Spiral dynamics on COVID political situation

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Consept said:

I understand the green perspective and i get the red perspective, i dont necessarily agree with these perspectives but i think Leos laid this out quite well. If we say that what we currently have now in terms of the pandemic solution is a Blue/Orange (vaccines, lockdown etc) then what would be a red or green solution, as in if there was a green leader in charge who didnt believe in the current course of action what would their solution be? Also how effective would it likely be?

Not all Green is anti-vax. I would say that's a misguided Green. A healthy Green will be pro science and pro vax.

Current gov response is Orange/Green. But not the excessive hippie anti-corpo Green. Biden's response is very correct and about as good as one can expect.

Red was basically the Trump response: how do I make sure this pandemic doesn't make me look bad and lose power. Red will not give a damn about thousands of people dying as long as Red is safe.

1 hour ago, Andrea Marchetti said:

So, what would distinguish here a orange POV from a yellow POV? What an Orange would accept and do in society in regards to the pandemic that a Yellow would not do? Yellow just happens to be in accord with Orange here? On the whole thing?

I don't see much difference. Except Yellow will see a more systemic bigger picture and perhaps better understand the epistemic challenges of the culture wars. Yellow is not going to magically make half the country stop being stupid.

Quote

Because it seems to me that a Yellow POV would understand both sides, accept the limits of science and see how we don't really know what's going to be good for us.

But we know the vaccines are highly effective. If Yellow cannot see that, Yellow is blind.

51 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

@Leo Gura Ever considered that you are the one which mind is twisted a bit?

It's all relative of course.

Quote

Maybe your holistic doctor knows stuff you don´t know?
He basically lives for Health, while you live for Truth? But even that isn´t the case, when I see you on the forum here. You don´t seem to me to be honestly interested in other people´s perspective, you seem to believe your interpretation of reality is always the correct one.

The funny thing about that is, if you don't have truth, you won't have health, since false health isn't really health.

Quote

You talk so much about principles of living the good life, how society is an illusion etc.
But yet you still judge people here a lot, you seem to be super-convinced about so many topics you can´t be certain about.

One of the things about doing lots of this work is that you very quickly see through nonsense.

Quote

For example: How do you actually know if these so-called vaccines are so finger-lickin´ good?
Did you develop them yourself? Study them yourself?
Did you check what else besides the mRNA is inside those new vaccines?
Did you check if the virus theory is correct?
Did you check what´s inside those vaccines?
Did you check what studies weren´t done? How the studies were designed by Pfizer and co.?
How do you know there won´t be any long-term consequences taking an experimental vaccine?
How can you say everyone should take the vaccine, if every body is different?

None of this needs to be known. In the battlefield of life action demands to be taken with imperfect information.

The problem is you are misusing skepticism without being aware that you are doing so. So you think you're being clever but you're not.

You just lack a basic understanding of how life-threatening decisions get made.

When your kid is about to stick his hand on a hot stove, you don't reason or skepticize, you slap his hand away. The state is the parent, the citizens are the children. Children without supervision get themselves killed.

[Preety_India]

There's such a huge anti-Green bias on this forum, my goodness.

 

[BadHippie]

Quote

When your kid is about to stick his hand on a hot stove, you don't reason or skepticize, you slap his hand away. The state is the parent, the citizens are the children. Children without supervision get themselves killed.

Sounds like you would be a good Helicopter-parent to me. Children - if they can develop themselves on their own terms - are pretty aware of their own limits and dangers. 
I know this because my mother is one of the best (of course subjective) pre-school-teachers here in Munich. How many books about education did you read? And about children in general? The neurobiology of how a brain develops? And so on.

I did exactly that as a child (touching a hot stove) and my mother watched me with amusement. Never touched a hot one on purpose again. If you don´t make mistakes you don´t learn. 
 

Quote

None of this needs to be known. In the battlefield of life action demands to be taken with imperfect information.

The problem is you are misusing skepticism without being aware that you are doing so. So you think you're being clever but you're not.

