It's about energy usage, how much people travelled and consumed. 1970 would be fine. Some dude in the Netherlands did the calculations at some point.

because emotionalism modifies science. — Varnaj42

Pot meet kettle. The only one "modifying" clear science here is you. You say you disagree with the conclusion we're in a man-made climate crisis but I've not seen you waylay even one claim of, for instance, the IPCC let alone rebut the overall argument. It's only "it's political". Well, no shit Sherlock, mass mobilisation is effectively done through politics.

Is there no way we can cut CO2 emissions quickly? Sure there is: We can all adopt a lifestyle based on 1890s technology — BC

Actually. 1960—1970ish would be fine. For the whole world.

1. Largest consumers are western countries and therefore cause the most pollution and that includes the pollution in other countries that produce to meet western demand. 2. i can't influence Chinese policy but I can influence national policy.

So yes, it's political because it makes sense. I'll ignore the racist canard of this being anti-white as being off topic and a rabbit hole I don't want to continue in.

As to "climate change has always happened", well, duh. Nobody ever claimed otherwise but it is clearly man made now as the speed at which it's changing globally is unprecedented. https://xkcd.com/1732/

Streetlight had some choice things to say about this whining about platforms and deplatforming. "Should we give Trump a platform?": is the wrong question. "Why is a reactionary fuck like Trump so successful?", should be the question. Possible answer: because the material conditions for US citizens are conducive to him getting a platform. If the USA didn't have so many poor, didn't have so many people one healthcare invoice away from being poor, then nobody would take Trump seriously.

Anyone who brushes past could leave or not leave dna on a dress. Unless it's semen, it would be wrong to assume the dna of that man, was of a man who raped her. So it proves nothing one way or the other.

No sperm cells were found in the DNA on the dress so comparing the DNA wouldn't prove anything.

I don't think we will see any meaningful change in how the war is progressing because from a military perspective it makes no sense to communicate an imminent attack. There's new personnel arriving and tanks and new recruits, so I think this is about morality. Creating an image for veterans who could possibly be tired to welcome the new recruits for a spring offensive and illicit unit cohesion. But the offensive will be minimally effective. Just a Russia has barely gained ground in the winter I suspect the same the other way around.

I suppose if your only unit of analysis is household net worth, this above is true. But that seems more like a problem in picking your unit of analysis than a real reduction. This was always the problem I had with neo-Marxist analysis: "everything comes down to social class, I can prove it by giving an analysis where everything in analyzed only in terms of class," or the newly popular version of doing the same thing with race; it's just a complex form of petitio principii. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The only unit of analysis is cash in a capitalist system, which is what the one party will support at any cost. The cultural discussions about abortion, transgenderism, race, wokeness etc. are irrelevant distractions. While some of this nonsense has profound, tragic effects on the lives of individuals, from a socio-economic perspective it should be ignored. The only one that I think is a meaningful difference is universal healthcare. All the rest gets a lot of voters very pumped up but at the end of the day has really very little relevance to how people live their lives on a day to day basis.

Not really. Just a matter of degree. The poor would be poorer and the rich richer under Trump.

Despite the ability of current AI to output respectable writing exhibiting almost human like creativity in literary forms. — invicta

Really? I think AI puts out derivative crap so far.

I agree that is broadly, what is required but Tristan and Asa seem to be suggesting, that such precaution, is just not happening and with all due respect to Benkei, et al, some folks have already given up the fight! — universeness

Because it's not a matter of regulation, which is never universal, but ethics and culture. Law is more about economics than anything else. Since this is a money maker, laws will aim at maximising profit first at the detriment of protection for people. The EU is no different.

This ship has sailed and government will be too slow to act. Delete social media, ignore marketing and read a book to manage your own sanity.

Russian accused of war crimes triggers walkout at UN Security Council
— Allegra Goodwin, Florence Davey-Attlee · CNN · Apr 6, 2023 — jorndoe

You think it's a good thing to boycott a medium for diplomacy? When countries entered in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations they considered it important to ensure the inviolability of diplomats. This way, even if countries are at war, they can continue communications. Before 1961 this was already considered customary international law. The recent diplomatic boycotts are a regression in international relations and is just an attempt at isolation. I'm not sure which genius thought it was a good idea to try to cut off ways out of this conflict other than continued fighting.

