Epidemics keep getting bigger, too. — Vera Mont

I wanted to answer this with a bit more detail.
Extracted from the data table from the wiki article List of epidemics and pandemics:
1 Black Death 75–200 million deaths 17–54% of estimate global pop.
2 Spanish flu 17–100 million 1–5.4%
3 Plague of Justinian 15–100 million 7–56%
4 HIV/AIDS epidemic 42 million (as of 2023)
5 COVID-19 pandemic 6.9–28.3 million 0.1–0.4%, so far.

So, no, epidemics / pandemics are not getting 'bigger' compared to historical data.

So, no, epidemics / pandemics are not getting 'bigger' compared to historical data. — universeness

This last one covered the entire globe in less than a year. It's the sixth major epidemic in the first 20 years of this century. 2003 SARS; 2009 swine flu; 2012 West Nile; 2013–2016 Ebola virus; 2015 Zika More people died before modern medicine; now more survive, but many of them with ongoing symptoms and debilitating after-effects. And these diseases are draining modern health care systems the world over, so that there will be no reserves of material, medicine and personnel for the next one and the next and the next. Meanwhile drug-resistant cholera, TB and measles are coming back.

5 COVID-19 pandemic 6.9–28.3 million 0.1–0.4%, so far. — universeness

The operative words there are "so far". This the fourth or so iteration of coronavirus and it hasn't gone away, though people like to pretend otherwise. The past is not the future.

In this Review, we consider the extent to which these recent global changes have increased the risk of infectious disease outbreaks, even as improved sanitation and access to health care have resulted in considerable progress worldwide.

More than 1 billion people are at risk because of a , Ryan McNeill, a deputy editor of data journalism at Reuters, told CBS News. He is one of the authors of a recent series exploring hot spots around the world. In West Africa, 1 in 5 people lives in a high-risk "jump zone," which Reuters describes as areas with the greatest likelihood of viruses jumping from bats to humans. Parts of Southeast Asia are also areas of concern. In South America, deforestation has created more high-risk areas than anywhere else in the world, McNeill said.

In historical data, wars are not getting bigger, either. All we've had - constantly - since WWII is little wars scattered all over the place. Meanwhile, arsenals have been accumulating that can destroy every living thing on the planet, 20 times over. Natural disasters have not grown bigger since the last ice age - just more frequent and widespread. The potential of future war, like the potential of future pandemic, like the potential of future climate are not represented by their modest little predecessors.

Your mecha based technophilia, seems to trump your biophilia. :sad: — universeness

Perhap orga is only mecha's way of – raison d'être for – making more mecha. :smirk:

What is the thinking and belief system that fosters warfare?
— 0 thru 9

Follow-the-leader. — Vera Mont

Sometimes I wonder who (or what) the top leader is. Who’s giving the orders?
Presidents, ministers, corporations? Banks?
Little pieces of cloth-paper with numbers on it, with pictures of royalty or dead presidents?
A giant quantum computer overseen by workers in dark robes?
A fallen angel misleading humanity to skip church and dress as the opposite sex?

And then sometimes I think there’s nobody there…
that it’s the ideas and dreams (or nightmares) in our mind that we follow… or don’t.

They were rights under American law. You have no power to rescind them, and they continue to go unpunished. Indeed, many of the fortunes acquired then, by those methods, continue in the possession of similar people through inheritance and consolidation. The privilege accruing to those robber barons is still enjoyed by their descendants. — Vera Mont

What about voting for the opposing party, writing to representatives and the newspaper, and unions?
The State took my grandchildren and I joined with other Grandparents fighting for their grandchildren and our effort became a radical change in the Department of Children's Services flipping the department's relationship with extended family. Making change depends on how much someone wants that change and the person's ability to mobilize the public for change. :lol: That is not easy, no one pays attention to what I have to say about logos, education, or democracy, and some days I get really discouraged but fighting for change is what a democracy is about and we have made progress. We would make even more progress if we understood a few things differently.

Horsefeathers! When you kill someone they end up dead - you can't fail to notice. You can't not know that someone chained up in the damp, dark, rat-infested cargo hold of a ship is unhappy. You don't whip them to make them feel better: you do it to hurt them.
People were not any dumber than we are. Human brain capacity hasn't changed much since Neanderthal man. And morality wasn't invented in 400BCE Athens: stone age people knew right and wrong. They also knew that what is detrimental to one person may benefit another, so as long as the benefit is to them and the harm - no matter how much or how grievous a harm - is to a designated scapegoat, it's fine.
People then, just like the people now, just like the people in ancient times, knew what they were doing. They didn't care, just as they don't care now, what damage results from serving their short-term gains.
Who gives a damn what happens three generations down the line?
Much worse, they very often go out of their way to do harm when they have nothing to gain, out of hate, fear, resentment, to satisfy a lust, or simply for entertainment. — Vera Mont

Being dumb and having a different understanding of life are two different things. Your understanding of life is based on your experience of life and those who have a different experience will have a different way of understanding life. Our experience of life and our understanding of what government can and should do has changed greatly in the past 200 years.

