Forestluv

How could you distinguish these two possibilities?

In terms of abuse, psychedelics have a relatively low abuse profile relative to other substances. They don't work through the dopamine reward pathway, they have a very long tolerance period, they have a long onset of action and trips can be unpleasurable. Taken together, there is very low addiction risk. I think the bigger concern is noobies getting in over their head. Overdosing on alcohol takes work. It takes work to drink a 5th of vodka and not vomit during the process. Yet psychedelics are easy to overdose. It's easy for a newbie to take eat 4 tabs of LSD. Or a newbie might take one tab and after 40min think "I'm not feeling anything. I might as well take three more". This sounds absurd to those with experience, yet a considerable percentage of ignorant noobies would make these mistakes and get in way over their - having traumatic trips, publicly freaking out, people calling paramedics etc. That type of thing gives psychedelics a bad name. There is still very little education, even with the younger generation. I recently taught about the spiritual and therapeutic value of psychedelics to college freshman. Most of the students had never been exposed to the value of psychedelics. There only impression of psychedelics was it's for hippies, bad trips, people freaking out, jumping out of windows, ending up in insane asylums etc. That is residue from the Nixonian propaganda from the 1970s that we need to scrub away. We are past the Reefer Madness mindset for marijuana, yet it still remains for psychedelics. To my knowledge, psychedelics have been decriminalized in a handful of cities, yet have only been formally legalized in the context of psychedelic therapy in the state of Oregon (via the recent election). Going from decriminalizing to legalization is a big step - especially with businesses selling psychedelics. In the long run, I think it's best to legalize it, so it can be regulated. A transitional move might be to have psychedelics decriminalized and legally available via prescription for a few years as society acclimates and becomes educated. Similar to how marijuana was first legally available as medical marijuana via prescription.

@Vipassana Hmmm, interesting idea. In some clinical trials, people get paid to participate. The government could frame it like a massive stage 4 clinical trial that they are paying $1,500 for participation to compensate for the small risk. I think this framing would work better than saying "To get your $1,500 covid relief money you have to get vaccinated first" - that won't go over too well, imo.

Name two viruses that have been worse. Coronavirus is arguably the worst virus in human history. It's not just death rates and risk of death. Covid is much different than viruses with high rates of death (rabies) or activities with relatively high risk of death. Flying in a personal helicopter during a storm has a high risk of death, yet it's not contagious. If I fly in a personal helicopter and risk my life, it does not impact anybody else. Yet the coronavirus does. It has a relatively high RO contagion combined with relatively severe symptoms. And it's not simply survival rates. When covid is spreading, hospitals reach capacity and that increases the risk of severe health consequences and death for everyone. When hospitals are filled with covid patients, it doesn't matter if 98% of them survive. They have crippled the health care system. People that have heart attacks, car accidents, strokes, chemotherapy, kidney issues will have reduced health care access and what would have been treatable becomes a severe health risk and even life threatening. In some areas, health care is being rationed. Part of the problem is that people do not want to change their behavior and take mitigation efforts. If they did, lockdowns might not be necessary. As we speak, covid is spreading like wildfire through the U.S. and airports are filled with people - many not wearing masks. In my area, supermarkets are crowded and there are a lot of anti-maskers. People want to be in crowded restaurants, concerts etc. Wearing masks, social distancing and lockdowns are not a "mind game". They have been proven to mitigate spread of the virus. Covid is having severe impacts on healthcare systems and economies. And where is been locked down the whole year of 2020? Lockdowns didn't even start until March and I haven't heard of any country under continuous lockdown. This misses the point that a certain percentage of people need to be vaccinated to be effective at the population level. It's not just the individual level. If only 10% of the population gets vaccinated, it does little good at the population level. Unvaccinated people refusing to wear masks and socially distance will continue to spread the virus. Hospitals will be maxed out and businesses won't be able to run. If I get vaccinated and I'm immune to covid, how does that help me if my place of work cannot operate and I lose my job? If I am immune to covid, how does that help me if I have a heart condition and I cannot get access to a hospital because it is full of covid patients? We are all in this together. From the virus' perspective, a human social system is one inter-connected organsims to infect. A million people in one society is like a million cells in one person. It is not a million separate individual pieces. Have you done research on the development and clinical trials for the vaccine?

Later in the "press conference", Trump's Qanon "attorney" Sydney Powell presented the conspiracy theory that an algorithym used by Hugo Chavez to steal a Venezuela election was used to steal the U.S. election. Statisticians discovered this because there were so many votes for Trump that is broke their algorithm. As further 'evidence', Powell said they got a call from an expat in Venezuela that said when he saw Trump's lead dissolve the day after the election, he immediately knew it was the Chavez algorithm - the same thing happened in Venezuela 20 years ago. . . That's how batshit crazy Trump's team has gotten. Not even FoxNews can go that deep into the rabbit hole.

