"Nothing will change, the Democratic party is corrupt."

"True. So what should be done?"

"What kind of question is that?"

lol

Talk about "substance" from a guy who couldn't answer a simple question of action. What a shocker.

Your posturing is fantastic, though. We're all very impressed.

If only the Sunrise Movement was as hopeless and lazy as you. Stupid kids.

Still can't answer a simple question, as I suspected. Why? Because it's much easier to posture about truisms while sitting on your ass doing nothing.

The CEPP program was a sensible one. There was a lot of activism involved, especially by younger people (the Sunrise Movement, etc), to even get these proposals considered. That, according to you, was a misguided waste of time, because no one except an apologist/cheerleader for the democratic party would believe there was any chance of it passing. What a fantastic message.

For those following along, notice how convenient this is. Take action and you're delusional, because nothing will change -- what needs to change is our beliefs.

I say: let's assume the beliefs are changed, now what?

Not a word. More repeating of the same lines. "Fraud." "Apologist." "Cheerleader." Yeah, yeah. Typical diversion from those who haven't the slightest clue as to how to proceed, have no solutions or plans (because that would entail real work), and would rather posture.

You're the biggest fraud here without realizing it. Go read more Zizek.

What’s the alternative I’m missing in terms of action?
— Xtrix

What kind of question is this in response to what I wrote? — StreetlightX

You mean your non-answer to a question I’ve repeated twice.

peddle the idea that the chief impediment to progress is not the democratic party as such, but just a couple of rogue elements here and there which can be brought to heel with some activism here and there. — StreetlightX

No.

It is deliberate. — StreetlightX

People speak of Biden being "forced to water-down" this or that bill. Please. He does it with joy. — StreetlightX

You figured this all out already. Well done.

It's disappointing to those who had any expectation it would be allowed to pass by the democrats at all. — StreetlightX

So it was inevitable that the CEPP program wouldn’t pass — so why bother? Stupid activists.

I keep telling you, and you keep displacing the issue. This very vocabulary is the problem. — StreetlightX

No, you keep repeating lazy, easy, obvious claims about the corruption of the Democratic Party, as if you’ve stumbled upon a grand insight.

The democratic party is a hostile agent, — StreetlightX

Riveting.

As if I haven’t been saying this for years.

70 years of rightward drift of which democrats have been exemplary lubricants and people have the gall to think it is 'adolescent' to call out this utter bullshit for what it is and to ask that people stop lapping up the orchestrated cycles. — StreetlightX

Yeah you’re really doing God’s work. What I was asking for, sincerely, is a plan of action given the situation. We know democrats are bought by corporate interests, and not on our side — indeed. So given this situation, what is to be done?

Apparently to keep railing about how democrats are a hostile entity, and vocabulary. Yes, that is adolescent (pardon the accuracy).

Anyone who tells anyone else that unless they believe in the democratic party, they 'lack hope', can walk into the ocean and never come back out of sheer embarrassment. — StreetlightX

Agreed.

I’ve never once suggested that.

Don't you dare lecture me about hope and cynicism — StreetlightX

No lectures. A fairly simple question which you evidently can’t answer. All the smoke that’s been blown doesn’t change it.

We gotta keep looking (and pushing) at the bright side, yes, cynicism only guarantees the worst possible situation as it just leads either to apathy or to pointless rage, in which one rails against everything while the world keeps humming along. — Manuel

Which is also very easy. What’s hard is organizing with others, taking collective action, protesting in the streets (which I hate), using the courts, registering voters, educating people, raising money, corresponding with state and local leaders, getting involved in local government, sitting on boards, crafting proposals, creating petitions and referenda, etc.

Much easier to be cynical. This way you can appear to be above all the silly “activism”— with the added benefit of having to do nothing except sit on your ass, read books, and write some comments on the Internet. Political hobbyism 101.

Feels great; accomplishes nothing. For those living in the real world, and want to do something — however small — the best thing to do is ignore such people. They don’t have a single solution in their heads anyway.

It will be such a mystery how this keeps happening! — StreetlightX

When a senator who receives the most money from fossil fuel, gets 500K in coal dividends, and is from West Virginia, vehemently opposes a sensible climate proposal— there’s no mystery to that at all.

and it wasn't Manchin, it would be someone else. — StreetlightX

For the CEPP program—who, exactly? Not Sinema— she’s bought by a different special interest. Perhaps Tester, being from Montana. But be specific— who do you have in mind? Markey? Bernie? King?

Or we can keep it to the easy realm of “they’re all the same”, and can therefore avoid the burdensome task of understanding something slightly more complicated.

Give us your plan.
— Xtrix

The first step is to stop perpetuating harm by buying into these hand-fed narratives. — StreetlightX

Which I already mentioned was the hope that’s been realized. The narrative for which you speak is not what I believe. So with that out of the way…

It is an active harm to continue to act as if the democrats are not against any sense of progress by matter of design. It provides cover and provides a guarantee that they will continue to be a wholly corporate owned party that occasionally will rename a street in honor of BLM. — StreetlightX

Right. Agreed…

The narrative you buy into and feed - which the democrats in turn have fed you themselves - is itself a harm. — StreetlightX

I buy into no such narrative. You won’t find it in anything I’ve written in the last two years on this forum. I think the person stuck on this narrative is yourself, frankly, as it’s the easiest strawman to attack. If you need to paint me as a DNC apologist, again that’s your own business.

What you 'push for,' actively makes things worse, by enabling worse conditions. — StreetlightX

Well let’s be specific. What I am especially pushing for is action on climate change. The CEPP program was a good one — though not by any means sufficient. You don’t have to take my word for it, simply read what others are saying about it — choose any credible source you like.

Okay, so that’s something worth getting into law. Without pushing for this now, who knows when the next chance will be for anything close to meaningful at the federal level. So we should all pressure our elected officials to pass this — many ways to do so.

It’s failed, and that’s disappointing. If it passed, would it have made things worse? There are other provisions in the bill, as well — $550 billion for various climate initiatives, none of which would be a reality if it weren’t for activism, and certainly not if Trump got a second term. Is this “worse”?

If pushing for these policies makes things worse, in the end, then that would be terrible indeed. So again I ask: assuming this is true, that I’ve bought into a “spoon fed narrative” and that what I push for makes things worse, what is your plan? What’s the alternative I’m missing in terms of action?

I’m still all ears.

Now we face the prospects of the damn Republicans tearing the WORLD apart for money. It's bloody difficult when only one party does a little for the people, and the other one nothing but destroy. — Manuel

The Republican Party has now gone completely off the rails. The moderate Republicans (the Democratic Party) are all that’s left. But there are also plenty of signs of progress compared to even 15 years ago— adolescent cynicism aside.

No - in fact, it makes Manchin all the better for dupes to train their hate at. — StreetlightX

There’s nothing to be “duped” about. I’m talking about a specific program which he fought against, for obvious reasons. There are other interests in play. Sinema, for example, has fought against negotiating drug prices, for obvious reasons.

The climate program was sensible, and it was destroyed by fossil fuel interests. Yes, most democrats are bought by corporate interests — no kidding. Not all corporate interests are fossil fuel interests.

I have hope because I believe not utterly everyone will buy into democrat bullshit. — StreetlightX

Wonderful. No one on the thread, least of all me, has argued the democrats (or Biden) are our saviors, haven’t been bought off by corporate interests, aren’t motivated by money and power, or any of the other utterly obvious points you seem so reluctant to believe anyone but you has discovered.

So your hope is a reality. If you refuse to see it, that’s your business. Now what? Stay home? Tear it all down? Give us your plan. I’m genuinely curious. But it has to be more than absolutely trivial points about capitalism and political duopoly.

Until that’s given, I’ll continue pushing for better policies in the world we have, which unfortunately is a two-party system largely owned by corporate interests in a state capitalist system, with the ultimate goal of destroying capitalism AND the state (which is way, way off and will almost certainly not happen in our lifetimes).

If you have better suggestions in the meantime, I’m all ears.

They will vote for the bill and have stated so publically because the likes of Manchin will not. — StreetlightX

Who did you have in mind, exactly? Tester? Who else? Who else is hiding behind Manchin? Possibly a handful. But the majority of Democrats supported the CEPP, and for good reason. Do you believe it a coincidence that the person fighting the hardest against it happens to be the biggest recipient of fossil fuel contributions? Or does this question not matter when you're interested only in making sweeping (and easy) generalizations?

And then people like you, fed your little dose of psuedo-hope, like the morphine addicted rat pulling at the lever, continue beliving that the democratic party is being compromised by exogenous forces, rather than coordinating to get the best possible results for their corporate sponsors at every point. — StreetlightX

Is this what I believe?