You just lack a basic understanding of how life-threatening decisions get made.

Yeah that´s one way of going at things Good luck with that. 

We are pretty far away from a life-threatening situation to be honest. I would really suggest trying to integrate - at least some - details. 
Sure being able to look at the world objectively is pretty nifty.

But without details you could be the guy going to McDonalds every single day and believing it´s healthy. Or taking the vaccine believing it actually does something for your health.

 

[Leo Gura]

@BadHippie I have nothing more to add to the absurdity your own words reveal.

[Carl-Richard]

34 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

We are pretty far away from a life-threatening situation to be honest. I would really suggest trying to integrate - at least some - details. 

How many new mutants do we need before you realize the reality of the situation? There is nothing stopping a new mutant from being >10x more deadly - only chance.

Edited July 27, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[BadHippie]

Quote

How many new mutants do we need before you realize the reality of the situation? There is nothing stopping a new mutant from being >10x more deadly - only chance.

How are the so called mutant measured? If there is no new test for it?
How do they measure if it is more deadly? You can check the studies and see how people are deceiving themselves. 

Edited July 27, 2021 by BadHippie

[Andrea Marchetti]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But we know the vaccines are highly effective. If Yellow cannot see that, Yellow is blind.

Yes. But effective here means effective against the virus. And effective in keeping you apparently quite safe at the same time. There's still room for doubt for safety on the long term, or side effects nobody is expecting nor looking for, or maybe consequences which are not even noticeable.
Let me frame it this way. As I see it, we're deeply entangled with the whole of nature. We are just the self-conscious top of a huge unconscious activity which is by definition everything other than what is conscious (I'm conscious of my body but I'm not conscious of the internal activity of the plant I have in front of me, ergo, the plant is part of my unconscious and can turn into a self-conscious activity). This is to say we're not psychologically separated from nature. This bind we have is much stronger and powerful than any conscious activity like science or any kind of thinking, since this bind is the totality of life itself. Now, on one hand we have science which suggest us to take some actions. It's rigorous and tries to be coherent in itself, not just like most of opinions, but it's only a small fraction, very partial and humanly finite. On the other hand we have this huge order of life, which express itself in a potentially infinite number of ways, one of these happens to be the human form. In this sense, any kind of human, any kind of value system a human or a society has, any kind of choice a human is taking, is an expression of nature, and this expression must have some truth in it, partial but necessarily true. It might be covered by falsehood, but there must a core of truth, since it's an expression of it. In conclusion, if current science excludes other points of view, then current science excludes parts of the truth, an unconscious, powerful and living truth. If a government, under suggestion of the scientific community, is applying obligations and limitations to any truth different from the one offered by the current scientific paradigma, then it's suppressing living truths, in the form of people and their choices.
To me a Yellow person should see this, and even though he might approve vaccines as the best option available (I'm probably for it as well, but with some doubt about it) he recognise that he's partial, that science is partial, and that the opinions of others are part of a raw, intellectually unelaborated truth, and that judging their opinion by the degree of intellectual elaboration is a bias and it's excluding part of nature, or truth (intuition, instead, plays a big role here). Therefore, no Yellow person, to me, would accept to impose a decision that only a part of a society, even if it's the majority or the most correct, sustains. Simply because Yellow knows he doesn't know how life is going to unfold: what is good today might be terrible tomorrow, and viceversa; and Yellow knows he doesn't comprehend the totality of nature, but remains partial. Nature's intelligence, instead, comprehend it all, because it is it. In society, it express itself as the totality of humans: if there are stupid antivaxxers (or provaxxers) there must a reasons for it, like an ugly piece of puzzle that can't be thrown away, otherwise there would remain a hole. It can't be thrown away anyway, but it can be denied it's there and misrecognised as useless or unimportant.

Edited July 27, 2021 by Andrea Marchetti

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, BadHippie said:

How do they measure if it is more deadly?

Death rates.

