no chance of convincing a white supremacist that his worldview is askew without engaging in a conversation and logically defeating his assertions, not to mention the fact that publicly shaming the ideology (while jointly defeating it) in a widely available forum is certainly the best prophylactic. Instead the "acceptable" rhetoric is one-sided which alienates anybody that has the audacity to even ask the questions proposed, while destroying their ability to come about a rational conclusion through empirical observation. That channel should be equivalently wide for politicians which the people have elected to represent them up to the extent of tangible action to break the law up to the barrier of reason, e.g. meaningfully inciting violent actions against individuals or groups.
And this is all precipitated by the fact that Twitter and the like are commodifying speech, which is a genuine hazard as it creates a serious hurdle at the intersection of liberty and commercial interest. Commercial interests want inoffensive discussion which appeals to the widest possible band of individuals, meaning that the content and discussions are only allowed to span a narrow width, generally. It is not in any meaningful way acting in the public interest at that point, and only seeks to, through largely automatic processes, extend and crystallize the status quo which is genuinely harmful as we're doing little more than discussing how to spin in place at that point. This is driven even further through deplatforming (active or passive) extremist viewpoints, and exposing them disproportionately with algorithmic processes.
My postulate: while the slippery slope won't necessarily find itself at the prescribed (induced) endpoint, there is a virtually unlimited timeline for the slippery slope to find itself to that endpoint. With that virtually unlimited running space, if continued attempts are made, eventually probability will necessarily yield a result.
I think this applies more to wider generalizations as opposed to very specific instances due to the nature of probability and finity of resources invested in continued attempts, but it can be applied in either scenario. Think Murphy's Law.
I've got to wonder about the level of experimentation it takes to get to the point where you can actually effectively create a genuinely braindead, but otherwise wholly functional human unit. From a genetics standpoint, I believe it's a fractaline system, meaning recursive elements, which is (and quite probably wrongly) to say that removing one piece of DNA, or favorably altering it to fit the outcome, could result in unexpected outcomes in the development of other necessary components. Like, there's a good deal of the endocrine system that's tucked away in the brain, delete the PFC and what results? We don't understand consciousness to the degree this demands for a "truly ethical" criterion anyways; and that may be a moot point, as it may be beyond comprehension. And that's discounting a lot of other things. Are organs grown in vitro adapted to actual use? What about epigenetics and possible incompatibilities generated by them? For major endocrine organs, what kind of reaction will the whole have receiving a 1:1 transplant with a 20 year old liver in an 80 year old? And so on...
If we were to mass grow clones for organs we would probably start with whatever causes this and then add an engineered pituitary gland organioid that is added via surgery to develop the anencephalic clone to maturity for proper organ extraction.
You could even use this to grow bodies for eventual head transplants.
> From a genetics standpoint, I believe [...] removing one piece of DNA, or favorably altering it to fit the outcome, could result in unexpected outcomes in the development of other necessary components.
I wasn't suggesting that gene editing be used to prevent a cerebrum from developing, but merely that an in-utero surgical procedure be used to destroy the cerebrum at some early stage of development. That seems doable. (This whole thing does, however, disturb me.)
> Like, there's a good deal of the endocrine system that's tucked away in the brain, delete the PFC and what results?
That's why I was speculating that the external supply of certain hormones would be required, particularly to get through puberty.
> Are organs grown in vitro adapted to actual use?
Yeah, also a good question.
I was assuming that the technique I was proposing, that of using a whole body -- as different from growing organs in-vitro -- would obviate the worst problems.
(There are still concerns about making sure the body doesn't atrophy, but I think something could be worked out. You can even imagine (again disturbingly) some serious exercise regimen, administered via electrostimulation of the muscles. Or occasional stress to the pulmonary system by injecting adrenaline.)
But in-vitro growth of isolated organs might also be possible. That would immediately skip the worst ethical issues, but it requires more discoveries than the full-body method. We're already getting there for simple organs, though it requires a donor organ to be used as a scaffolding, which is a problem.
> What about epigenetics and possible incompatibilities generated by them?
There must be case studies about organ transplants between twins? Presumably immunosuppressants were not needed?
> what kind of reaction will the whole have receiving a 1:1 transplant with a 20 year old liver in an 80 year old?
What little I've seen, from pop-science releases about experiments with mice, is that some rejuvenation tends to come from that sort of thing.