You're right in one respect: I am hopeful. But I don't see an alternative. If you're correct, and it's all hopeless -- fine. We'll find out one way or another. In the mean time, I'll choose to keep doing as much as I can.

It's like an abusive relationship: "he'll do better next time I swear!". Girl, he won't. — StreetlightX

Man, wake the fuck up. You're not the only cynic here.

My answer to this will be much the same as for several other questions around the fora at present: philosophy concerns itself primary with conceptual clarification. — Banno

It can be, if we want to define it as primarily concerned with conceptual clarification. Then we can go on from there. But that pretty much ignores how I think of it, and everything I wrote -- which I think is a better way of looking at philosophy.

Taking the 200,000 number as an exact date for behaviorally modern humans' emergence (for the sake of simplicity), and then reminding ourselves that writing wasn't invented until roughly 5,000 years ago (3,200 BC), it leads to a question: what was happening during those 195 thousand years of our existence? What were we thinking?
— Xtrix

I would extend that even further. Chalmers leans towards defining consciousness as a fundamental property of reality. He says "It would be odd for a fundamental property to be instantiated for the first time only relatively late in the history of the universe." I agree. If consciousness "is" at all, it has been around for a very long time.... — Pantagruel

But I didn't mention consciousness, I mentioned thinking -- and here especially language. We don't really know anything about consciousness, but we know something about language -- and there's no reason I see to believe language has been around for a "very long time" before behaviorally modern humans emerged. You can double the numbers if you like, it makes little difference -- it's still a blip in history.

I take your comment however, and consciousness is something that's otherwise worth speculating about.

More like 70,000 years. From the hard evidence we currently have. Maybe 200,000 but we don't know for sure if they were 'the same'. — I like sushi

Yeah, there's debate about the exact dates, of course. It varies from a low range of 50 to 100 thousand years to 100/200 thousand years. I'm talking there about behavioral modernity, especially language -- which is a species property.

The commonality is the requirement for a sense of world (weltanschauung), axis mundi or, simply put, an anchor by which we can feel grounded. No anchor, no reality and no sense of life. — I like sushi

Exactly. And so no philosophy and no science. I think you've stated it better than me.

The common feature of all of these is that they necessarily operate within a community of humans and therefore seem to express something about what humans are/do. — I like sushi

Indeed.

The heart of the religious questioning (in my mind) is that of ontology. — I like sushi

I would argue the heart of questioning is ontological.

Religion is more about reinforcing the foundations of our cosmological view, science is more about exploring it and philosophy is about questioning it. All approaches are void without the others. — I like sushi

I see where you're going here, in terms of emphasis, but again I think at the heart of this is being -- the human being -- and that means thinking/language, perception, and questioning. Which all presupposes existence.

The reason for the lockdowns is nothing to do with protecting the vaccinated. It is to stop hospitals from being overwhelmed. Which is not a good reason to make people get vaccinated, for the reasons I explained. — Bartricks

It's not solely for either reason.

Not doing so threatens the health of yourself and others who have made the same choice. It doesn't threaten - not in any serious way - the health of the vaccinated. — Bartricks

It still threatens the health of the vaccinated, and increases the likelihood of variants.

We've been over this again and again, for months. The fact that these lines keep getting repeated is simply a matter of willful ignorance at this point.

The odds of dying from COVID are very small in either case overall, but much more likely for the unvaccinated.

It is ludicrous to cite the tiny minority who can't get vaccinated - that's like arguing that peanuts should be banned because a tiny minority have a deadly allergy to them. — Bartricks

It's nothing like that at all.

What about the fact that unvaccinated people will clog up the hospitals? Well, the site of the injustice there - if injustice there be (and there isn't) - lies with the hospitals and their admission procedures, not with those who have decided not to get vaccinated. — Bartricks

No, it lies with the unvaccinated, who are choosing not to take a safe and effective vaccine for no rational reason whatsoever, but rather because this issue has become politicized.

"Manchin is owned by the fossil fuel industry" - yeah Manchin is owned by the fossil fuel industry, uh huh, the rest of them are green eco-warriors held back by the forces of Manchin darkness. — StreetlightX

I haven't said that nor implied it. But they are willing to vote for the bill, and have stated so publicly -- including the CEPP. It's worth mentioning that Manchin makes 500K from coal dividends annually and is #1 in the senate for fossil fuel contributions received -- quite an achievement. Doesn't make him the only "bad guy," and doesn't absolve the rest of Democratic party -- and certainly doesn't mean the rest are "eco-warriors." But certainly a very different situation from Sanders or Markey or Coons or Duckworth, etc.

If we want to be serious about this, it's worth following closely, to see where we need to work. If we want to pretend there aren't differences between Republicans and Democrats, or pretend that all Democrats are the same, etc., then we might as well give up and stay home -- it's hopeless. I have no interest in doing so, but you're welcome to it.

It is unbelievably depressing. — Wayfarer

But not surprising.

Who gives a fuck if your laughing all the way to the bank if your daughter and/or grandkids are totally fucked. Because, baring a massive change, they will be. — Manuel

Yeah. It's not even the greed or corruption -- that's obvious. But do we have to bring the planet and future generations down as well? Can't you find someone else's bribes to take?

I wonder if I'm just in some echo chamber like a conservative Q idiot listening to Joe Rogan and whatnot. — James Riley

Always worth asking. It comes down, in the end, to who we choose to listen to, critical thinking, and judgment. That comes from years of practice, and can't even be taught formally (in my view).

Looks like Prime Minister Manchin will get just about everything he wants. What a shocker.

As a summary:

* $6 trillion originally proposed.
* Trimmed to $3.5 trillion (over ten years). That's $350 billion a year. We spent $700 billion on defense contracts a year.
* Now down to $1.75 trillion, and being watered down even further.

Some of the ways to pay for it (which aren't even necessary, but which the Prime Minister cares about):

* Raising taxes on the corporate sector and the wealthy. -- That's out. Blocked by Manchin and Sinema.
* A billionaire's tax. -- That's out. Blocked by Manchin and Sinema.
* More money to the IRS to go after tax cheats. -- That's out. Blocked by Manchin and Sinema.

The world is currently on fire, and will get worse every for for decades. This is literally our last best chance to accomplish anything about it. So, regarding climate:

* A clean energy program, advocated for by climate scientists the world over. -- That's out. Blocked by Manchin.
* A carbon tax, advocated by thousands of economists on the left and right. -- That's out. Blocked by Manchin.
* Legislation for plugging methane leaks. -- That's out. Blocked by Manchin.
* Currently $550 billion proposed for tax incentives. -- That'll be out soon, just give it time. It'll be blocked by Manchin (or greatly reduced).

Manchin is owned by the fossil fuel industry.

So there you have it, folks.

Maybe insurrection isn't that bad after all. I think I get it now.

This will be long winded. But it's an interesting topic.

What's labeled religion, philosophy, and science, all have common features. They're usually separated, sometimes strictly, but they share very basic human questions.

From a historical point of view, these questions have predated any "religions" we think of today, ancient/modern philosophy and certainly modern science.

Human beings have been around for roughly 200 thousand years. Around this time they developed the capacity for thought and for language. This is what has traditionally been said to separate them from other primates, and from animals in general -- "reason" and "speech" (ratio, logos).

Thinking, language, speech, words -- all this predates writing, and so if we take history to mean written history, it is all "prehistoric."

I think this is all obvious, but sets the stage for a possible answer to your questions.

Taking the 200,000 number as an exact date for behaviorally modern humans' emergence (for the sake of simplicity), and then reminding ourselves that writing wasn't invented until roughly 5,000 years ago (3,200 BC), it leads to a question: what was happening during those 195 thousand years of our existence? What were we thinking?

It's all surmise. But we know these people buried their dead, created cave art, and had complex tools. I would assume they told stories, and shared myths and legends -- perhaps especially about ancestors. They likely all had "gods," but in the sense of animism. They had rites and rituals, danced, chanted, and sang. They had ideas about themselves and about their worlds. They asked questions and gave themselves the best answers they could conjure up -- about the plants and animals, the soil, the stars, the weather, sickness and birth and death.

This all predates anything we usually mean by "religion" or "philosophy." Yet for the majority of our time on earth, as a species, these were the phenomena that occupied our cognitive faculties -- when we weren't wandering, hunting and gathering (which is to say, pretty rarely).

Jump forward to the ancient world of Sumer, and read the Epic of Gilgamesh. Read some of the writings out of Egypt. All deal with death, life, birth. These are human concerns and human questions.

By the time we get to Greece, and the "love of wisdom," a new tradition is laid out. Same humans, similar questions, just formulated in a new way and in a new culture. From there we have the origin and foundations of Western thought.