[_Archangel_]

1 hour ago, Andrea Marchetti said:

To me a Yellow person should see this, and even though he might approve vaccines as the best option available (I'm probably for it as well, but with some doubt about it) he recognise that he's partial, that science is partial, and that the opinions of others are part of a raw, intellectually unelaborated truth, and that judging their opinion by the degree of intellectual elaboration is a bias and it's excluding part of nature, or truth (intuition, instead, plays a big role here).

@Andrea Marchetti Yes

1 hour ago, Andrea Marchetti said:

Therefore, no Yellow person, to me, would accept to impose a decision that only a part of a society, even if it's the majority or the most correct, sustains.

No. Because You still have to make the best choice for the country, even if this means stepping the toe of a noisy minority(wich is always the case).
what you don't put into the account is that so many poeple are so under developed that you need to impose solutions onto them for the benefit of everybody. That's why we have laws. 

Green pass is good because more poeple will get vaccinated. As a developed country you can't make the vaccine mandatory as it would be too authoritarian, but at the same time you can't afford a low percentage of vaccinated citizens. As you've said, the alternative is no Green Pass and risking a new lockdown, atleast in Italy.





 

[Guest Tobia]

15 hours ago, _Archangel_ said:

@Andrea Marchetti 
Green pass is good because more poeple will get vaccinated. As a developed country you can't make the vaccine mandatory as it would be too authoritarian, but at the same time you can't afford a low percentage of vaccinated citizens. As you've said, the alternative is no Green Pass and risking a new lockdown, atleast in Italy.
 

@_Archangel_ absolute BS.  The green pass will probably be extended to public transport, school and supermarkets which makes the vaccine practically mandatory.

It is a cowardly way to mandate it indirectly without taking full responsibility for the decision.

Not only responsibility for the people who are damaged by the drug but also for the violent reaction of the 10-15million italians who will opposite it strongly.

Any authoritarian, violent decision can be justified with "safety" and "the public is too dumb to choose for itself".

For public safety, let's prohibit mosques and muslims to enter supermarkets.

Let's ban from voting all people who are not brainwashed by a university and have a degree.

Anything is justifiable. Open a history book and learn something.

No generation of italians has thrown freedom in the toilet so naively, so foolishly as ours.

[Consept]

1 minute ago, Tobia said:

Any authoritarian, violent decision can be justified with "safety" and "the public is too dumb to choose for itself".

The thing here though is that you're making an assumption people will make the best choices for themselves. Take Coca-Cola for example, it's been one of the most popular drinks for the last 100+ years. Is it responsible for the government to allow the same sugar content which will mess up peoples health, lead to numerous diseases etc in the name of freedom? Or is it more responsible to reduce the sugar or even ban the drinks as this will definitely save lives? 

It's not a simple choice as people will complain either way, so I guess as long as people are complaining you might as well save their lives. Either way I don't buy into this thing that everyone's going to make the best choice, not only for them but society, we're not even close to that level of consciousness on a wider scale. 

[Guest Tobia]

@Consept Allowing the goverment to ban coca cola is a dangerous choice because it implies that the goverment can be trusted to choose what is healthy and what is not.

Does the government deserve that trust? Absolutely not.

Freedom of choice is dangerous but the lack of it is way more dangerous in the long term.

For short term increased safety, is it worth it to allow the the goverment to divide the population in 2 categories and placing one of them under house arrest? 

No green pass? Can't take the train to work. Can't even get a job. Can't go shop.

Very dangerous game the italian government is playing right now

 

[Consept]

2 hours ago, Tobia said:

Allowing the goverment to ban coca cola is a dangerous choice because it implies that the goverment can be trusted to choose what is healthy and what is not.

Does the government deserve that trust? Absolutely not.

I get what you're saying but then how far do you go with this? Should we be allowed not to wear seat belts? Which of this wasn't a law millions would most likely die. What about enforcing protective equipment for cycling or even having rules for the road, all these things could be seen as a nanny state in which the government purports to know better but bottom line is millions of lives are being saved. 