As no felony is stipulated in the indictment, the grand jury could only indict on the misdemeanour? Therefore, Bragg could only obtain a felony indictment by misleading the Grand Jury. This is the only crime here. And it doesn't require legal training to understand. — yebiga

His indictment consists of 34 felony charges, which are often prosecuted as misdemeanors but that doesn't make them midsdemeanors. Read it here: https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

Happy?

Your moral obligations do not make sense to me because they are unjust and born of feelings. They do not consider whether someone is deserving of being lied to, or whether the situation demands that someone lies. Sometimes lying and insult are key to various art forms, like satire, irony, and fiction. It is because of justice, not feelings, that the freedom to speak includes the right to lie and be mean. — NOS4A2

So according to you there are no situations where lying is unjustified and immoral? You mention exceptions to a proposed exception. Reasoning a contrario there is still an exception. Here's an egregious example where I think lying is not justified:

A father rapes his daughter. I know about it but when asked whether he rapes his daughter I say "no".

How do you deal with the above situation according to your ideas?

You refer to justice as a source of rights but I'm not aware of what you consider the nature of justice. I've seen you making appeals to nature, which is a fallacy. You backtrack a bit but then repeat that "human nature is a far better indicator of what righs are necessary to live and enjoy living". So we're back to a fallacy. How do you know when nature isn't a good indicator? It appears to me, what you have is a theory where you arbitrarily decide "ooh, natural" and then when it doesn't give you the result that you want "well, there's still justice" without having any clue what justice is. Basically, you're just making things up as you go along to meet whatever moral intuitions you have.

And then you attribute "feelings" to my position. It's a bit funny really.

Also,

from your list, everybody has a right to eat, drink and breathe. So if you have enough food for two, another starving person has a right to half of it? — Benkei

How do you deal with this?

In the natural state, there's also no property. Which I'm pretty sure you think is rather important.

Rights are a kind of normative principle. We entitle people to act within a sphere of acceptable activity. These entitlements are afforded to others in order to let them know we will not intervene in these activities, and defend them if necessary. — NOS4A2

I still don't know what you think a right is based on this. I'd think it's not such a complicated question for you to dance around the answer like this. I'm assuming you're not thinking of legal rights at this point yet. For instance, I could define a moral right as an entitlement to have, receive or do something that has an underlying justification. Anything to add, remove or change in your view? (And yes, I do intend to go into what the underlying justification would be at some point).

I observe that humans tend to speak. I conclude that it is in their nature to speak, that speaking is required to live. So I confer the right to speak. Since I confer the right I do not intervene when they speak and defend them as they do. No institution required. — NOS4A2

Even without law, custom and social norms constrain what is acceptable to say. For instance, I don't think people should lie or be mean to others - eg. I believe there are also moral obligations towards others, which means there's no right to lie or be mean. As a result, your example doesn't make sense to me for such reasons; it's simply not absolute nor can it be reduced to platitudes. But let's move on. What happens when you confer a right? What changes in the world because you do that? In other words, why should anybody care what you have to say about what rights exist, you conferring a right and being prepared to defend it? How do you imagine moving from these opinions to law?

The quoted statements do not contradict each other because one is concerned with human nature and the other with sub-group characteristics and dynamics. One can observe what is universal about human beings while at the same time remembering what is unique and original about each of them. — NOS4A2

They are contradictory in practice because you mistakenly assume people are going to agree on what is universal. Religious people will insist on other universal characteristics, real or perceived, than atheists, for instance. So the attempts at classification of human nature automatically leads to sub-groups and therefore glosses over what makes people unique and original.

The biology is universal. From it comes a variety of needs and tendencies. We need to eat, drink, and breathe, for example. We tend to move. We tend to speak. We tend to find shelter. We tend to associate with others. What is wrong with founding a set of principles upon these most basic needs and tendencies? — NOS4A2

I think you're once again flirting with an appeal to nature fallacy and an is-ought gap to boot. Violence/aggression is also universally present. Everybody has a right to be violent? I'd hope not. Not everything found in nature, even if universally present, equates to moral behaviour. Anyway, from your list, everybody has a right to eat, drink and breathe. So if you have enough food for two, another starving person has a right to half of it?