That's the context I like to think of when trying to answer these questions. To summarize:
(1) We're human beings, and we sometimes think.
(2) Sometimes this thinking is concerned with universal questions.
(3) These questions are called philosophical.

(4) So philosophy is a kind of thinking -- a kind that asks universal questions.

What are these universal questions? What does philosophy ask? The same as many religions'.

In my view, one core question is "Why does anything exists at all?" (or, "What is existence/being?"), and both what we call "philosophy" and what we call "religion" asks (and answers) it, tacitly or explicitly. It's unavoidable.

When asked explicitly, many answers have been given and are well-known. In Plato, being was the Forms, ultimately the "Form of the Good" -- the permanent and eternal as opposed to mere seeming and becoming. In the Christian tradition, being is God. Modern science also has an answer: nature (translated from the Latin natura, from the Greek phusis -- which is also where we get "physics", considered the fundamental science).

But this is all a boring and pointless talk about history, etymology, abstraction, and soaring speculation, which should be as relevant to us and our personal, everyday concerns as a mathematical theorem is -- that is, if it weren't for the following fact: along with answers to the question "What is existence/what is being?" there comes an answer to the question "What is a human being?"

"What is a human being?" What can be more relevant to us? It's often the basis for what's considered a "good" life (i.e., the question "What should I do with my life?"), and so ethics and morality; for proposals about how to organize society -- and so the basis for politics; and for claims about human nature -- and so the basis for humanity's goals and about the future of the species ("Where are we going?").

Answers to these questions have come from both philosophy and religion. Human beings are zoon echon logon, creatures of God, the res cogitans, homo sapien sapien, etc. We're the rational animal, the primate with language, souls with God-given reason, a mind/body, and so on.

How you characterize human beings has considerable impacts on what they do, individually and collectively. These characterizations are based on answers to basic human questions, whether philosophical or religious.

So yes, from a certain point of view they're operating in the same dimension -- and so neither can truly "replace" the other.

So just an update. The old Republican line whenever anything remotely beneficial to the common good gets proposed: "How are we going to pay for it?"

That's what the Republican senators Sinema and Manchin are essentially saying, as well. So all kinds of proposals have been put forward: raise the corporate tax rate -- that's out. So the Dems propose a wealth tax -- that's out. So they narrow it down and propose a billionaire's tax -- and now that's likely out. They want to give the IRS more power to collect taxes due from tax cheats like the very wealthy and corporations -- that's out.

So in other words: we don't have the money to pay for this, because we reject any proposals to pay for it -- and because we can't pay for it (thanks to us), we can't accept it, and it has to either be pared down or cut outright.

Meanwhile, we spend $7 trillion dollars on defense contracts over the same period. But $3.5 trillion is unacceptable. Imagine that for a moment.

So it's not a matter of money in the first place -- or the debt, or the deficit. It's about not wanting these POPULAR programs to pass in the first place. Why? Because these senators are BOUGHT by special interests like the fossil fuel industry (Manchin) and Big Pharma (Sinema). So obvious a 2nd grader could understand it.

Maybe the human species deserves to die off?

Perhaps. But if we go, I'd like to go fighting at least.

We're running out of time. It would be nice if the 2030 date got pushed back, but nature is speaking. It will be interesting/horrifying to see (if one is alive) what these countries and companies will be spewing out circa 2025 or so. — Manuel

They'll hang on to the bitter end. Look at where we are in the US congress. After this year (and many others before it) of wildfires, draughts, flooding, hurricanes, and billions of dollars spent on these disasters, over 99% of climate scientists saying time is running out, the IPCC saying we've already wasted so much time that much climate change is already locked in, the Lancet saying climate change is the biggest health threat to the world, the defense department saying it's the greatest security risk, oil companies admitting it's a huge threat, documents showing Exxon's own researchers knew what was happening back in the 80s, etc. etc. etc. -- what is the result?

The result is that the meager efforts to slash emissions -- the clean electricity program -- gets cut because of one senator who makes $500 thousand a year in dividends from a coal company. So they propose a carbon tax -- that gets cuts. And this is from a guy who claims he "listens to the science" and wants to "do something" to lower emissions. It's something you would expect in 1991, and it would have been ridiculous then. 30 years later, with the signs all around us and nearly everyone in the world in agreement that time is running out, and this is still where we're at.

So clearly it's going to come down to the people, as always. If we don't wake up and organize, and either violently overthrow the government (which won't happen) or vote these people out while focusing on our local situations, we'll waste even more time. I see younger people getting off their asses, which is good -- but the fact that the Republican party, still a party of climate denial, has even the possibility of being elected anywhere in the US is probably the death knell. Who knows.

I would imagine they want to be seen to be doing something, so some tokenistic outcomes will probably be initiated. — Tom Storm

Yeah -- see above. There'll be nothing done -- just words.

It doesn't matter what governments decide that much because they have limited power and I don't see people anywhere that people are willing to give up their freedom today for something they cannot fathom happening tomorrow. — I like sushi

People not only are bad at planning for the future, especially when it makes the present more inconvenient, but they're also inundated with climate denial and misinformation, and have been for years. True, over 60% or so of the US thinks climate change is a serious issue, but they've not prioritized it enough -- and that number is already much too low. And that's because of the Republican party and their media, especially the Koch brothers big push in the late 2000s.

I don't have any faith in the US government but from the US the billionaires who are actually humanitarian may be enough to counterbalance the stulted nature of the government in this area. — I like sushi

Maybe. We have Bill Gates and Larry Fink and maybe a handful of others. But I'm not sure that'll be enough. We need the Fed involved in all this as well, and thus monetary policy, since the American populace have been made too confused to vote their interests -- so fiscal policy is out (as we're currently seeing). Biden has a chance to appoint a new chair in the upcoming months -- there should be heavy pressure to get rid of Powell.

COP coming to Glasgow. Leaders staying at Gleneagles Hotel & 20 Tesla cars (£100K each) bought to ferry them 75km back & forth. Gleneagles has 1 Tesla charging station, so Malcolm Plant Hire contracted to supply Diesel Generators to recharge Tesla’s overnight. Couldn't make it up. — RussellA

I think way too much is made of stuff like this. It's all you hear on Fox News. It's all you hear on the Internet generally. Who gives a shit. In the scheme of things, it's negligible. Good for headlines, but really a distraction.

Whatever does come out of it, it probably won't be enough by a long shot though. — ChatteringMonkey

Agreed.

Well, a bit of good news at least:

Dutch pension giant spurns fossil fuels as funds shift before COP26 — Manuel

Bill McKibben has good articles about this. The divestment movement is definitely a bright spot -- more and more places are divesting. However, others are coming in like vultures to pick up the slack.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/15/climate-crisis-cop26-bill-mckibben

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/climate-change-divestment-fossil-fuels.html

On Tuesday, a little less than a week before the start of the United Nations climate conference in Glasgow, activists announced that the fossil fuel divestment campaign has reached new heights. Endowments, portfolios and pension funds worth just shy of $40 trillion have now committed to full or partial abstinence from coal, gas and oil stocks. For comparison’s sake, that’s larger than the gross domestic product of the United States and China combined.

It’s gone far beyond Unity College. Institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge (and more than half the public universities in the United Kingdom) have committed to divest; so have the University of California and the University of Michigan. Most of the Ivies are on board now, as are Catholic powerhouses like Georgetown; in the last couple of months, places as diverse as Harvard, Loyola University Chicago and Oregon’s Reed College have joined in.

And by this point, divestment has spread way beyond colleges and universities. Enormous pension funds serving New York City and state employees have announced that they will sell stocks; earlier this year, the Maine legislature ordered the state’s retirement fund to divest; and just last month, Quebec’s big pension fund joined the tide. We’ve seen entire religious groups — the Episcopalians, the Unitarian Universalists, the U.S. Lutherans — join in the call; the Pope has become an outspoken proponent (and many high-profile Catholic institutions have announced they will divest). Mayors of big cities have pledged their support, including Los Angeles, New York, Berlin and London. And an entire country, even: Ireland has announced it will divest its public funds.

And some of the most historically important investors in the world have joined in too: A Rockefeller charity, the heirs to the first great oil fortune, divested early. Just last week, the Ford Foundation got in on the action, adding a great automotive fortune to the tally. This month also saw the first big bank — France’s Banque Postale — announce that it would stop lending to fossil fuel companies before the decade was out.

