There's this crisis where millions are dying and one crucial part of the solution is a vaccine. But the only people who can make vaccines are these awful, criminal profiteers (I'm exaggerating only a bit). What do we do? If we say we can't trust the awful, criminal profiteers and tell them where they can stick their vaccine, a lot of people will die whilst we all become immune naturally. — Isaac

Of course we can't trust the pharmaceuticals - they're organisations with criminal convictions for lying. Of course we can't trust the FDA - they have a well known revolving door with the companies they're supposed to check, their former head is now at Pfizer, for God's sake. Of course we can't trust our governments - that politicians lie is such a truism it's a standing joke. And of course we can't trust our academic institutions - most are funded if not directly employed by industry and the replication rate in the medical sciences is less than half. — Isaac

It’s an unbearably sinister view, that there’s this cabal of evil millionaire pharmaceutical companies scheming to get rich by pulling the wool over the citizen’s eyes.
— Wayfarer

It's not a 'view', it's in black and white in the articles of association for the company. They are incorporated to make money for their shareholders. It's not some tinfoilhat-wearing conspiracy theory that pharmaceutical companies try, above all else, to make as large a profit as they can. — Isaac

The way I see it, the two are linked. If you are well in your rights to share widely your general distrust of pharmaceuticals and politicians, then you must agree to being distrusted yourself by those who have a higher trust than you in pharmaceuticals and politicians. Trust is relative, and it works both ways.

I for one am worried of blanket accusations levelled at vast numbers of folks, and that gives me (and others) reason to mistrust you and your approach to this question as overly emotional and hate-filled.

Were you under the impression that you can mistrust others, but others cannot mistrust you?

I wouldn't say it's a fact, but from all surface appearances there does seem to be more division assumed based on conceptions of who someone is, what they think and why they think it in rather simplistic terms (ie. for Brexit=Racist or Against Trump=Marxist). — I like sushi

My point is that some of this disagreement is artificial, manufactured.

Someone said jokingly upthread that "it would be a nightmare if we all always agreed on everything" (I paraphrase). Hahaha good joke.

I am not particularly afraid of that ever happening... but I can't get out my mind the idea that if we could have summoned some broad political and societal agreement around climate change two decades ago, in line with the scientific consensus, we could have averted or mitigated the worst of it.

We blew that chance because of artificial doubt and manufactured disagreement.

If I've said anything unfair about the pharmaceutical industry, then I'll be happy to correct it, but you do need to actually cite it in order for me to do that. — Isaac

Tell you what. If I've said anything unfair about you, then I'll be happy to correct it, but you do need to actually cite it in order for me to do that.

It's a fact, though. The post truth business.

I’m guilty of it myself in the past too. I’m entirely sure why it is people behave like this tbh. — I like sushi

Because these debates have been politicized by the likes of Trump, FAUX News and co. So people now see vaccination or climate change as political issues and they get confused and angry about them. In truth they are just being manipulated by the likes of Trump. They have been lied to for so long.

The disagreement is in your mind, manufactured by you. — baker

I have been the one pointing out at such fake disagreement promoted here by people like you, as in this post you were quoting.

So you're vaccinated against COVID, Baker?

alternatively you could actually quote me rather than more traducing. — Isaac

I am not reposting your disgusting, creepy paranoid shit about the pharmaceutical industry, thank you very much. And you started this mud sliding against them way before I paid any attention to your sorry behavior.

We've waited for too long now. — Olivier5

And this was because of an active campaign of disinformation, mainly targeted at the US, and paid for by big fossil fuel interest. Their messages were diverse, changing and incoherent but they spent a lot of money on spreading them, including through social media.

It is important to not be naive about this. Bad faith, artificial mistrusts and lies are usually not coming from nowhere, or just from some crackpot or another. Sometime they are paid for by a competitor to the product, project or person being bashed.

Arguments in bad faith, such as those usually promoted by CC deniers, can make some people rich, while hurting others. It's not a joke, it's a con. And if you propagate their lies, you're their victim, and you can make other victims.

So coming back to the OP, we can have whatever opinion we fancy having on anything, I would say, but we do have a moral responsibility in trying to filter out such paid-for influence from our sources, our thinking and our own communication. Don't be a sucker.

Undoubtedly humanity has the potential to do almost everything we can imagine. We just don't tend to agree about how to go about it though or what is most important — I like sushi

Yes. I mean, realistically, this shit is going to hit the fan. We've waited for too long now. It's already hitting it, in slow volumes so to speak.

My guess is, it'll get worse every decade until a lot of people die.

Then, it will get worse still for a few thousand years, while that gigantic screw slowly comes to a halt.

Then it might get better.

Yupee.