My impression is that is possible, yet very unlikely. I predict the rickety U.S. democracy will hold - mostly because Trump is limited to brainwashing MAGA through propaganda. Politically and legally, Trump is incompetent. His legal team led by Giuliani has been a clown show. Even GOP partisan lawyers and judges can't go along with it. Trump's own lawyers admitted Trump's claims were false and abandoned Trump. Somewhat legitimate lawyers have been replaced by Qanon conspiracy theorists. Yep It's a democracy held together by archaic rules, norms and traditions. For example, each state has it's own election and sends it's own electors that is roughly proportional to the population of the state. The U.S. constitution states that each state legislature appoints electors. Through U.S. history, that has obviously meant the state legislatures appoint electors based on the election result. Yet Trump is trying to circumvent this by getting states with GOP legislatures to appoint Trump electors regardless of the election result. This weekend, GOP legislators from Michigan are meeting with Trump to discuss strategy. Trump will try to convince them to appoint Trump electors, even though Michigan voted for Biden. So far, scotus hasn't showed signs of siding with Trump, yet a couple scotus judges showed sympathy for the idea of giving state legislatures more power over electors. I think they are unlikely to side with Trump this election because it would be too overtly anti-democratic. Yet I think scotus may allow a lot of future disenfranchisement and voter suppression laws in the future. For now, I'm not sure how much of Trump's strategy is primarily to actually win the election or to strengthen his negotiating hand on the way out. If it looks like Trump can cause severe damage, his poker hand would strengthen for him to negotiate for a pardon / legal immunity. So far, I think Biden's team has taken the right approach. They said they are not motivated to prosecute Trump, yet they also aren't giving a pardon. This would allow the federal government to step aside and let states prosecute Trump. Overall, I think that would be a decent outcome. Yet I think there is a chance Democrats may cave a try to pardon Trump in an effort to appease Trump to leave and "bring the country together to heal". Similarly to Ford pardoning Nixon back in the 1970s

“If President Trump comes out and says: ‘Guys, I have irrefutable proof of fraud, the courts won’t listen, and I’m now calling on Americans to take up arms,’ we would go,” said Fryar It seems like most of MAGA still adds in the element that there is 1) fraud and 2) some type of proof that fraud exists somewhere. I'm curious if they need this belief to rationalize their behavior, or if they are just saying this to look somewhat normal in society. It seems like the overton window still demands a narrative that includes fraud and the evidence of such fraud. If Trump's narrative was "Biden got more votes - yet it was because of the corrupt liberal media. We cannot let the evil communists take control and turn America into Venezuela" - it would be outside the current overton window, yet I think the vast majority of MAGAs would go along with it. There seems to be in a division in the republican party whether actual evidence matters or whether an assumption of evidence for narrative is sufficient. In the past, the vast majority of republicans have been fine with assumptions that evidence exist. Yet this case involves claims of massive election fraud and degradation of democracy. Trump is still manipulating his followers to believe there was mass election fraud and American democracy is at stake. In Trump's narrative, if MAGA gives in to massive election fraud - it means the end of American democracy for them. And it seems they genuinely believe it. Trump is still not willing to say "Who cares about election results. MAGA will be authoritarian rulers of America". He is inching in that direction, yet not that far yet. I find the FoxNews response interesting. For the most part, they seem to be trying to play a center-right position of "It looks like there was fraud, yet we need to see evidence of mass fraud before we can overturn election results". Trump's team is now moving on to the next stage - to give up on legal battles and trying to overturn state election results (through dismissing ballots, recounts etc) to pressuring GOP legislatures to choose Trump electors in spite of election results. GOP leaders from Michigan are meeting with Trump this weekend to discuss this strategy. So far, it doesn't look like FoxNews is on board without something that could reasonably be considered evidence of mass fraud. My guess is their standard would be if courts decided the "evidence" presented warranted a court case. Yet at this point, the courts have dismissed all cases and Trump's team, law firms have abandoned Trump to save their firms and Trump's new lawyers have withdrawn their claims to avoid the consequences of frivolous claims. They are all about media optics and narrative control. It's encouraging that FoxNews has a higher standard that conspiracy theories are insufficient - there needs to be some credible evidence to back it up. That's a big jump up for FoxNews - on lesser issues they have been happy to engage in conspiracy theories without evidence.