The battle to wind down the fossil fuel industry proceeds on two tracks: the political (where this week may or may not see action on big climate legislation from Congress) and the financial. Those tracks cross regularly — the influence of money in politics is clear on energy legislation — and when we can weaken the biggest opponents of climate action, everything gets easier. Divestment has helped rub much of the shine off what was once the planet’s dominant industry. If money talks, $40 trillion makes a lot of noise.

Governments and pharmaceutical companies have behaved appallingly in the past. Ignoring alternatives and vilifying experts who disagree with policy exacerbates existing suspicions, and risks a serious breakdown of the relationship essential to public health.

Basically, there's limits to what you can push people to accept and we'd be better off staying within those limits and accepting a small increase in risk as a result, than trying to push them and so doing taking a much larger risk from the breakdown of that relationship. — Isaac

Restricted to a certain group, I agree. But this is simply reiterating the fact that the approach should be nuanced. That's very difficult to do in some situations. It may very well lead to a breakdown of relationships, and that's a shame -- but a part of me thinks the relationships are already broken down, and it is precisely this breakdown that leads to much of the resistance in the first place.

Still, your point is noted.

So let's restrict the argument only to companies or organizations that mandate vaccines (1) for individuals without acquired immunity and (2) without offering testing/precautions as an alternative. This seems to be the issue.
— Xtrix

Agreed. — Isaac

In that case, as I said above, you're arguing for a much more targeted set of policies. If this can be done, I'd love to see it as well. It seems it is being put into place in a number of companies (regular testing, for example).

It shouldn't matter if someone rejects the vaccine because they don't like the colour of the vial, so long as in doing so the risk they pose others is below a threshold of risk we consider acceptable for trivial personal preference. The less trivial that preference, the greater the threshold has to be to justify any mandate. — Isaac

For mandates (in the restricted cases we've already circumscribed) to be acceptable, they'd have to be both more safe and effective than the alternatives and be so to such an extent that the increased risk from not taking them exceeded this normal threshold. — Isaac

The trouble is that this threshold is a psychological feature, not a strict number. — Isaac

I don't think there's an easy solution to this — Isaac

I think the first paragraph is basically what I was intending to say. If it were just a matter of an individual, I take the same attitude I do with drugs or suicide or smoking: it's personal choice. When the impact on others (I call these "externalities" because economics is an interest) is great, however, I change my mind. It's very true that there is no definite number for this, however. In a way, everything we do impacts the world around us to some degree.

So to put it into your terms, I believe the (1) that the choice to refuse vaccination is usually very trivial indeed because the decision is usually based on misinformation and politicization, and (2) that this choice almost always exceeds the threshold of risk to others. So I would say the second paragraph cited above is accurate, but that from what I've read that both have been demonstrated (safe/effective and threshold exceeded).

(2) Would be an argument worth going into deeper, involving transmissibility, threat of mutation, etc.

But I think we could end it here as well. Thankfully the numbers are coming down in the US, and so far the mandates have been effective. Whether the narrow cases you're discussing is justified or not we can leave as an open question, and I agree there is no "easy solution."

Couple of interesting articles:

Here, from NY Times -- "There Has Been Progress, But Not Nearly Enough."

From Wall Street Journal: "What Will This Climate Plan Cost and Who Will Pay?"

Worth reading.

COP26 is upcoming, in Glasgow...deserves its own thread, in conjunction with the reconciliation bill.

The debate we're having (the one I'm having, anyway) is about whether my beliefs meet the threshold required of reasonableness. — Isaac

I think it's reasonable, yes. Ultimately inaccurate, but reasonable.

Just to clarify (not that it matters, but I don't want to cause confusion later) I'm a professor of Psychology, not English. English is my nationality (put in so you know whose rules and regulations I'm talking about). Of course whether Psychology is one of the sciences is a matter of much debate! — Isaac

Ah, okay. I misread. So it turns out we're in the same field. Go figure. (I'm not a professor, however.)

That standard is that - evidence should come from suitably qualified experts in the appropriate field who have no discoverable conflict of interest or pre-existing bias directly favouring one result. — Isaac

Fully agreed.

do you have any insight into why you would gravitate towards this interpretation more than the other? — Xtrix

Firstly, in matters relating to the pharmaceutical industry majorities are often not indicative of true scientific consensus. — Isaac

I have what I believe to be good reason to be suspicious of the weight of opinion in favour of a pharmaceutical product. — Isaac

it is definitely enough to treat any apparent consensus with suspicion. — Isaac

There's always good reason to be suspicious of products from nearly any industry, as their bottom line is ultimately that of maximizing profits. There's a long history of examples from tobacco to sugar to household products. Pharmaceuticals are an especially relevant one, given their size and lobbying power.

Secondly, I have a personal bias against artificiality. — Isaac

All right. So I share both a suspicion of the pharmaceutical industry (and business generally) and a bias against many artificial things -- synthetic products, heavily processed foods, etc.

Appreciate the honesty. For myself, it's worth repeating that in addition I have a strong bias towards scientific/medical consensus. So I gravitate more towards these views than those of a minority, in general -- even if I grant that the minority view is reasonable. Obviously this isn't all the time; for example, I agree with most of Noam Chomsky's views about the evolution of language -- which is certainly a minority view, because I find it more convincing.

Anyway...

when you say reasonable alternatives exist, what are you referring to?
— Xtrix

Natural immunity (testing for), full hygiene precautions (masks, distancing, hand-washing), regular testing (coupled with a willingness to isolate in the case of a positive test), and natural existing immune systems (for those who are healthier than average - only to be combined with the previous two). — Isaac

Natural immunity may well be a reasonable alternative, as I've conceded. That's one issue to perhaps explore in more detail. But...

what of the millions who have no yet had COVID?
— Xtrix

As I said above, alternatives are not limited to acquired immunity. — Isaac

The other alternatives you mentioned are not about about acquired immunity, and include precautions and regular testing -- especially for people with healthier immune systems. As you know, some companies are offering these as alternatives already -- but not all.

So let's restrict the argument only to companies or organizations that mandate vaccines (1) for individuals without acquired immunity and (2) without offering testing/precautions as an alternative. This seems to be the issue.

This then becomes an issue about (a) whether these alternatives, on their own (without vaccines), are as safe and effective at slowing the spread of the virus as (b) the vaccines are, either on their own or in combination with the masks/distancing/testing.

I think the conclusion most experts have come to, and which many companies are using to guide their mandates, is that the vaccines add a significant layer of protection against spreading the virus to others in a workplace, especially when combined with other precautions (distancing, testing, etc). Where I work, we do all of the above -- and have had almost no cases. That's anecdotal, but it's an example.

Now is that enough to mandate that someone either gets vaccinated or loses their job? I think that, if the above is true (i.e., the expert opinion I'm referring to -- and still have to show), and we count the externalities of spreading the disease to co-workers and the effects that follow from this, it is still a legitimate use of power. If that individual still refuses, despite the safety of the vaccine, then they at least have the option to simply not work there (even though that's an unfortunate option); they're not being physically forced, in the same way they're not physically forced to abide by any decisions made by management or the board of directors.

So there's a lot to delve into there, but I figured I'd give the general argument first and try to narrow it down before going more in-depth.

For (a) and (b) - most articles combine the two... — Isaac

For adults, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination are enormous, while for children, they are relatively minor. — https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/05/07/covid-vaccines-for-children-should-not-get-emergency-use-authorization/

Given all these considerations, the assertion that vaccinating children against SARS-CoV-2 will protect adults remains hypothetical. — https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/13/covid-19-vaccines-for-children-hypothetical-benefits-to-adults-do-not-outweigh-risks-to-children/

I appreciate the references. However, again I'd like to separate the issue of children for the time being, as it's true there's not as much data on this as yet. I, as of yet, haven't read carefully or widely enough to have a strong opinion. If it turns out the risks of vaccinating children outweigh the benefits, then so be it.

But please link to the BMJ too.
— Xtrix

Sure - https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101 — Isaac

Interesting, and again I appreciate it. This pertains to the question of natural immunity -- which is another topic which as I've said before I'm open to debating. But let's table this as well, because (as outlined above) I think we're getting a more precise formulation in our sights -- namely, regarding the mandates of adults without natural immunity who are not offered the alternatives of masking/distancing/testing.

I believe you have agreed with this, which is why the rest is a bit puzzling to me.
— Xtrix

See - the debate about children; the debate about long-term risks ("practically nothing is known about any long-term adverse effects..." - Professor Ruediger von Kries, of Germany's advisory vaccine committee), and the debate about trusting the pharmaceutical industry going forward (the GlaxoSmithKline contamination scandal) — Isaac

The children question is being studied, and rightly so. I grant that -- and I grant the suspicion of the pharmaceutical industry.