Also the very idea that we have any freedom is only possible because the government has immense security, laws and structure. If that wasn't in place there wouldn't anything stopping someone running into your house taking everything you have and beating the crap out of you. You having any freedom is specifically due to government of which you are also free to buy land off and live off grid not taking or giving anything to them. 

Imagine you were the leader of say Italy and they said to you, 'experts have told us that Coca-Cola consumption will be the cause of 2 million deaths over the next 10 years, if we significantly lower the sugar content we can save all these people, however there could be protests and people won't be happy about us choosing their sugar content because they want freedom to choose'. Would you give them that free choice knowing you're condemning so many people to death?

[cookiemonster]

16 minutes ago, Consept said:

Imagine you were the leader of say Italy and they said to you, 'experts have told us that Coca-Cola consumption will be the cause of 2 million deaths over the next 10 years, if we significantly lower the sugar content we can save all these people, however there could be protests and people won't be happy about us choosing their sugar content because they want freedom to choose'. Would you give them that free choice knowing you're condemning so many people to death?

 

Out of curiosity, where would you draw the line on this?

For example, imagine a powerful think-tank had concluded that the global population had reached catastrophically dangerous levels, and that in just 100 years every single human on the planet would be dead. There is a small window of opportunity to reverse this which involves exterminating 75% of the global population to save a remaining 25%. Otherwise the human race becomes extinct. 

Would you let the human race die out in total? If not, how would you go about performing the exterminations? Would you be open about it, or would it involve deception?

It's just a theoretic exercise, but have a think about it. It's worth contemplating.

[Andrea Marchetti]

46 minutes ago, Consept said:

Imagine you were the leader of say Italy and they said to you, 'experts have told us that Coca-Cola consumption will be the cause of 2 million deaths over the next 10 years, if we significantly lower the sugar content we can save all these people, however there could be protests and people won't be happy about us choosing their sugar content because they want freedom to choose'. Would you give them that free choice knowing you're condemning so many people to death?

I don't get this analogy with Coca Cola. More conscious people do stop buying shit for themselves. If other people like Coca Cola it's their choice - and I'm sure they're informed enough, since health campaigns against sugared drinks are a long story by now, and even if they were not informed their bodies know what's good for them. Maybe they even really need to drink shit for their personal and spiritual growth.
It's true though that this analogy works with the vaccine: it all reduces down to a personal choice, since there's no threat to others if one chooses to refuse the vaccine (it doesn't block the contagion). And Coca Cola is legit, so this analogy is in favour of free choice in regards to the vaccine. 

44 minutes ago, cookiemonster said:

For example, imagine a powerful think-tank had concluded that the global population had reached catastrophically dangerous levels, and that in just 100 years every single human on the planet would be dead. There is a small window of opportunity to reverse this which involves exterminating 75% of the global population to save a remaining 25%. Otherwise the human race becomes extinct. 

Would you let the human race die out in total? If not, how would you go about performing the exterminations? Would you be open about it, or would it involve deception?

I'm for killing the 75% and probably be open about it. But I don't have the courage to do such a thing, if it was my choice. So I would probably let the decision to others and fight for my own life. Maybe, being in charge, I would say to people go on your own and survive as much as you can. The thought experiment doesn't work really well with overpopulation though, because the problem would disappear when the population decreases under a certain value.

[Consept]

1 hour ago, cookiemonster said:

 

Out of curiosity, where would you draw the line on this?

For example, imagine a powerful think-tank had concluded that the global population had reached catastrophically dangerous levels, and that in just 100 years every single human on the planet would be dead. There is a small window of opportunity to reverse this which involves exterminating 75% of the global population to save a remaining 25%. Otherwise the human race becomes extinct. 

Would you let the human race die out in total? If not, how would you go about performing the exterminations? Would you be open about it, or would it involve deception?

It's just a theoretic exercise, but have a think about it. It's worth contemplating.