It seems like Daniel has some depth with meditation and Buddhism, yet is at a shallow level with psychedelics. Why give a noob such credence? Imagine an Olympic gold medalist in the decathlon. He has a lot of experience and understanding about training methods - yet I wouldn't give him much credence on what he says about integral calculus.

It depends on how you are defining "enlightenment", "joy" and "permanent". In a traditional context, psychedelics are unlikely to induce a constant feeling of joyful orgasm for the rest of the person's life. Yet they can induce long-lasting shifts in how the body and mind relate to reality. Many of this shifts could be considered "good" at a personal level. Another way of contextualizing "joy" would be to freely and effortless experience the appearances of Now - whatever those appearances may be. Yet this isn't very appealing at a personal level. If we told someone "A deeper Joy is that Which Is. Even if you are experiencing anxiety, there is an underlying Joy". That's not the type of thing the mind and body seeks. It wants the feel good stuff. One of the most common ideas of "enlightenment" I observe is a continual feeling of peace and joy. I'm not saying that idea is wrong and perhaps there is a dimension in which the body has a nonstop feeling of joy. Yet to me, that isn't that appealing. I don't want to be locked into anything 100%. Experiencing nonstop pain 24/7 would be miserable - yet experiencing a nonstop orgasm 24/7 would also be miserable to me. Experiencing a wide range of human experience is most appealing. Yet I would go heavy on joyful / peaceful feelings - perhaps 80% of the time and the other 20% being neutral or 'negative' feelings - such as intrigue, analysis, confusion, anxiety, hurt, insecure etc. At a human level, those moments give contrast and allow the peaceful / joyful feelings to be even deeper and more profound.

Here is the vaccine schedule in the U.S. They plan to have enough vaccines for health care workers, elderly and staff by March. Most likely, the vaccine won't be available for regular, younger, healthier people until May or later. For that group, there will be months worth of data with a huge sample size of 100+ million people. There should be a good idea of the risks by that point. It's not like the government can whip up the 700 million doses in a month and make it mandatory for everyone to get the two shots. It's going to be a gradual process over 8+ months.

Unprecedented casualties from what? The trials have had over 100k participants and not a single person has died.

One model is using a higher form of technology to develop a Resource Based Economy. Yet, according to this model the average human consciousness hasn't risen high enough to use technology for higher purposes - such as economic and ecological sustainability. The current stage of human consciousness is primarily using technology for war, personal/group power, exploitation and corporate profits. Peter Joseph describes the model nicely:

That would mean the cases have merit. If there are legitimate claims of widespread fraud, then I would support legal proceedings and investigations. Yet there hasn't been any legitimate claims. All of Trump's / GOP claims have either been dismissed or ruled against Trump / GOP. I also support improved election security and integrity - that is a key component of democracy. Yet keep in mind, the Senate Republicans have blocked every election security proposal.

The issues are being settled in court right now. The courts have decided that every claim of mass fraud has no merit. Trump's own lawyers have admitted in court that they have no evidence. Republican-appointed judges have thrown out cases as frivolous and have warned lawyers that they may face sanctions if they continue to bring frivolous cases to court. Law firms have bailed on Trump because they have no case. The courts have already settled that there is evidence.

Especially mid-size green cities with a University like Austin TX, Santa Cruz CA, Ann Arbor MI, Boulder CO, Eugene OR, Madison WI etc. Lots of people want to live there and it drives cost of living way up.

It could be framed such that the vaccine will eliminate the need for lockdowns. The whole point of the vaccine is to prevent lockdowns and get back to normal. It would be like telling a child "You can't leave the house until you take your medicine". That is incentive for the child to take the medicine.

You describe yourself as a legit pro candidate, which would open up the opportunity of getting full-ride scholarship to a DI school. That would give you another four years of development without having to worry about finances. And a D1 level of competition could give you an idea of your chances in playing BB in a league that pays enough to pay the bills. And depending on the college / Uni - you could do some coursework related to your secondary life purpose.

The government will need to be careful how they present it and if it comes across as "forced". Biden and Democrats will likely be on board. Trump has been hyping a vaccine for months and took experimental drugs when he had covid. Trump has been pro corporate pharmaceutical. So at this point, most Trumpers won't have a *strong* revulsion to a vaccine. Yet this could change if Trump and republicans want to be antagonistic and turn into a unified party of anti-vaxxer, anti-science etc. Yet then it will leak that those same Republicans and their family members are getting the vaccine. I think if the government and the medical community comes across as transparent, I think 65%+ would volunteer for the vaccine. In the U.S. the majority of people think vaccines have done more good than harm. And most people want to protect themselves from covid - especially older people.

65% seems like a reasonable estimate if the vaccine is voluntary. That would be high enough to have a significant effect. I would also add in people that identify as having a health issue and have anxiety about a vaccine. Yet they might also have anxiety about getting coronavirus - so this group could go both ways.