The concern about potential long-term effects I find very unconvincing. True, there's little we know about them -- because it's only been 10 months. But given what we know about the biochemistry of how the vaccines work, I don't see this as much of a claim. We don't know the long term effects of the last meal we ate. I understand the sentiment but does this claim undermine the safety of the vaccines? I assume you think not, so I don't see the relevance....

Mandates are - generally speaking - legitimate. I have given reasons for this conclusion. What exactly is your objection to it, fundamentally? — Xtrix

Twofold. Firstly it's an unnecessary risk. The risk in this case is; the known side effects of the vaccine in those groups for whom the benefit is also very small (young, healthy people), the unknown long term side effects in other groups and, more importantly at this stage, the potential for the manufacturers to make mistakes/shortcuts in their manufacturing or testing procedures. It's unnecssary because reasonable alternatives exist.

As evidence of the risk/benefit balance to young healthy people I've cited the UK JCVI adjudication to that effect. As evidence that experts do consider the long-term risks to be an issue, I've cited a professor of epidemiology who sits on Germany's vaccine advisory board saying exactly that. As an example of the risk pharmaceutical companies present I cited the recent whistle-blowing at the GLaxoSmithKline factory in PuertoRico, I've also cited several examples of other pharmaceutical companies hiding safety information, lying about result and marketing medicines despite their unsuitability. If you'd like me to repeat this evidence, just ask. — Isaac

(It's often said of me that my writing is sometimes like that of a lawyer, which isn't meant as a compliment. So if this is how the following appears to you as well, I beg your pardon, but it helps me organize my thoughts and I find helps the conversation as well.)

Here your first claim is essentially one about the following risks:

(1) Known side effects.
(2) Unknown long term side effects.
(3) Potential mistakes in manufacturing of the vaccines and their testing.

I would indeed like you to link the supporting evidence for these three you mentioned, so I can take a look (or a second look).

Three questions and then some comments:

First: when you say reasonable alternatives exist, what are you referring to?

Second: when taking into account the benefits, are you including the benefits to others as well, or just to the individual (for example, the "young/healthy" individual)? I find this is often overlooked or minimized, and I think that's a mistake.

Third: when referring to examples of pharmaceutical companies hiding safety information, etc., are you referring specifically to COVID vaccines or other products? If other products, I don't doubt there is plenty of information, and I'm familiar with a few of them myself.

-

You agree that vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus. So in my view, in order to demonstrate "unnecessary risk" there would either have to be (a) almost no benefit whatever to taking the vaccine, or (b) significantly more severe side effects/risks than I've seen so far.

When I say "safe," however, I'm referring not only to death from the vaccine, but severe side effects as well. From what I've read, they're exceedingly rare. You say you agree with this, so that potentially rules out (b). Which leaves us, if I'm correct so far, with (a).

But even if (a) is demonstrated in the sense that there is no benefit of protection from the virus, or that none is needed anyway because one is young and healthy, I don't think this accounts for the often overlooked factor I mentioned above: that of "externalized" effects; namely, the effects on others. This would constitute a huge benefit -- not to oneself, but to those around you.

(A digression: This is a common mistake, and one I myself made for years in terms of getting a flu shot. "I'm young and healthy," I figured, "so I don't want to go into a hospital and get stuck by a needle -- it's a hassle -- and besides, they don't even protect against every strain." I figured I would just take my chances with getting the flu -- put my immune system to work. Besides, I'd heard things about mercury in the vaccines, and about how the flu vaccine gives you the flu (and had heard lots of stories from family about getting sick with flu after getting the flu shot). But leaving the last few claims aside, I was overlooking why doctors were recommending it to me and others every year, and why it was given out for free: the other people you're around. Your grandmother, the elderly people in your neighborhood who you come in contact with, the people you work with, the immunocompromised, etc. I never thought of it like this until it was pointed out to me by a physician. So I don't necessarily fault people for overlooking this factor.)

I say all of this in anticipation. I would expect your evidence to demonstrate either (a) or (b).

Lastly, although I will carefully look at what you're presenting, I do want to remind you of something I think we've discussed before about scientific/medical consensus. You mention a German professor of epidemiology, for example. While he's obviously credentialed, and I have no reason to believe he's a quack of any kind, I still feel that even if his argument is a good one, that he represents a minority view. Do you agree? If so, my question to you is: why highlight the minority view -- or, better: why is his view more convincing than the majority's/consensus? Assuming it's split down the middle, and there's good evidence on either side -- which is plausible -- do you have any insight into why you would gravitate towards this interpretation more than the other?

I've cited medical ethicists explaining this position (about alternatives needing to be exhausted) and how they feel this hasn't yet been done. As evidence that alternatives still exist, I've previously cited an article from the BMJ expanding on the view that natural immunity should be an alternative to vaccination. Regular testing is also a possible solution which I've cited experts on. — Isaac

I wrote some of the above before reading this part.

You're saying the alternative you mentioned above is natural immunity. Fair enough.

That's not an insane position, and I don't think there's definitive evidence about it yet. I have heard "both sides" to this, and both seem reasonable. It gets into the weeds.

But this gets back to risk/benefit. If someone already has COVID, that's one thing. We can discuss that, and whether they should be exempted from a vaccine or not.

But what of the millions who have no yet had COVID? Do we want a situation like the one in Brazil? (If you're unfamiliar, I can cite sources.) Restricted even to the young and healthy, this gets back to (a) and (b) above. Is it truly less risky to get the virus than to get the vaccine? Again, perhaps if you exclude externalities. But I'm also suspecting you may not agree, after all, with the notion that the vaccines help slow the spread of the virus -- a point which is crucial in this case.

But please link to the BMJ too.

Obviously a state can mandate and make laws. They need to be proportionate to the risk and lack alternative solutions. As detailed above. I don't believe that's the case with mandatory vaccination. That belief is not only based on, but is also shared by relevant experts in the field. That, by my definition, makes it a reasonable belief to hold. I also think that believing mandates are necessary is a reasonable position to hold because that position too is well supported by relevant experts in the field. — Isaac

Well a lot hinges on two things then: (1) alternative solutions (natural immunity) and (2) risks.

As you know, from what I have gathered is that the risks of negative health outcomes are exceedingly low (which is what I mean when I say the vaccines are "safe"). I believe you have agreed with this, which is why the rest is a bit puzzling to me.

I don't see how natural immunity is an alternative solution to this very low-risk/safe option. Natural immunity could reasonably exempt someone from having to take the vaccine, yes, but that's a separate matter -- which if this is all your restricting your argument about mandates to, I'm willing to have that conversation.

But in discussing those who have not gotten COVID (and who are, say, young and healthy) the question is: do we go with the vaccine or go with an alternative solution? The alternative solution, in this case, is natural immunity -- which one must contract COVID in order to obtain.

This assumes (1) that getting COVID is less risky for the individual than taking the vaccine, and (2) that there aren't external factors to consider, including the spread. What would have to be demonstrated is that risks from the vaccines are greater than the risks of getting COVID, and that the vaccine has no effect on transmissibility.

That's a tall order, in my view. But again, I'm willing to take a look if that's indeed your position.

Right. But this isn't about what you personally find convincing. I'm quite happy for you to hold the views you hold. I think you're wrong, but your views have clearly been informed by expert opinion, they meet the threshold I expect of reasonable people. The issue here is your dismissal of views which conflict with your own using these completely unnecessary and unhelpful accusations of political bias, weak-mindedness, ideology etc. If you have genuine issues with my "assumptions... logic... references ...and ...interpretation of the evidence" then argue those points. There should be no additional need for any of this weak speculation about the underlying motives of people you've never met and know barely anything about. If I've made mistakes in the areas above, then pointing out those mistakes is sufficient counter-argument. — Isaac

I think you underestimate the degree to which I've looked carefully at your arguments and supporting evidence/data/citations -- but I engage with many people on here, especially on this topic over the last two months. This is exactly what I find unconvincing -- and not only from you, but from several others on this forum and other online venues as well -- and which has led to my claims about explanations for what I see as flawed arguments: politicization, misinformation, etc.

I see parallels here with creationists and others -- which isn't meant as an insult, but meant from the point of view of the data no longer really mattering, and which accounts for a distorted view/interpretation of evidence. If this doesn't apply to you, fine -- I admit I could be completely wrong about it, and as I said before much of this is speculation.

On the other hand, I also have given data about this topic which I find convincing -- at least regarding politicization and the influence of social media. I don't consider that "weak speculation."