We can at least SEE the effect of a halting economy on a global scale and have a better idea of the kind of impact it would have ... although the fallout for the poorest will probably not be appreciated fully for a generation or two yet. — I like sushi

We can also see the positive impact of halting part of the economy on GG emissions and natural habitats. It gave nature a break. And perhaps that is part of the solution too, or indicative if it. We can change radically if we want to. We've proven it with COVID.

I'm saying we want more consumption in poorer regions. Severe poverty barely exists in western countries anymore and China has literally gone from mass poverty to almost none overnight. Hopefully Africa will do the same too BUT this means more energy consumption. — I like sushi

That's fair.

If (as Janus said) population increase is the main concern then decrease poverty curbs this dramatically — I like sushi

The main problem causing CC is not population growth, as I see it, but the emission of massive amounts of greenhouse gazes by developed countries.

Personally I'm more concerned with the destruction of natural habitats but that has more to do with poverty than carbon emissions so my bias lies there more than anywhere thinking about it. — I like sushi

Climate change is also impacting natural habitats.

There is no kind of blind assumption that population growth decreases with wealth. This happens everywhere. The amount of energy needed will continue to increase as the population swells and the population will swell as the number of people in poverty increases — I like sushi

That makes no sense. Most GG gas emissions are from China, the US and Europe that have already went through their demographic transition. Those rich nations, not currently in demographic growth, are the main cause of the problem. And will remain so for decades. African countries who ARE currently undergoing rapid growth, consume a minute fraction of global fossil fuels production. Their demographic growth is not affecting the climate at all.

In short, no direct link exists between CC and demographic growth in developing countries. They might start to contribute to CC in the distant future, once we're all going to cook already.

Talk of 'the end of research' is the kind of hysteria I mean btw ;) — I like sushi

And yet:

The biggest issue we seem to have is our inability to abstract exponential growth. — I like sushi

Past a certain level of climatic stress, there will be a collapse of society in many places, and research will collapse too.
— Olivier5

Because you say so or because this is your dream? — I like sushi

Because it stands to reason, I believe. There's no reason to assume as you do that future research findings will save us from an increasingly aggressive climate. In fact there's good reason to believe funding for such research will be diverted to more pressing needs as emergencies start to pile up.

You do understand that the targets already in place are just pointless political posturing without any real intent other than to quell the masses? — I like sushi

Nope, I don't understand that.

capitalism will save us — I like sushi

I am unaware of the precise argument being made here. I find the idea that more GG emissions would be desirable to mitigate climate change a bit counter-intuitive. And it relies on many unproven assumptions. It could be just another smokescreen paid for by the oil industry. There's been many of those.

Rich people will be by and large okay, comparatively, or so they think, which gives them limited incentive to act. The poor will die first.

Our brains are just not currently constructed to deal with the kind of scales we are grasping at. — I like sushi

It would take a massive paradigm shift away from 'more stuff' and towards 'better life'. A lot of people feel insecure about this because 'more stuff' gives them a simple metric of success and validation: how much money they make, how big their house or their car is, etc. But how does one measure quality of life?

the same mud-slinging Olivier started — Isaac

Did I start it, really? I recall that you accused untold numbers of non-descript people of being criminals and profiteers, among the many many insults you keep dishing out here.

I was only pointing out at the obvious fact that not every body argues in good faith. I even said that everyone of us once in a while argues in bad faith. You insisted on making it all about you you you.

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. — Xtrix

Yes to that.

Too little too late? We're not all going to die out. We are a species that is highly adjustable and at every point in our history the doom and gloom has not turned out to be such a problem when innovation helps staves off the doomsday scenarios repeatedly forecast. — I like sushi

This is so reassuring!

Not. Past a certain level of climatic stress, there will be a collapse of society in many places, and research will collapse too.

The only solution to our ecological woes will be to transition to a non-growth, even a shrinking, economy.
— Janus

I asked how this is viable. The reply was not given (avoided). — I like sushi

Politically, it will probably not be viable before a long time, although I wish to think frugality as a way of life is making progress in 'western' cultures.

I don't want to make too big a fuss about it, given that you and I agree on what to do next, by and large. So we agree on what's important.

The rest, your bad faith, your odd obsession about perpetual movement... oh sorry, it was about vaccines, right? It doesn't matter.

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

Good question.

I engaged with 9/11 truthers once.

Edit: not to say you shouldn't speak out when you have the energy to do so. I found you did very well so far.

an argument about? — Isaac

That's one post. Keep counting.

Your claim is that people here argue in bad faith and I'm one of them. That's the claim I'm asking you to defend. — Isaac

I have already. Not to your personal satisfaction of course but that would be impossible.

No one here is an immunologist. — Isaac

Some of us know more than some others about immunology, or climate, but when we speak we are not always listened to. And for this reason, there are no obvious reason for any competent poster to engage you on the matter of immunology here. For that to happen, you'd have to pay any serious attention first.