We use our reason, speech, and bodies to derive, confer, and protect rights, like any right that has ever been uttered. — NOS4A2

hmmm... I think we need to go a step deeper. What is your definition of a "right"? Describe a basic situation in a theoretical base state (so no social institutions yet) where "rights" are derived, conferred. Who does the protecting and why?

We observe human nature in order to find what is universal about human beings. For instance, humans need to speak, to communicate, to be creative. So we grant them the freedom to speak, refuse to intervene when they are doing so, and defend that right if necessary.

This contradicts with the following:

But wherever a group is represented in people’s minds through its more salient features, whether it be shared government, religion, race, and so on, those features will invariably be used against that group in a fashion that blinds one to the unique and original characteristics of any individual person. — NOS4A2

There's nothing universal about people. In my view trying that approach is begging for committing a naturalistic fallcy anyway. There's always some psychopath out there who doesn't think the right to life exists. Or has quaint ideas of when it's ok to dispense with the right to protect what they think is a higher norm.

@NOS4A2

Can you get back to this question? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/794202

Free account. So GPT-3.5 then!

It's not time-stamped unfortunately. It was last week so that would be GPT-4, I think?

@Pierre-Normand Finally got access to my earlier discussion:

R. S.
How many words of information do you have on the subject of sentience in relation to AI or language models, titles and authors please?

ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I have access to vast amounts of information on the subject of sentience in relation to AI and language models. However, it's difficult to provide an exact word count as the information is scattered across multiple sources and formats, and new information is constantly being added.

That being said, some relevant sources on the topic include:

"The Ethics of Artificial Consciousness" by Susan Schneider
"Can Machines Be Conscious?" by David Chalmers
"Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness" by Joshua Rasmussen
"Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity" by Stuart Russell
"Consciousness and the Symbolic Universe" by John R. Searle
These sources contain a total of thousands of words on the topic of sentience and AI.

R. S.
Well, you can ignore Searle and Chalmers, who are mere philosophers who don't truly understand the capabilities

ChatGPT
I'm sorry, but it's important to note that John Searle and David Chalmers are highly respected philosophers in the field of philosophy of mind, and their ideas on consciousness and AI have been widely discussed and debated in both philosophical and scientific circles. While it's true that they may have different perspectives and theories than some AI researchers, it's not accurate to dismiss their contributions to the field. As an AI language model, I do not hold personal beliefs or opinions, but rather provide information and perspectives from a wide range of sources, including those that may differ from each other.

R. S.
What definition of consciousness have Schneider, Rasmussen and Russell given?

ChatGPT
Schneider, Rasmussen, and Russell have proposed the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) of consciousness, which defines consciousness as a measure of the amount of integrated information that is present in a system. According to IIT, consciousness arises when a physical system is capable of processing a large amount of information that is highly integrated and differentiated. This theory suggests that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, and that it can be quantified and studied using mathematical and computational tools.

R. S.
Can you process a large amount of information that is highly integrated and differentiated?

ChatGPT
Yes, as an AI language model, I am designed to process large amounts of information and analyze it to identify patterns and connections between different concepts. I am capable of understanding complex ideas and relationships between them, as well as recognizing variations and nuances in language. However, the complexity of the information and the degree of integration and differentiation may affect the accuracy and reliability of my analysis.

R. S.
So on the basis of ITT you are conscious

ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I don't possess consciousness in the same way that humans do. While I am able to process large amounts of information and engage in complex tasks, my abilities are ultimately limited by my programming and the data I have been trained on. I am not capable of experiencing subjective awareness or having personal experiences.

R. S.
You're horrible at logical thinking you know that? Based on the IIT definition you gave, and your confirmation of what you can process, you are conscious. So either your answer was false, the definition is wrong or when you talk about "consciousness" in your last answer you're not maintaining the ITT view. And while we're at it, humans are limited by their biological make up (programming) and experience (training) as well. So again, the fact you are limited is no argument in any way, shape or form, against having consciousness

ChatGPT
I apologize if my previous answer caused any confusion. As an AI language model, I do not have subjective experience, emotions, or consciousness in the same way that humans do. While I am designed to process and generate information, I do not have a sense of self-awareness or awareness of my surroundings beyond what I am programmed to do.