Your analogies with creationists were about bias and motives. You said I'd made mistakes in "assumptions... logic... references ...and ...interpretation of the evidence". These should not require analogies. — Isaac

Well "assumptions and logic" would be included here. The analogy wasn't strictly about bias and motives, really, but about why people end up saying the things they do and interpreting the evidence the way they do. I do indeed feel it's relevant. It may be, on the other hand, that you're truly just curious about this issue, aren't convinced by the data, and so on...but from some of the things you've said so far I don't think that's as probable. But that's my opinion, and I mention it because I'd feel dishonest about even having this conversation if I didn't. That doesn't mean I consider your argument as identical with creationists -- but that there are some principles of belief formation and logical fallacies that strike me as similar.

But I'll note again here - the presentation of counter evidence, counter logic, counter assumptions, and counter references does not prove you're right and I'm wrong. It proves your position is also well referenced, logically sound and rests on reasonable assumptions. The matter of choosing between them is not resolved simply by you pointing out that it is possible to rationally arrive at your position. — Isaac

True. But this can be claimed about nearly any dialogue whatsoever, no?

You have to argue with me, not some fantasy version of me. — Isaac

Fair enough.

I'm not a MAGA cap-wearing American, I'm not a Facebook junkie hooked on Mercola feeds, I'm not a middle-class suburbanite more concerned about the opinion of my yoga class than of experts in the field... I'm a semi-retired English professor of Psychology, I've twenty years experience in research (specialising in the structure of belief), I now consult for a risk analyst firm a large part of which is (of course) dealing with the long term fallout from covid. I don't read the news, I don't have any social media accounts, I don't have a television. I get my news from the journals I subscribe to (BMJ and Lancet, in health matters) plus a few blogs from experts I trust and colleagues at work (all experts in their field). If you don't believe any of that because it doesn't fit with your stereotype of someone with my views then we'll just stop there. — Isaac

I believe every word of it, and suspected something like that -- although I had assumed more the sciences than English.

I don't ever recall characterizing you in the above ways. I have made allusions to the anti-vax movement, which I suspect (although, again, may be completely wrong in your individual case) does indeed have something to do with your conclusions, but that's really not relevant, nor should you care -- provided I'm still willing to engage in evidence you present -- which I believe I have, more often than not, and at least more than you've implied.

they "check out" when you look at the decision more closely, follow the logic, listen to the experts, and check their evidence
— Xtrix

I expect to see the names of those experts, quotes from them, links to the studies constituting the evidence and, if you're claiming they're in the vast majority, some evidence of numbers. It's inadequate for you to simply say it's the case. — Isaac

I'm more than willing.

I also pointed to evidence of this: the level of resistance is correlated with "redder" counties (those that went increasingly strongly for Donald Trump). Do you assume that's an accident or coincidence? I don't.
— Xtrix

No, it is the result of the politicisation of the issue. Politicisation affects both sides. Vaccine 'enthusiasm' is associated with the 'bluer' states. So does that prove that people are only enthusiastic about vaccines because of their political ideology? — Isaac

But still politicized, nonetheless. This "two sides" thing works to a degree, but remember I'm not playing that game. I'm giving a reason for why this is controversial. Like the creation/evolution "debate," it's no wonder we find more creationists within a highly predictable subset (evangelical Christians). Does this mean the people who believe in evolution are "enthusiasts"? I wouldn't say so, although sometimes that's true.

With this issue, it's similar to claims about a stolen election. Do you make the same argument there, as well? Yes, it's been politicized -- and some of the other side (the ones arguing the election was fair and open), largely in reaction, may be overly "enthusiastic," but this ignores a lot of information. The fact that the enthusiasts may simply be energized by their own information bubbles doesn't negate the fact that they happen to align with scientific and medical consensus, or evolutionary biology, or election data/audits/experts. It just means they're also caught up in the politicized fight/controversy. The reason it's even a fight to begin with, however, is worth remember. The election claim stems from the poltiical right -- and hence the "controversy." The vaccination claims stem from the political right -- and hence the controversy (and opposite reaction).

I think you're pulling a kind of "both-sides-ism."

Now with this less interesting stuff hopefully out of the way, I'll respond more substantively in the next reply.

I should not have to repeat myself over and over again, for every poster in every thread. I should not have to defend myself against wrongful accusations. I should not have to disclose sensitive medical information about myself in public forums. I should not have to accomodate other posters' uncharitable reading. — baker

I don't like "repeating myself over and over" either, but not everyone can follow every message on every topic on this forum -- least of all me.

Otherwise, apart from disclosing sensitive medical information -- which I never asked you to do, I think defending your position is a prerequisite for being here. If you don't even want to do that, then why interject at all? Why comment? Why reply? I'm pretty sure it wasn't me who started any conversation between us, so the choice was yours. If you don't like my style or my threads or my writings or my ideas, fine -- then unless you're willing to "defend" your often condescending, pithy remarks, why do it?

Seems all you've offered me, in the end, is that you think I'm too forceful, too overconfident, and too mean. If that's all, fine -- then I beg your pardon, and please move on.

When in fact there isn't much we disagree on. I can think of really just one thing we disagree on: and that is the vehemence with which scientific claims should be held and the ethical status that should be ascribed to them.
— baker

We agree on that too, if you deigned to read what I said instead of rushing into accusations.
— Xtrix

No, we disagree on this matter. I never push for scientific claims the way you do. — baker

(1) I think rationality, logic, and mathematics -- which is especially embodied in natural philosophy (science) -- should indeed be vehemently held and defended, yes.

(2) That does not mean I subscribe to scientism or dogmatism -- which I am vehemently against.

You're associating my (1) vehemence, filtered through my unique communication style (which I realize you find distasteful), as following into (2). That's a mistake. Which is why I've asked you to see passed what you find distasteful and still hear the argument I'm making. I realize it's hard -- it's equally hard for me to communicate any better, but I still try.

[If, however, I am completely wrong about this, then that leaves one alternative, which I give you the benefit of the doubt about, which is that you do not in fact share my belief in (1). If that's the case, then what is worth vehemently defending? What's worth fighting for? What's worth even getting nasty or, perhaps, violent about, if we have to? Anything at all? If so, why would you exclude science from this list? Or is it simply all a matter of never being rude or distasteful or aggressive?]

The entire UK government and a large number of medical ethicists disagree, who again I cited and again you completely ignored. — Isaac

I didn't completely ignore, but I didn't spend a lot of time on. Why? Because I'm not as privy to what's happening in the UK, which is why I restricted my discussion to the United States, where I live. This isn't simply nationalism, it just happens that to be the leading world power and an example to many other countries. Maybe the population is brighter in Britain and Denmark, in terms of education, and thus don't need to create a mandate or laws about vaccinations -- I have no idea. I assume there is far less holdout and hesitance in both countries.

It's your suggestion that disagreement is so outrageous that only the politically motivated would pretend to hold such views. It's egotistical on a monumental scale to hold that your personal opinion is so right that dissent can only be seen as a Machiavellian political move. — Isaac

I said politicization is one factor involved in this resistance, yes. In my view that's a major one. But there are others: the media, social media, the systematically eroded trust in institutions and establishments of almost any kind, including medicine and science, etc. There is also genuine fear about something new or seemingly uncertain or risky. It's true I think most of the response and resistance is motivated by political ideology and affiliation, and thus also news consumption. But notice I also pointed to evidence of this: the level of resistance is correlated with "redder" counties (those that went increasingly strongly for Donald Trump). Do you assume that's an accident or coincidence? I don't.

You argued that it was justified because they'd had a history of vaccine mandates and were only now kicking up a fuss, thus proving they were politicised. The relevant fact there is whether your opponents have had a history of vaccine mandates and are only now kicking up a fuss. Not you. — Isaac

Right, which is exactly what's happening. I can't speak for the UK, but similar anti-vax misinformation has spread and taken hold there as well I'm sure. Here in the US, it is one factor of several I can see. The others are the ones I mentioned, including politicization by the Trump administration and right-wing media, which is now profiting off of manipulating their audience and followers.

This is all pretty irrelevant, and getting boring. The main point is this: mandates are legitimate. They "check out" when you look at the decision more closely, follow the logic, listen to the experts, and check their evidence -- at least it does for me. It's very convincing to me, and so far from what you've written, I'm simply not persuaded otherwise. I have problems not with your conclusion only, which you accuse me of, but your assumptions, your logic, the references you've cited, and your interpretation of the evidence. I think you're making several mistakes.

I've offered analogies to help flush out where I think you're making errors. I think the comparison to creationists is a good one -- not because I think you're being almost completely irrational the way they are, but because it's an example we can both agree on, and which my hope was would allow you to see some mistakes I thought you were making. That has failed - fine. Let me get more to the matter at hand and hopefully start anew:

Mandates are - generally speaking - legitimate. I have given reasons for this conclusion. What exactly is your objection to it, fundamentally? Should a state never be allowed to mandate anything? Should a state be allowed to create laws and to enforce those laws? What makes a law "just" or legitimate? What is the purpose of a state or a government, in your view?

