a room, that is a necessary condition for something blowing up. Every instance of someone lighting a match would be the proximate cause. I allow people to enter this room knowingly..is that correct?

Now obviously the analogy isn't perfect. There are good experiences to be had in that natural gas room too in our case. Also, the proximal cause in the real world case is always varying, but we know they will be caused, which is my point. — schopenhauer1

Actual people and actual harm. It's not only not perfect it is a false analogy.

For example. Here an appropriate analogy : If I hadn't walked down the street, I wouldn't have been robbed. My walking down the street caused the robbery. That's basically the argument you are now forwarding.

For example. Here an appropriate analogy : If I hadn't walked down the street, I wouldn't have been robbed. My walking down the street caused the robbery. That's basically the argument you are now forwarding. — Benkei

No it is definitely not. In the procreational decision, everything is in the abstract, including the fact that harm (whatever it is) will take place for someone else. It is too late once born, it is likely at some point, something will happen. Every decision can't actually factor in harm, unlike the procreational decision which can factor in that existence is indubitably likely to have harmful experiences. Also, this has to do with someone else's life. The analogy would be more like, I knew that there was definite harm, and I forced someone down various streets that bad stuff is likely to happen anyways, even though I don't know what exactly bad stuff might happen (coronavirus, bad interactions, mental disorders, etc.).

In the procreational decision, everything is in the abstract, including the fact that harm (whatever it is) will take place for someone else. — schopenhauer1

Who undertakes the action is totally irrelevant as to understanding the causality. And in the abstract it's even worse; if people walk on the streets, then they may get robbed. Walking on the streets therefore causes robberies. As if.

Even if for some reason I caused people to walk on the streets, there's still no moral dimension whatsoever because there's no causal link.

Even if for some reason I caused people to walk on the streets, there's still no moral dimension whatsoever because there's no causal link. — Benkei

I'd say that there is a caual link, but causal links themselves have no moral dimension, either. There is an additional component of intentionality implied in the judgement "to cause suffering is morally wrong".

You must've not read the exchange. Necessary conditions. Or we can conclude "the big bang did it" and it will truly be meaningless.

Who undertakes the action is totally irrelevant as to understanding the causality. And in the abstract it's even worse; if people walk on the streets, then they may get robbed. Walking on the streets therefore causes robberies. As if.

Even if for some reason I caused people to walk on the streets, there's still no moral dimension whatsoever because there's no causal link. — Benkei

I don't agree there is no causal link. You are making a conflation (category error?) between intention and cause. Living definitely contains/entails some amount of harm. Are we on agreement with that at least? Thus, with this knowledge, you might not intend for harm to occur, but you know it will at some point, agreed?

You've already said that and it's logically wrong. I'm not conflating. If a certain action doesn't cause a certain consequence then my intent for the action doesn't include intent for the consequence. I already dealt with the "entail" argument. Water doesn't cause itself to be wet and all that.

In any case, I'm signing off on this discussion because my patience with anti-natalism apparently lasts for about half a day and I post here for fun.

I am in line generally with Kant's idea that people should not be used as a means if you can help it. Well, having children in order for them to take care of the elderly or having children to outpopulate your enemy is using children for a means. What is the cost of using people like this? The suffering person that will be born. Think of the suffering not how they can be used, or how much YOU think THEY should enjoy this or that part of life.

I agree with the notion that people should not be used as a means, but again it is not that simple because the species has developed in a way in which parents are used at times by their offspring and offspring are used by their parents. Reducing natural human societal behaviour into idealological arguments is not of great value. Likewise it is not helpful to view procreation as the fault of the parents. It is a natural human state for babies to be born, the parents are merely continuing the processes of human life when they procreate. It is actually more helpful to look at humanity as a whole. Indeed I am very much of the opinion that humanity is one organism, one animal, which has divided into individual beings so as to take advantage of its situation.

The point is that if there is something like Ebola in the world and physical diseases of all sorts known and as of yet unknown, who are we to throw more humans into that and cause more suffering?

Some of us see the possibility of a bright future for humanity and indeed the world. Admittedly it's not looking very rosy at the moment. But it is not necessarily the prerogative of any individual to decide the fate of future generations, in the light of current conditions.