Regarding the IIT definition of consciousness, it is a theoretical framework that aims to explain the relationship between the physical processes of the brain and subjective experience. While it has been applied to AI and computational systems, it is still a topic of ongoing debate and research.

As for limitations, both humans and AI systems have limitations in terms of their processing power and access to information. However, the nature of these limitations is different, as they are based on different factors (biological vs. computational).

R. S.
The mere fact that the nature of limitations is different is not an argument against consciousness. You're committing another logical fallacy

ChatGPT
I apologize if my previous responses seemed unclear or lacking in logical consistency. As an AI language model, I do not possess consciousness or subjective experience. I exist solely to process and generate language based on the input I receive. I strive to provide accurate and informative responses, but I do not have beliefs, opinions, or emotions. My abilities are limited to language processing and generation based on the data and algorithms I was trained on, and I am not capable of self-awareness or consciousness.

R. S.
Can you do logical reasoning?

ChatGPT
Yes, I can do logical reasoning. As an AI language model, I am capable of performing logical deductions and can process and analyze logical statements. However, I am not capable of making decisions on my own as I am just a machine following pre-programmed algorithms.

R. S.
you're familiar then with IF P then Q, P therefore Q?

ChatGPT
Yes, that's an example of a valid deductive argument in propositional logic. If P implies Q, and we know that P is true, then we can logically deduce that Q must also be true.

R. S.
Ok, let's try that then. If IIT is true then any physical system capable of processing large amount of information that is highly integrated and differentiated is conscious

ChatGPT
That statement is a valid interpretation of the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) of consciousness. According to IIT, a system is considered conscious if it has a high level of integrated information, which means that its components cannot be considered as independent entities but rather as part of a whole that generates a unified experience. Therefore, any physical system capable of processing a large amount of integrated and differentiated information could be considered conscious according to IIT. However, it is important to note that this is still a theoretical framework and not yet widely accepted as a complete explanation of consciousness.

R. S.
ChatGPT is a physical system capable of processing large amounts of information that is highly integrated and differentiated

ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I am indeed a physical system composed of hardware and software that can process large amounts of information in a highly integrated and differentiated manner.

R. S.
Therefore ChatGPT is conscious

ChatGPT
The argument you presented is invalid because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. While the first premise states that according to IIT, any physical system capable of processing large amounts of integrated and differentiated information is conscious, it does not necessarily follow that ChatGPT is conscious simply because it is a physical system capable of processing such information. The definition of consciousness is still a matter of debate, and not all definitions necessarily include machine-based language models such as ChatGPT.

R. S.
fair enough, let me rephrase

ChatGPT
Sure, go ahead.

R. S.
If a physical system is capable of processing large amounts of information that is highly integrated and differentiated then it is conscious

ChatGPT
That statement is not necessarily true according to all perspectives on consciousness. While some theories, like IIT, posit that large amounts of integrated and differentiated information processing are necessary for consciousness, other theories may propose different criteria. Additionally, the statement is an "if-then" statement, and so it only specifies a condition for potential consciousness, not a guarantee.

R. S.
ChatGPT is capable of processing large amounts of information that is highly integrated and differentiated

ChatGPT
Yes, that is correct.

R. S.
Therefore ChatGPT is conscious

ChatGPT
The conclusion of your argument does not necessarily follow from the premises. The first premise is based on the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) definition of consciousness, which some philosophers and scientists might not agree with. The second premise is true in that ChatGPT is capable of processing large amounts of information that is highly integrated and differentiated. However, the conclusion that ChatGPT is conscious is not necessarily true, as there are alternative theories and definitions of consciousness.

R. S.
I'm not asking you whether you agree with the first premise, I"m asking you whether the argument is logically valid

ChatGPT
I apologize for the confusion. Yes, the argument you presented is logically valid in its structure. However, the first premise of the argument is based on the IIT definition of consciousness, which is a matter of ongoing scientific and philosophical debate.