My folks don't want the shots, my grandparents refuse to mask any time it isn't critical. Pops wants to get the shit. I don't have an opinion myself, but I'm going to hold off on the vaccine just in case there's some crazy ultra-low probability shit that spontaneously crops up, frankly I'm not concerned with my own risks as judged by probability: I'm inordinately low-risk. Last I heard they hadn't confirmed the vaccines contributed to sterilizing immunity anyways, so for all we know currently there's no strong link that vaccines are going to prevent transmission, but rather will mitigate symptom development and disease severity; so again, I don't see the point even at the resolution of populations.
This is not a very helpful, friendly or gracious response. In fact, this whole comment tree should be removed, as it mostly consists of people yelling at each other in high-IQ ways.
Just like I contribute to the health care of people who got deadly ventral diseases through their own actions.
I mean, common, what’s your comment about? What are you implying? That you’re morally superior to the OP because you grant him a hospital bed?
By the OPs admission he does not need a shot, won’t need a hospital bed (look up the odds for young healthy people yourself), and by getting vaccinated he would be taking a shot away from someone who does. In fact, by not getting the shot in lieu of someone who needs it more, he’s lowered the EV of hospitalization.
I’m not getting the shot until every last senior in Africa, L. America, and South East Asia has been offered one. And I’ll very well take my bed at a hospital when I need it.
And if you end up with some weird proteopathic disease I'll be (involuntarily) chipping in a large fraction of my meager wages to pay for the publicly funded institutions that will be caring for you.
> Last I heard they hadn't confirmed the vaccines contributed to sterilizing immunity anyways, so for all we know currently there's no strong link that vaccines are going to prevent transmission, but rather will mitigate symptom development and disease severity; so again, I don't see the point even at the resolution of populations.
This is because doctors are consistently silly about absence of evidence vs. evidence of absence. It's reasonable to assume that a vaccine will provide sterilizing immunity because they all do; that's what vaccines are for.
Public health agencies will always assume the worst right up until they see enough evidence. They also think you should cook steaks well done, but you don't have to do that either.
This is a novel virus that attacks our lungs and nervous system. We still know very little about long term effects, even if you aren't injury in the short term.
Also, not getting severely ill yourself doesn't mean someone else won't get sick from you. Please be careful.
I can't believe people still only look at the headline mortality figures. My partner is young, fit and in her 20s and she caught it (despite taking every best precuation)
6 months later she still isn't back to herself - gets out of breath, no sense of taste and insists her creative forces just don't fire the same way they used to
This is a fucking scary disease and to see so many people be blase about it is pathetic.
I agree. I'm not someone who is high risk of dying from COVID, but I know a few people who still have long term symptoms months after. No way would I want to put my long term QoL at risk to go out to eat or to a bar.
Everyone also saw hundreds of professional players getting positive tests, being asymptomatic and continuing to play at the highest level. I am all in favour of the vaccine (and will take it asap) but the most pathetic thing here is thinking that you will change anyone's opinion by referring to anecdotal evidence, or that someone is pathetic by not doing so. If you really want to contribute positively try to show people proper scientific evidence and don't insult them.
> In a young, low-risk population with ongoing symptoms, almost 70% of individuals have impairment in one or more organs four months after initial symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
> The five children with potential long COVID had a median age of 12 years (range 9–15) and four were girls. They had symptoms for 6–8 months after their clinical diagnoses of COVID‐19. None were hospitalised at diagnosis, but one was later admitted for peri‐myocarditis. All five children had fatigue, dyspnoea, heart palpitations or chest pain, and four had headaches, difficulties concentrating, muscle weakness, dizziness and sore throats. Some had improved after 6–8 months, but they all suffered from fatigue and none had fully returned to school.
Are you sure of what you're talking? A lot of football (not handegg) fans were literally talking a lot about the lackluster Premier League performance of a lot of stars who caught Covid.
Proteopathy is a real thing. Prion dysfunctions can cause self-replication, not that the makeup is necessarily there for that in these vaccines. Interesting starting point for consideration nonetheless.
I just wonder what kind of alternatives we have that could be effective. Something government sponsored but administered by a third party with a strict constitution regarding moderating only the extremest content? A system of self-moderation in place that isn't destructive, but rather hides content to prevent congestion? I feel like voluntary identification is also a must.
I don't know, it's hard to say.