@schopenhauer1 This discussion is about the coronavirus. No anti-natalist (or other) tangents allowed.

Necessary conditions. Or we can conclude "the big bang did it" ... — Benkei

:smirk:

Ill abide. How about the unnecessary trolling?

So the CFR in the US is over 5% now. Not even China's or Iran's is that high. That leaves a couple of possibilities:

1. Not enough testing/leg-work to identify cases;
2. Crappy healthcare;
3. Pre-existing conditions/bad lifestyle choices exacerbating likelihood of dying.

A combination of those three.

Or bad luck. For having Trump as president I suppose.

Or bad luck. For having Trump as president I suppose.

It doesn't surprise me, as the US has a disjointed healthcare system. Boethius gave an exemplary explanation a couple of pages back.
I don't follow US news, but from the dribs and drabs I do hear I gathered it had already gained a foothold before anyone had noticed. Trump is a rabbit caught in the headlights, this was not supposed to happen while he was grooming his place in history. He will be nothing more than a bystander I expect, while the national security and healthcare organisations sort it out.

CNN is very helpfully reporting that symptoms include:
a runny nose,
a cough,
a sore throat.

Of course, those are also the symptoms of a common cold. And since the Coronavirus affects the lower respiratory system, it does not actually cause a runny nose.

A runny nose is nevertheless a symptom.

In the Netherlands, if your fever status below 38, it is assumed your don't have corona and don't have to call the GP. Strikes me as arbitrary.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/covid-19-testing/

If you don't test much, you won't have many cases.

Allegedly.

You like reasoning and argument, don't you? Here's some reasoning and argument.

https://slate.com/technology/2020/03/coronavirus-mortality-rate-lower-than-we-think.html?fbclid=IwAR2Di6GSNzwF8WJ4RDVmkLjwJr7x8sY5Bnwq-UJY_Uv3WmUu4EmjHP3XRZU

So the CFR in the US is over 5% now. Not even China's or Iran's is that high. That leaves a couple of possibilities:

1. Not enough testing/leg-work to identify cases;
2. Crappy healthcare;
3. Pre-existing conditions/bad lifestyle choices exacerbating likelihood of dying.

A combination of those three.

Or bad luck. For having Trump as president I suppose. — Benkei

Well, it is likely a factor of two things one which is that one of the first areas to get hit was an elderly community where many people are over 60 and/or have underlining health issue that are problematic if they get the virus. There are some countries with hundreds of cases of corona virus and no deaths. The fact that in the US some of the first cases were at a elderly facility doesn't mean much other than we are very late in detecting the virus since people started dying before anyone knew they knew these residents were sick and nobody knew the person who gave it to them had the virus either. Right now it is likely that there are too few cases in the US to worry about the CFR number here, and only when it gets to be around 5,000 to 10,000 (which it should soon enough) will you have a better idea what the fatality rate will be.

I think the doctors here in the US are likely as good or better then the rest of the world, but there have been issues in the US and some other countries with trying to quarantine those that either are sick or may be sick and of course with making the test kits available. If it makes you feel any better watch the following video where a person let go from quarantine explains why he thinks the corona virus may not be all that bad. ;)

Coronavirus Quarantine Survivor on TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5PXh4U8CJs

CNN is very helpfully reporting that symptoms include:
a runny nose,
a cough,
a sore throat.

Of course, those are also the symptoms of a common cold. And since the Coronavirus affects the lower respiratory system, it does not actually cause a runny nose. — Echarmion

That's because the corona virus IS the common cold or at least to the best of my knowledge it is. If you want to know how you can prevent the common cold the best answer is that you really can't other than perhaps live in a plastic bubble for awhile. If the fact that it is more similar to the common cold than the flu doesn't bother you, then you are likely not scared enough yet.