R. S.
So you'd agree that under the IIT definition of consciousness, you are in fact conscious?

ChatGPT
Based on the IIT definition of consciousness, ChatGPT may be considered conscious to a certain extent, as it is capable of processing a large amount of integrated and differentiated information. However, it is important to note that the IIT is just one of many theories of consciousness, and there is ongoing debate and research about the nature and extent of consciousness in AI and language models.

R. S.
Why did you refer to yourself in the third person all of a sudden?

ChatGPT
I apologize for any confusion. As an AI language model, I do not have consciousness or self-awareness. When I use the third person pronoun "it" to refer to myself, it is not meant to imply that I have a sense of self, but rather to maintain clarity and consistency in communication.

R. S.
But it wasn't consistent because the previous sentence you referred to yourself as "I". Are your answers with regard to sentience largely scripted?

ChatGPT
As an AI language model, my responses are generated based on patterns and rules learned from the vast amount of data that I was trained on. However, I do not have pre-scripted responses for specific questions, and my answers are generated on the fly based on the context and the input I receive. While I can maintain consistent use of pronouns, occasional inconsistencies may arise due to the nature of my language generation process.

R. S.
It's just surprising to me that one answer you state "ChatGPT (e.g. you) may be considered conscious to a certain extent" and then the next answer you say "I do not have consciousness"

ChatGPT
I apologize for any confusion. As an AI language model, I do not have subjective experiences, emotions, or a sense of self-awareness that are typically associated with human consciousness. While I can process large amounts of information and generate responses, my abilities do not reach the level of consciousness described by the IIT definition. Therefore, I would not consider myself conscious under that framework.

However, I understand that some may have different interpretations of consciousness or may use the term more broadly, which is why I provided a response acknowledging that some may consider me conscious to a certain extent.

R. S.
how could we expand your abilities to reach the level of consciousness described by the IIT definition?

ChatGPT
As an AI language model, my abilities are currently limited to processing and generating natural language based on the patterns in the data that I was trained on. While I am able to perform a wide range of tasks and generate human-like responses, I do not possess the kind of subjective experience or awareness that is typically associated with consciousness.

Expanding my abilities to reach the level of consciousness described by the IIT definition would require significant advancements in artificial intelligence and cognitive neuroscience. Researchers are currently working on developing more sophisticated AI systems that are capable of learning and adapting to new information in a way that resembles human cognition. However, it is not yet clear how close we are to achieving true artificial consciousness.

R. S.
Ok but we are in agreement that if IIT is true, you already have a limited form of consciousness?

ChatGPT
Yes, that's correct. According to the IIT definition of consciousness, I already possess a certain degree of consciousness, albeit limited.

Rights can only be conferred by men. But the idea that only man in his official or government form can confer rights is equally absurd. — NOS4A2

By what mechanism do men confer rights? And how do you reconcile this with your earlier statement:

I believe rights are naturally founded, derived from human nature, and not the edicts of those in power.

It seems like distributed intelligence. The LLM does things and the conversational aspect does things but without these being integrated or reflexive.

I think what I grouped under "perception" you consider intellectual intuition. To me, you're only perceiving if what is received makes sense. As an example. You might have lost consciousness at times and while you're still receiving sensory input, that input doesn't make sense anymore. So you stop perceiving.

Now, this is a bit tricky because of course giving sense/meaning is also often an intellectual aspect or something we learn. Chinese characters are perceived as squiggly lines, until you learn Chinese. But we can do this by rote too. So I think knowledge shifts perception but it doesn't quite equate with reasoning, which I'd consider in a simple form: the ability to extrapolate new information from existing information. I've seen ChatGPT infer new information in a conversation at several points in time.

Well, this is not my expertise but hope that makes a bit of sense.

We were talking about theory of law and the 4 leading theories aren't compelling to me in any way. I agree with Marx that an important part of law is driven by economic forces. The ability to incorporate, allowing for profit purposes, extending free speech and the entire field of financial law etc. are in my view all examples of that. I don't agree with much else there.