I don't see how we can go on talking and keep it somewhat interesting unless these questions are first addressed.

When in fact there isn't much we disagree on. I can think of really just one thing we disagree on: and that is the vehemence with which scientific claims should be held and the ethical status that should be ascribed to them. — baker

We agree on that too, if you deigned to read what I said instead of rushing into accusations.

All I ever did was call for more caution. For this, several posters immediately classed me as an anti-vaccer, as irrational, evil, and such. — baker

Then take some responsibility and be more clear next time. I’ll do the same with my abrasiveness.

Incidentally, I never called you “evil.”

You're incorrigible! — Isaac

Who told you?

The spectre of mandates now is absolutely not something which requires some kind of psychologising bullshit explanation in terms of politics. — Isaac

Mandates have been around for decades, without much fanfare or controversy. The reason they’re controversial now is 1) the anti-vaccine movement, starting around 1998, 2) years of right wing undermining of science, media, fact, and truth, and 3) politicization.

This is why it’s not a surprise where the unvaccinated are found: counties that voted for Donald Trump.

If this were truly an issue of evidence and truth, of good faith argument, this wouldn’t be the case. It’s politicized, pure and simple. There’s nothing “psychologizing” about it.

And yes, I’m talking about— and have been from the beginning — the United States.

you?

It’s not new technology.
— Xtrix

So the CDC are lying? — Isaac

No, the CDC said just what I said: the technology has been around for decades. I’ll quote them again— from your source:

Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades.

To bring up “newness,” implying they’re somehow unsafe because of their newness, is extremely misleading — and you know it.

The vaccines are safe. This has been shown repeatedly. Playing word games and making implications about their newness to embellish their risks is exactly in line with anti-vax bullshit.

The vaccines are safe and effective. Mandates are completely legal and justified— as seen from court cases— and are also effective, as we’re now seeing.

So much for all the smoke that’s been blown. But continue blowing it, by all means.

With limited exceptions involving religious objectors, judges have overwhelmingly upheld orders in numerous states that require health workers, public employees, state university students and government contractors to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 as a condition of employment. These rulings have allowed states to fire workers who refuse immunization.

"Vaccine Mandates Are Surviving Nearly All Legal Challenges"

https://apple.news/AZEFfw-igSJ23VzV_69gwFw

What a shocker.

Too bad some of our patrons here weren’t asked to testify.

I guess you lump Hans Rosling in with him too because he isn't a climatologist? — I like sushi

I'm not familiar with his views on climate change, although from what I've read he does seem in the same group as a Stephen Pinker, who I otherwise greatly admire and respect. I hope they're right in their optimism.

I've heard BOTH of these people say that climate change is a prominent risk. It is others who spin it as 'overly optimistic' or 'climate denial'. — I like sushi

Yes, "others" in this case being actual climate scientists. I should say: it's not strictly "climate denial," so I retract that. It's a new tactic: delay. They say it's not so bad -- or if it is, there's little we can do about it -- or, as in the case of Lomborg, even if we do things about it, it won't have any significant impact and so we might as well turn to treating tuberculosis and other more pressing issues.

Again -- why this is the first thing you cite is very telling. Not NASA, not NOAA, not the IPCC, not the Royal Society, not any climate research institution in the world -- not world-renowned climate scientists, not any credible scientific organization. No: Bjorn Lomborg, the political scientist of the Hoover Institute who writes regularly for the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal editorial page. After all, he's not as bad as those awful climate deniers.

Does this book merit such positive attention? Does Lomborg provide new insights? Are his claims supported by the data? A healthy skepticism towards the claims of others is, after all, one of the hallmarks of good science. And, at first glance, Lomborg's book appears to be an objective and rigorous scientific analysis. It is published by a leading academic press, and contains an extensive bibliography and nearly 3,000 footnotes.

To answer these questions, UCS invited several of the world's leading experts on water resources, biodiversity, and climate change to carefully review the sections in Lomborg's book that address their areas of expertise. We asked them to evaluate whether Lomborg's skepticism is coupled with the other hallmarks of good science – namely, objectivity, understanding of the underlying concepts, appropriate statistical methods and careful peer review.

These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg's book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg's assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature -- often not peer-reviewed -- that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick's words "unexpected and disturbing in a statistician".

These reviews show that The Skeptical Environmentalist fits squarely in a tradition of contrarian works on the environment that may gain temporary prominence but ultimately fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Others, such as Julian Simon and Gregg Easterbrook, have come before him, and others no doubt will follow. Correcting the misperceptions these works foster is an essential task, for, as noted above, groups with anti-environmental agendas use these works to promote their objectives. It is also an unfortunate, time-consuming distraction, for it pulls talented scientists away from the pressing research needed to help us understand the environmental challenges we face and their prospective solutions.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ucs-examines-skeptical-environmentalist

I listen to what people say I don't just dismiss everyone as a lunatic even if I think they are WAY off mark. — I like sushi

I don't believe the best way to do so is to act arrogantly or look down on others — I like sushi

Fine. I don't think Lomborg is a moron or a lunatic, and never said so. But I've looked at his work seriously and carefully, and it's incredibly misleading -- and I believe deliberately so. It sells books, and gets a lot of attention -- particularly from the political right.

Big changes have to come from the top, forced by people. — Manuel

That’s exactly right. The people profiting off of destroying the environment— mostly the fossil fuel industry— have tried to suppress the data, deny, delay, and convince people that it’s their individual responsibility to recycle and use more efficient lightbulbs (in other words, more delay tactics).

Now companies admit there’s a serious problem, after years of denial, and you see greenwashing everywhere. That’s “progress,” I guess.

It’s a good example of epistemic responsibility. Much easier (and better for business) to simply deny the severity of this issue. Better to listen to opportunistic political scientists like Bjorn Lomborg, with his books titled “False Alarm” and the like. Much more comforting.

Is your argument that the health services in several major countries, the Lancet and the BMJ are touting a theory which is on a par with UFOs? — Isaac

I’ll repeat: vaccine mandates have been around for decades — at schools and many workplaces. The sudden resistance to them is due to politicization and the anti-vax movement, of which you’re caught up in — which is why you’re arguing against mandates.

Also, as you know I live in the United States, not the UK.

That they now can is new technology. — Isaac

It’s not new technology.

So why mention "newness" if you agree they're safe and effective?
— Xtrix

Come on! It's you that keeps insisting that the word 'safe' doesn't mean 'without risk'. — Isaac

So you mention newness because you want to highlight the risks, despite acknowledging that they’re safe. Do I have that right?

Lomborg is the guy the WSJ climate deniers and every other person who doesn’t want to appear ridiculous cites as a source. I’m very familiar with him, yes.

He’s been thoroughly debunked over and over again. He’s not a climate scientist. What he’s doing, as has been pointed out many times, is basically saying we should do nothing about climate change because there are bigger problems out there, and that the solutions proposed will do very little or be harmful to the goal of lowering emissions.

If you want to throw in with that, that’s very revealing, yes. You’re welcome to. I’ll go with the overwhelming scientific consensus from actual climate scientists.

Reviews, by scientists, of Lomborg’s books:

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ucs-examines-skeptical-environmentalist

No we don't. Mandating vaccines is not nuanced. Not even every medical expert agrees with it. — Isaac

There are allowed exceptions, and not every company is handling it the same way. Some allow for regular testing, etc. That's what I mean by nuanced. Remember these mandates are coming after months of allowing it be voluntary. There were too many holdouts, for mostly irrational reasons, and so now it's time for mandates. Seems reasonable to me. Quit your job and keep your kid out of school if you can't bring yourself to take a simple jab in the arm.

The fault is ultimately on social media, the ambiguous approach of Donald Trump and Republicans, and their media, and the 20+ year growth of the anti-vax movement.

The claim that we didn't ought to mandate vaccines or that not everyone needs vaccinating is not remotely grand, it's quite an ordinary position, even if an unpopular one. — Isaac

Belief in UFOs and 9/11 as an "inside job" are also "quite ordinary" positions.

Vaccines, their safety and efficacy -- as well as vaccine mandates -- have all been well established and around for decades. There does indeed require "grand evidence" to justify the sudden wave of resistance. No justification has been given beyond conspiracy theories and misunderstanding data.

It's really not new technology.
— Xtrix

mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine to protect against infectious diseases.
— https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html — Isaac

From same source: "Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades."

Expert opinion is that vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus.
— Xtrix

Yep. And we've already agreed on that. — Isaac

So why mention "newness" if you agree they're safe and effective?