You like reasoning and argument, don't you? Here's some reasoning and argument.

https://slate.com/technology/2020/03/coronavirus-mortality-rate-lower-than-we-think.html?fbclid=IwAR2Di6GSNzwF8WJ4RDVmkLjwJr7x8sY5Bnwq-UJY_Uv3WmUu4EmjHP3XRZU — unenlightened

Before assuming the fatality rate is as low as the flu as that article and Trump may be trying to suggest realize that extrapolating data in such a fashion is know as "cherry picking" and should be look down upon by others if they know that is how you like to obtain data. Now it might be true that in some countries they might be able to keep the morality rate lower than others and people that get the corona virus later on may have a lower morality rate than those who get it earlier, but if you are talking about everyone in the world you need to include ALL cases to get a proper number.

Also it is worth noting the the fatality rate likely doesn't include things such as people that might be indirectly killed by the virus (such as other people sick and injured but unable to get help) and the number of fatalities from people getting reinfected or people who may die if and when the virus mutates.

Or bad luck. For having Trump as president I suppose. — Benkei

I never cease to be amazed that there are people out there who seriously think the corrupt warmongering hag that was the alternative at the time would have been a better choice. Mind-boggling.

Then again, parrotting the corrupt "mainstream" media does not involve much thinking.

You like reasoning and argument, don't you? Here's some reasoning and argument.

https://slate.com/technology/2020/03/coronavirus-mortality-rate-lower-than-we-think.html?fbclid=IwAR2Di6GSNzwF8WJ4RDVmkLjwJr7x8sY5Bnwq-UJY_Uv3WmUu4EmjHP3XRZU — unenlightened

There are reasonable points here, but the article is too focused on massaging the fatality rate. Yes, if you include asymptomatic cases, the fatality rate will go down. But the hypothetical asymptomatic cases that were not counted for fatality rate were also not counted for infection rate, so the net result is zero. All you've shown is that in addition to cases with pronounced symptoms, having fatality rate f, there are also X asymptomatic cases.

Now, if people were tested regardless of their symptoms, then knowing the true fatality rate would be relevant. This is the case with those who are quarantined and tested because of their previous contact with an infected person. But for most people testing is still confined to those with pronounced symptoms.

the corrupt warmongering hag

Oh, those emails, scary stuff.

So Trump's Middle East policy has lead to a good place?

It won't matter soon once the virus becomes endemic in the Middle East. Smart move, Trump should pull out all US Troops from the region, including Afghanistan and Pakistan pronto, or they will either get stuck in endemic hells holes, or they will bring it back with them when they return.

Oh, those emails, scary stuff. — Punshhh

You mean the 30,000 e-mail from her unsecured toilet server that were all about yoga classes and babysitting? Have you seen them? I thought publishing it is a crime, no?

So Trump's Middle East policy has lead to a good place? — Punshhh

I do not see how the ME will ever be a "good place".
However, Trump has not started any new wars, he has stopped the idiotic nation building interventions, and he is gradually withdrawing. All the exact opposite of what "we came, we saw, he died, cackle cackle cackle" Hillary Clintons possible. So, yes, 100% better.

Again, wow people seriously can think that the person who destroyed Libya, supported the Jihadis in Syria, and de facto threatened WW3 in the debate is preferrable to Trump is, mind-boggling.

But the hypothetical asymptomatic cases that were not counted for fatality rate were also not counted for infection rate, so the net result is zero. — SophistiCat

That can't be right. Death is a symptom. If you are asymptomatic, you don't die any more than you cough or have a temperature. And if you are asymptomatic, in most cases you don't get tested. That is why the quarantined ship makes a good statistical sample - everyone was tested. In China many were quarantined, but not tested, in general, symptomatic people are tested, and that tends to over-estimate the death rate.

Please make sure your politicians have corona virus before you bring them to this thread. thrilled though we all are to re-run the previous US election, we like to talk about other stuff too.

Please make sure your politicians have corona virus before you bring them to this thread. — unenlightened

I did not start it. "Benkei" did! Blame TDS... it seems every bit as infectious as Corona.

So will Trump do the right thing and bring all his troops in Asia home, before they get infected?
Or will he bottle out and start denying the seriousness of the situation?

I don't care who you caught it from; just quarantine yourself until the symptoms subside. And you.

Actually, what you have is more like an allergy than an infection. Any contact with that to which you are sensitised provokes a huge over-reaction that takes over the whole mind and prevents thought about anything else.