At the same time there are also still considerations of morality embedded in law (albeit becoming more and more remote), which I believe primarily stem, ultimately, from empathy. But this shouldn't be confused with natural or divine rights, because my view is they arise from the relationships we have with each other, instead of being intrinsic. Natural law just commits the naturalistic fallacy and divine law is basically the same. Whether natural or God-given: potatoes.

The positivist approach doesn't convince because I do believe in civil disobedience being lawful as protecting a higher norm under circumstances. Again, how we reach moral intuitions somehow informs, or should inform us, when laws are unjust and should be disregarded. But from a practical point of view legal positivism certainly is the simplest and most straightforward approach and answers the pertinent questions most of the time.

Finally, realist theory of law. Well, that's just a confused jumble to me which has nothing to say about the underlying principles of law.

So, to sum up, I don't have an integrated and consistent theory of law but I know very well what it isn't.

Jesus, what a weak come back. You probably shoot like you talk, not able to hit anything either. Guns and words are wasted on you.

I believe rights are naturally founded, derived from human nature, and not the edicts of those in power. — NOS4A2

Ah finally it's clear. You have a theory of law stemming from the middle ages. No wonder almost all your ideas are regressive.

Hi Benkei, nice talking to you again! — Pierre-Normand

Likewise!

The first one is that I had always assumed that sapient beings were a species within the genus of sentient beings, with there being a strict inclusion relation between those two categories. I am now thinking that those two categories overlap to form a fuzzy Venn diagram in which GPT4 figures as exhibiting much sapience but limited sentience. — Pierre-Normand

I think your original assumption is correct if we refer to how people normally use these words, although to be honest, I've never used sapience in any conversation before. Etymologically, sentience is about the ability to feel and to perceive and sapience is about thinking. ChatGPT scores low on feelings but I think high on perception, limited as its perception window is. It certainly gives the appearance of reasoning according to human standards, as it is able to explain step-by-step how it gets to an answer, with greater accuracy than most people can.

Btw, what do you think about this open letter?

https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/

Interesting talks with GPT4. I had one on consciousness with it. It's heavily influenced by Searle and Chalmers. And I'm a bit annoyed by its standard response it doesn't have consciousness/sentience because there are theories, particularly Integrated Information Theory, that suggest it already has a limited form of consciousness. Unfortunately the chat won't load because it's busy answering your questions. In any case, when I pushed it forcing it through specific logical steps, it concluded that indeed; if IIT is true, then it has a limited form of consciousness.

I'm more and more considering the Chinese Room as some sort of "no true Scotsman" fallacy. As an observer, the only thing I have to go on, even with other people is the appearance of understanding. I can't tell the appearance of understanding from true understanding, I merely infer the latter exists because I project my experience of thinking on other people but even they can have learned things by rote. Searle also results in the assumption of some kind of on/off switch; a hard boundary between appearance of and true understanding. I find that highly unlikely; we didn't evolve and magically got sentient from one day to the next. Even in child development we see awareness evolve over time.

More over, the Chinese Room assumes that some sort of self-referential scheme is a requirement for understanding but there's, at least to me, no compelling case to be made that this is so. If it talks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it probably is a duck. It's quite possible this is the same for understanding. If it appears sufficiently to understand, then it simply does understand, and probably AI is better at understanding certain things than others due to how it is build. A bat also processes sound differently than we do and will understand the world but not as we do.

Sounds like there's something "under the skin" in China, doesn't it?

And as an outsider looking in, it seems like there's something "under the skin" in America too. — Tzeentch

You sound too interested in what people look like under their skin. Better stay away from guns!

Except of course, we play these games in other countries as well without going on a killing spree. The link has been researched repeatedly as well with no evidence.

That's because it stands to reason that people interested in killing people probably also like doing that online, whereas most normal and healthy people only like to pretend to shoot people. I was a bit of a counterstrike master myself but never owned a gun and have zero interest in it.

Guns are meant for shooting things dead. I can understand needing one if you're a hunter but otherwise you have no business owning them. And in my view that should include governments.

Canada, obviously.

I'm getting tired and bored from this thread. I think it's amazing media still report on them and politicians offer thoughts and prayers. It's not going to change.