Im not really saying i know exactly where the line is and I am very glad i dont have to make such decisions. My main point is that its not a binary choice of there should be no government control or there should be full government control. The assertion has been made that complete free choice for the individual is paramount over having laws or policies that protect the majority sometimes from themselves. Also keep in mind if there isnt a sign on the road saying how fast you can go or if all the ingredients arent printed on a bottle of coca cola, the individual will sue the company for negligence. So its like the governments is screwed either way.

Regarding your thought exercise, it is an extreme one but of course if the human race would become extinct youd have to do whatever it takes really and most likely it would have to involve deception as people wouldnt be willing to just give up their life. Of course youd exhaust every other possibility. 

59 minutes ago, Andrea Marchetti said:

I don't get this analogy with Coca Cola. More conscious people do stop buying shit for themselves. If other people like Coca Cola it's their choice - and I'm sure they're informed enough, since health campaigns against sugared drinks are a long story by now, and even if they were not informed their bodies know what's good for them. Maybe they even really need to drink shit for their personal and spiritual growth.
It's true though that this analogy works with the vaccine: it all reduces down to a personal choice, since there's no threat to others if one chooses to refuse the vaccine (it doesn't block the contagion). And Coca Cola is legit, so this analogy is in favour of free choice in regards to the vaccine. 

The analogy is to say that would people still do something thats significantly bad for their health despite warnings and information, in the case of cola, cigarettes, alcohol, whatever, the answer is a resounding yes, these companies are some of the biggest and most profitable in the world. 

But i think what your missing is this idea of freedom that you have, it literally would not exist without government control. Its not like youre completely free and government are just annoying and getting in the way, you are free, at least more than ever before, because of government control. Theres no real way around this. Saddam Hussein was obviously a red strongman, dictator, but he had a good amount of control over Iraq. When he was taken out did everyone enjoy the freedom that was expected, well no, there was no control and order which meant anyone could do anything and that turned into a mess. The control we have today is more Orange/Green meaning that its no where near as bad as either a red dictatorship or our society if there was no control. 

[cookiemonster]

1 hour ago, Andrea Marchetti said:

I'm for killing the 75% and probably be open about it. But I don't have the courage to do such a thing, if it was my choice. So I would probably let the decision to others and fight for my own life. Maybe, being in charge, I would say to people go on your own and survive as much as you can. The thought experiment doesn't work really well with overpopulation though, because the problem would disappear when the population decreases under a certain value.

 

20 minutes ago, Consept said:

Regarding your thought exercise, it is an extreme one but of course if the human race would become extinct youd have to do whatever it takes really and most likely it would have to involve deception as people wouldnt be willing to just give up their life. Of course youd exhaust every other possibility. 

 

Interesting perspectives. Thanks.

[_Archangel_]

@Tobia

8 hours ago, Tobia said:

The green pass will probably be extended to public transport, school and supermarkets which makes the vaccine practically mandatory.

speculation

8 hours ago, Tobia said:

Not only responsibility for the people who are damaged by the drug but also for the violent reaction of the 10-15million italians who will opposite it strongly.

yes, 6-7  poeple will die,  but millions will be saved, i guess we can risk it.

9 hours ago, Tobia said:

Any authoritarian, violent decision can be justified with "safety"

If it wasn't for all the countermesures that where  imposed on the citizens by now there would be catacombs all over.

9 hours ago, Tobia said:

and "the public is too dumb to choose for itself"

nonetheless that's not so far from real.

9 hours ago, Tobia said:

For public safety, let's prohibit mosques and muslims to enter supermarkets.

 

perfect comparison

9 hours ago, Tobia said:

Let's ban from voting all people who are not brainwashed by a university and have a degree.

Anything is justifiable. Open a history book and learn something.

No generation of italians has thrown freedom in the toilet so naively, so foolishly as ours.

great analysis

[thisintegrated]

On 27/07/2021 at 5:45 PM, Preety_India said:

There's such a huge anti-Green bias on this forum, my goodness.

W-What?!?

This is by FAR the most pro-Green forum I've been on.

[Preety_India]

Just now, thisintegrated said:

W-What?!?

This is by FAR the most pro-Green forum I've been on.

Not up to my expectations.