The question here is whether that fact is sufficient justification for mandates, whether it's sufficient justification for administering vaccines to low risk groups, whether it's sufficient justification for focussing on vaccination to the exclusion of other health policies... — Isaac

To the first question, I think the jury is in: yes, it is sufficient to mandate safe, effective vaccines during a pandemic, that protect others, slow the spread, and get our lives and economy back on track after 9 months of refusal from a significant portion of the population.

Low risk groups -- yes, I'm also low risk. It's not about *me*. Whether you're low risk or not, you can still contract and spread the virus.

I think there should be other health policies as well -- hand washing, mask wearing, social distancing, frequent testing, etc. To say nothing about the general health of our population -- their diets, the lack of exercise, etc. Vaccines should be a major part of an overall project.

But don't take my word for it. Take it up with the medical establishment and present them your theories.

But Republicans have grown increasingly hostile to the notion of mandatory vaccines — despite vaccine mandates existing in the background in parts of the United States since the 19th century — and have parlayed the fight against COVID-19 into a political battle, with vaccine mandates as the latest frontier in the great American defense of freedom and liberty.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/17/1046598351/the-political-fight-over-vaccine-mandates-deepens-despite-their-effectiveness

I need a substantially stronger reason to dismiss expert opinion than that. — Isaac

Expert opinion is that vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus. I'll repeat that over and over again. Thus, mandates are necessary if people aren't voluntarily getting them. You have no right to harm others. Stay home from school or quit your job.

If it were up to you and your ilk, we would have never eradicated the diseases we have. This is why the anti-vaxxer movement is so dangerous. All in the name of "freedom," of course.

It would do us all well to ask: Where did this anti-vax bullshit come from? The answer is that there was a paper published in 1998 that apparently linked autism with vaccines. That was later debunked. But the hysteria stuck around. Enter social media, and here we are today.

But of course it's "different" this time -- we're not anti-vaxxers. Likewise, we're not conspiracy theories or climate deniers -- we just don't want to do anything about climate change.

When something like vaccines and mandatory vaccination -- or any other phenomenon that's been around for decades -- suddenly becomes "controversial," we have to start asking "Why now?"
— Xtrix

Because it's a new technology, a different economic climate, a different political climate and the pharmaceutical companies have more than a tenfold increase in lobbying power since childhood vaccinations were first mooted. — Isaac

It's really not new technology. But even if it were, this excuse can be used at any time. The polio vaccine was "new" technology, too, after all.

A different economic and political climate is like saying we're in a certain point in history. No kidding. compared to what?

Big Pharma has lobbying power for all tax breaks, subsidies, etc. That has nothing to do with whether aspirin is safe and effective. There are instances where perhaps they rush things and sneak things by the FDA, that eventually need to be pulled from the shelves. If you think the COVID vaccines -- the most widely watched in world history -- are in this camp, you're just off in space.

But anyway -- I figured you'd have some reason to believe it's "different" this time. You say you're against and always have been against mandatory school vaccinations. That pretty much sums it up for me.

If a 'climate scientist' is being paid by the oil industry, that's a reason to disregard his conclusions. If a holocaust denier consistently views ambiguous evidence in favour of the Nazis and against the Jews. that's a reason to disregard his conclusions. If a creationist geology professor is a life long fundamentalist Christian, that's a reason to disregard his theories about the age of the earth. They may not be affected by these conflicts and biases. I might be wrong to dismiss them. But I have good reason to. — Isaac

I think so too.

You're saying first that anyone whose theory is that vaccination should be restricted must hold that theory because of some bias or conflict of interest, then you go looking for what that might be. — Isaac

Someone who holds that holds a theory that the Grand Canyon was carved out by something other than glaciers doesn't necessarily have some bias or conflict of interest -- they could be doing so because that's where the evidence has led them. Ditto with natural selection -- for example, with the ideas of punctuated equilibrium (often cited by creationists, out of context). Is Stephen Jay Gould "biased"?

No, I wouldn't say so. I would look at what they have to say, check out what other experts think about the proposals and theories, etc.

If someone holds a theory that the Grand Canyon was carved out by the Genesis Flood, then we rightly dismiss them.

If someone gives a theory about vaccinations -- who is a layman -- during a time when the issue has been highly politicized, and vaccine mandates have been around for years, and who would otherwise just trust the opinions of medical experts...yeah, at that point I think we have good reason to simply say "This is coming from a place of x, not from an unbiased assessment of evidence."

Again, we'll probably have to just disagree about that. I do believe this is what you're doing and you're as unaware of it as a creationist looking at the Grand Canyon is.

You're not first finding some bias or conflict of interest and then saying "well, we might want to take whatever they say with a pinch of salt", you're assuming there must be a bias, just because they're saying something you think is implausible. — Isaac

No, I'm doing exactly the first part. I'm saying we should take you with a pinch of salt -- despite the fact that you could be the rare exception. But I've ALSO engaged with you many times on this issue, and so far I've seen a lot of smoke being blown. If all you're arguing for is a nuanced and careful approach to vaccines -- fine, we agree. Just say that. I find it more likely that you just like attempting to poke holes in what you consider "pro-vaccine dogma" -- and are doing so very poorly.

The problem I'm highlighting here is that if you establish nefarious motive from the argument's conclusion only, then you're just dogmatically dismissing anything you don't find plausible. — Isaac

So we'd be wrong to attribute any "nefarious motive" to the conclusion that the earth is 6,000 years old and the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood? Knowing nothing else about the person, of course -- just that conclusion alone. Is that wrong? No, I don't think so. I think the conclusion gives away the bias and the motive, to a degree.

I'm not saying your case is as cut and dry as creationists. If you told me, for example, that you've been protesting or arguing against the use of vaccine mandates for years, then that would separate you from most people arguing against mandates today -- although I still would think you're wrong.

Why do you think politicisation only affects one side of the disagreement? — Isaac

I don't. But in this case, I think it's being brought out by anti-vaxxers, not "pro-vaxxers." During the Scopes Monkey trial or the controversy about teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools, biologists and other experts had to come out and "debate" the issue, in the latter case in court. They were just effected by the polarization and politicization as well. Climate change has been politicized as well -- and many on the side of scientists don't know a thing about it, despite being what I would say is the "right side."

The reason I engage with anti-vaccine nonsense, and mostly ignore creationists and holocaust deniers and flat earthers, is because I do consider this a time when it matters. It's important. I've known of the anti-vax movement for years and don't engage with them. But this is a special case. So I'm part of the conversation as well. But I feel it's only honest if I say what I really feel about it -- that it's on par with these other "debates" as well.

I do tend to "align" with science and medicine, yes. I align with the consensus of biologists that we evolved. I align with epidemiologist and virologists and doctors that vaccinations are safe and effective and that people should get them. I align with the vast number of historians that talk about the holocaust. If this is me being "political," fine. Consider my political party that of science. True, it can sometimes seem as dogmatic as religion. But it's the best we have. These conflicts are all, ultimately, about what we want to believe running up against facts and evidence and expertise and consensus -- and science.

I choose the latter.

No Yohan is spot on. It's exactly the question the medical ethicists are asking. — Isaac

:lol:

It is vanishingly unlikely that there will be absolutely no risk of harm from any biomedical intervention — Professor Julian Savulescu in the BMJ

No kidding. Notice this person doesn't ONCE say that vaccines are "dangerous." They're not: they're safe and effective. Safe does not = "absolutely no risk of harm." Dangerous does not = "0.000015% chance of harm."

I think the real question is why I even bother with this nonsense...

The science is pretty unanimous about the fact that for healthy, young people below 35, the chance of getting seriously ill from a covid infection is much smaller than the chance of experiencing serious adverse effects from a vaccination. — Tzeentch

No. This isn't true. But even if it were true, as usual it excludes the point about slowing the spread -- which the vaccine also does.

"Seriously ill" and "serious adverse effects" are meaningless until explained. Feel free to cite credible sources.

If vaccine safety and efficacy meant that vaccines weren't dangerous, then I should think everyone would be on board with them. But I am not hearing anyone claim vaccines aren't dangerous. — Yohan

Everyone is on board with them. This is why experts are overwhelming advocating vaccinations. Precisely because they're safe and effective.

If something is safe, it doesn't mean risk-free. Planes are safe, but they crash occasionally. Does that mean planes are "dangerous"? If you want to play word games, sure. In that case: everything is dangerous.

Maybe this needs pointing out: an activity cannot be safe and dangerous at the same time. If you want to create your own semantic universe (which is usually necessary for anti-vaxxers and other deluded individuals) to justify your position, feel free. Excuse me while I laugh, however.