I for one haven't occupied the TPF bandwidths with countless arguments about immunology. TPF isn't a medical journal.

In any case, each member can come to his or her conclusion and we can all decide to take our medical advice from our medical doctor, or from Fauci, or from Trump, or from you or anyone else here for that matter. I know who I trust and who I don't.

one can demand some level of good faith and indeed responsibility in propagating ideas online or anywhere, especially on topics that involve the sickness and death of quite a few, when one is not professionally qualified. — Olivier5

Again, did you think anyone would disagree with such an obviously true statement? — Isaac

Not openly, no. Nobody can openly deny that, even those who actually disagree. Although someone a bit contrarian could disagree with the need to say it.

And the same or another individual could very well demonstrate by his or her practice how he or she ignores the principle in reality in spite of formally expressing agreement. For instance, if a fellow with no knowledge of climatology was harping forever about how climate change is x, y or z, that would be a telltale sign.

Or if a guy with no knowledge of immunology would start to talk to no end of vaccines and immunity and stuff, and discuss countless scientific articles, as if he could understand what them immunologists are talking about in those articles.

Now of course, this guy would often deny any wrong doing through a series of rationalizations. These people are typically not internally coherent. They can say something and do something else without even noticing. But other people can notice their inconsistencies.

I'm saying that it's nonsensical to use the fact that people sometimes lie as an argument that this particular person in this particular instance is lying. — Isaac

That's not my point, which is rather that one cannot expect every one to agree on an issue nor even to have an opinion on it, so there is no epistemic responsibility in that sense: nobody can be morally condemned for being honestly wrong. However, one can demand some level of good faith and indeed responsibility in propagating ideas online or anywhere, especially on topics that involve the sickness and death of quite a few, and even more so when one is not professionally qualified.

Let's call it the "do no harm principle". If you know shit about a vitally important topic, treat it as an opportunity to remain silent.

It's easy to say but hard to enforce. I know that.

the knowledge of color was not complete without (before) seeing color. Jackson's thought-experiment fails because of this incoherent premise .... — 180 Proof

Yes. One could say that Mary's knowledge of red was purely theoretical and second-hand, not pre-theoretical, ie not 'experiencial' or practical or first hand.

So the point would be that theoretical knowledge of something cannot replace or account fully for the first-hand experience of something. Theoretical knowledge is based on experience but it cannot exhaust it.

What are you trying to say, Isaac? That nobody ever lies? That we never lie to ourselves? That trust ought to never break down between people? That it's all about some misunderstanding between well-meaning folks?

Fair enough, that was overly dramatic. I meant forcing, warming it up.

It is pointless to call for something everyone already approves of. — Isaac

You know something everybody approves of?

I suspect you know what you are doing. This is why I call it bad faith. Now what? — Isaac

End of conversation, I suppose.

The point being that burning more coal and gas in the short term is actually the best way to protect the ecology of the planet. — I like sushi

It is dooming the climate, rather, and that's a proven fact.

They're spreading what they think is good information and truth. You think it's disinformation and lies. They disagree. — Isaac

I suspect you know what you are doing. This is why I call it bad faith.

It's pointless coming up with these virtue-signalling little aphorisms about how we all ought to argue in good faith. Who's going to dispute that? — Isaac

Err... evidently you are, by saying it is pointless to call for good faith.

Good argument. — Isaac

Sorry I failed to reach the quality of argument contained in your "nope".

I'm not at high risk, so you'd agree there's no need for me to be vaccinated? — Isaac

I do what I can do to protect myself. What you do is your problem, not mine. It's your body, it's your life. And if you end up infecting other folks, rest assured you won't be the only one doing that...

My problem is not with people who don't want to be vaccinated, in good faith. It is with people spreading disinformation and lies about the effectiveness or risks involved in vaccination.

No — Isaac

LOL

Nope — Isaac

Hahaha.

A combination of vaccinating those at highest risk, strict lockdowns, mask wearing, hygiene, investment in community health services, testing, open data publication, strict rules about global vaccine allocation... — Isaac

I.e. pretty much what everybody else is saying, including me. So where is this big disagreement now? It vanishes as soon as you use a little good faith. :-)

It's a rebuttal to your argument that negative growth is not viable.

My point is that forever lasting growth is not viable. It's a pipe dream.

Didn't you harp forever about pharmaceuticals and politicians being all corrupt?

Didn't you pretend to equate a finding about the presence of certain molecules in the blood stream of 38 individuals with the effective immunity of all of us against COVID?

What are you proposing we do about COVID?

That is incorrect, and I can prove it.

A growing economy is viable and has been beneficial for larger and larger proportions of the human population as history has shown. — I like sushi

Certainly, there are limits to what the environment can provide. You cannot eternally increase production.

You know it does not apply to me, or rather, you know that I do not usually behave this way.