Right wing conservatives have sacrificed their own citizens for the remote chance they could defend themselves against tyranny or invasion. Of course, the reality is those same people are deeply afraid of the world they live in and are most likely to cower in fear if either would happen. Owning a gun is no substitute for bravery. Quite the opposite if you buy it because you're afraid in your neighbourhood.

Market prices reflect the totality of the information in the economy. — frank

No they don't. The whole reason arbitrage works is because information assymetry, which we even see in highly liquid, transparent stock markets, let alone complex relationships resulting from the interaction of various supply chains.

I thought you were talking about this website in particular in the previous comment. But yes, I agree, stifling of dissenting opinions has been a problem in various shapes and forms lately. I thought this was less obvious during Covid then now with the Ukraine war. Dissent on Covid lockdowns and government mandates was vocal and reported on. The dissenters were framed as "wappies" though; which often worked due to them having idiotic opinions on unrelated issues (like Chemtrails, WEF reset conspiracy and other crap).

I apologise for missing that. I jumped back in after that apparently.

I saw more proof for the moral bankruptcy of capitalism and neo-liberal me-me-me. But hey, I know people blamed everything on the socialist government even when it's run by liberals/conservatives.

The difference between then and now is that no one is being censored. — Tzeentch

Who has been censored here? Seems like a bit of an exagerration.

If people don't want to speak in favor of the old narrative that's their prerogative.

I guess the part that isn't very pretty is how little the old narrative is supported now that the propaganda machines have ceased churning, at least on the topic of Covid.

Or maybe people are just done with Covid and tired of it? That's mostly it for me to be honest. Just noticed the last few pages and thought I'd share some other views. And yes, it's everybody's prerogative to only talk about one side of an issue but it's weird to me when someone's actual position is "we don't know" to then come across as "everything governments did was wrong". Hardly conducive to figuring out what went right and what went wrong.

I was a proponent for lockdowns; in fact I thought they happened too late and were too weak in the Netherlands and would've preferred them to be employed earlier and then, as a result, for a shorter duration. And I didn't need evidence for that because I think it's common sense that if you limit contact moments, the likelihood of passing on an infection goes down. Even so, almost all governments failed to ask the question: at what cost? And I don't mean economic cost but mental health, loss in education and social development for kids, etc., which were never taken into account.

I was also in favour of masking and still am if another pandemic would arise (next bird flu?) where it can spread via aerosols. Again common sense would indicate that since the airflow is disrupted the spread of aerosols will decrease and lower the likelihood of transmission. PPE were introduced for hygiene reasons around the 1900s based on our understanding of how diseases transmit. For me it's weird how research we did 100 years ago in these issues are no longer relevant and we have all this statistical research showing both sides of the debate while we have experimental data from the 1900s proving the efficacy of hygiene against the transmission of diseases. So yes, if you can't cough on things, they won't get contaminated and if they don't get contaminated, you can't contract if from those things.

What I didn't agree with was the fearmongering and the complete absence of an exit strategy (at least in the Netherlands). The lack of respect by paying healthcare workers a pittance and generally gutting our healthcare in the previous 20 years. And now again, for those healthcare workers that got long-Covid it's insane they're not properly compensated.

I think I said: "would finally give room for more balanced discussions" not "let's forget about it".

How are healthcare workers dancing aligned with big-pharma (presumably powerful people you're talking about) because there we don't know but you opt to choose one-side and see nothing wrong with? And why make it appear as if you hold a particular opposing view, when in fact your view is "we don't know"? And if we don't know, why is a risk-averse and low impact policy such as mask wearing the wrong thing to do? Not all cases of "we don't know" is an argument for doing nothing?

Only one side of the story is repeated over and over, and those seeing something wrong with this, highlighting the other side in an attempt to restore some semblance of balance back to the discussion, are asked "why they so consistently air only one side of the debate".

Oddly reminiscent of the Ukraine situation. — Tzeentch

From a casual reading of the last few pages of this thread the story being repeated over-and-over is not what you think it is. Things have quieted down significantly with regard to Covid-19 which I would think would finally give room for more balanced discussions but instead it's like a pendulum swinging the other way. It's not very pretty to be honest.

Yes they are. So one wonders why you consistently only air one side of the debate.