I can definitely see governments taking this approach. In an altruistic sense, it would help to eliminate the virus. If only 60% of the population got vaccinated, restricting the 40% without immunity would help reduce the RO. I can see various agencies and employers creating policies that make the vaccine mandatory, unless there is a health exemption and possibly restricting movement. I could also see people getting 'marked' as being vaccinated. I suppose this could be used for nefarious purposes, yet it can also be altruistic. For example, not being able to walk into a store without a face mask is a good thing. It is good for society at large, since it reduces coronavirus spread. Anti-maskers tend to be anti-science and hyper libertarian. In general, I don't think identifying people as vaccinated and giving them greater access until the coronavirus is under control is that problematic. I think there are other areas of greater concern in government over-reach. I would put widespread use of facial recognition as much more potentially dangerous for government over-reach.

I used a simplistic binary explanation for "effective". It is a spectrum of effectiveness as well as timing. The RO contagion for any virus will decrease the more people that are protected via vaccination. The higher the RO contagion, the higher % of people that need to be vaccinated for a significant effect. Once the RO is under 1.0, it's considered "under control", yet there is still the risk of it mutating and evading the vaccination. The coronavirus will evolve to survive the vaccine, so the higher the % of vaccinated, the better (assuming low vaccine risk). The coronavirus has an RO of about 2.5 (without mitigation). From what I've read in this area, 50% of the population vaccinated + 10% infected would have a significant effect - it is essentially creating "social distancing" since only 40% are at risk. Yet I doubt yet I doubt it would be enough to "get back to normal", especially large gathering. Imagine sporting events or concerts with 20,000+ in close proximity. That is 8,000 people at risk. Yet in other contexts, like restaurants it would be much harder for the virus to spread. There is also the issue of eradicating the virus quickly since the virus has the potential to mutate and develop new resistance to the vaccine. If only 50% of the population gets vaccinated, we could likely return to almost normal (except for very large gatherings), yet a low rate of coronavirus could persist for a while. If it mutates into a new strain resistant to the vaccine - it could start spreading again since people would be immune (or would have partial immunity). Yet scientists know this and are preparing for it. I used the 90% number as the high end. 90% vaccinated is highly effective up to a RO of around 12. If 90% of a population got vaccinated with a vaccine that is 94% effective - the current strains of coronavirus would be nearly eliminated within a month (in that population).

In terms of profit motives for pharmaceutical industries, developing vaccines is not a money-maker. The big profits are generating medication for chronic illness that people need to take daily the rest of their lives - and then fight to extend patents and raise drug costs. Covid vaccination is an exception since it is a global pandemic threatening the structure of economic, healthcare and social systems. There is a lot of government funding going into development of a covid vaccine - as well as intense competition. In a sense, healthy capitalism is good here - yet there is also a price to pay. . . One thing that cannot be accelerated are clinical trials looking at long-term effects. Trials looking at side-effects two years after vaccination take at least two years to complete. There won't be those types of long-term studies for the first generation of covid vaccinations. Another issue will be who has access, hyper capitalism and toxic competition. For example, there will be a profit motive to charge people for the vaccination (even though it was developed with taxpayer dollars). The problem with this is that a high percentage of people need to be vaccinated for it to be developed. So if people say "Why should lazy people on welfare get a free covid vaccination when I have to pay $20 for it" - it shoots society in the foot. As well, which countries will have access to the vaccine? Will this be a situation like Africa not having access to HIV medication since they are so poor? Will countries like the U.S. and U.K. try to claim patent rights on it and deny access to certain countries like China and Syria for political purposes? Will some countries try to harm foreign economies by blocking them vaccine access? Or will we have more global perspective and see that in this context the coronavirus does not respect arbitrary national boundaries drawn on maps? I have some hope, yet I also have my doubts. There is a sense that we are all in the pandemic together, yet there is also a sense of blaming other people and countries. I could see a situation arise similar to climate change in which some politicians in more powerful countries like the U.S. say "We invested $1 trillion in this vaccine. We should we give some countries in Central / South America for free? What's in it for the U.S.?". . . I could definitely see Trump taking this stance. Yet I doubt Biden will. However, I could see corporations resisting production without a profit motive and vaccine assistance to poor countries being delayed for one reason or another". They would just rationalize and minimize it - similar to limiting access of HIV medication. Yet it will may be harder to do since there is so much human traffic between countries. Vaccinated countries would have to ban travel from unvaccinated countries - which I definitely could see Trump doing since it is aligned with nationalism and ethnocentrism. Not so much with Biden though.