Yes, morality was invented by the Athenians. A moral is a matter of cause and effect and it goes with an understanding of logos. I do not think the word moral can be found in the Bible. Christians have Christianized the concept of moral and they like to take credit for our democracy which no one saw in the Bible until there was literacy in Greek and Roman classics. We have a serious problem with Christians but that goes in another thread.

If we had the understanding of morality that began in Athens we would understand it means to know the law (universal law) and that violating the law leads to problems that get worse if the wrong is not corrected. This understanding is very important to democracy. The concept also emerged in Asia and to some degree all humans who survived had ideas about what would harm them or benefit them. But knowing what will hurt or benefit us, is not that useful without a notion of logos. It is as it is because of universal law, not because of gods that make it so.

The Bible explains slavery and believing people who look different are not humans equal to ourselves is a lie. But also speaking of slavery as though all slave owners brutalized their slaves also creates a lie. Their awareness was different from yours and today if you run across a brutal person, it is very likely that person had a different experience of life than yours, and has a whole different story of life in his/her head. What we think of that person and how we treat that person, depends strongly on the story we tell ourselves. In some persons the guards are brutal and there is agreement this is necessary because the brutal person must be dealt with brutally. In some counties, the brutality is tolerated and in some counties, it is not.

This is what philosophy is about, comparing our stories of life with other people's stories of life and arguing until we have an agreement on the best reasoning.

What is the life story in a person's head when the person is intentionally brutal? What was the life experience that led to that?

Sometimes I wonder who (or what) the top leader is. Who’s giving the orders? — 0 thru 9

It's not one person, like an emperor. It's a loose association that shares a single interest: to own and consume the world. There's a book I haven't read yet...

Presidents, ministers, corporations? Banks? — 0 thru 9

Yes, and throw in the odd monarch and pope. In the olden days, it was simple: the emperor and his immediate advisors really did rule. In the even older days, the warlords of northern tribes actually led their warriors in fights for territory and resources, which would then be shared among the tribe. African, American and Oceanic cultures were usually organized on somewhat different lines, but the chieftains still had to lead and to make decisions that would benefit their people. While they led well, they were followed; when they could not, they were replaced.

Enlarged empires complicated these roles and arrangements. Peoples who were not blood-kin had to live under the same ruler; there was confusion, internal strife and unrest. More people, more ways to share, more co-ordination, more laws and layers, administrators and enforcers. And greater costs to reckon before and after each decisive event.

Now, the complication is global, as are the confusion, strife and unrest. The heads of nations are figurative and the real empires are not drawn on maps.

People who rule financial empires that need to grow are behind it all. Some deliberately pull the strings of politicians; some directly influence the mind of the masses; mostly they just invest - in media, in political campaigns, in arms manufactury, in retail and shipping, even in philanthropy. What they really control is capital - an insatiable caterpillar. Like every other life-form, the imperative of capital is to grow and reproduce. Capital itself is as mindless as a protozoan, but as it eats up the world and its human and other populations, its byproducts are luxury yachts and planes, exclusive spas, jewels and paintings and $100,000 bottles of wine, chateaux and glittery skyscrapers and silk-lined bunkers against the collapse of the civilization that their ver own activities are pushing toward collapse.

These people don't desire war, or mass shootings or terrorism or genocide; those are just some of the means to get things done. They just want to own more stuff, so they promote and support men who get things done . And because we humans are tribal, we always follow men who get things done. Except, of course, they don't: we do. The 'leaders' are absolutely sure of what is wrong, who is to blame and how it must be fixed. They are very good at communicating their certainty - and we are so thirsty for certainty, we'll follow them anywhere for just another drop. In pursuit of certainty, we are eager to take direction from them, take instruction, take orders, take up arms and leave our individual selves behind, just to have a meaning in their cause.

Of course, when it comes time to charge, the modern leader is usually in a tent or bunker or dining room far behind the lines. And his invisible, anonymous backers are farther back still, ready to abandon any 'leader' who falters, loses his grip on the peons or is defeated by some other leader. Those 'leaders' are practically interchangeable: every generation throws up a few dozen sociopaths who thrive on attention, adulation, subservience and awe. One gets stabbed in the back, the next one is already in line for the throne, with his own loyal army to secure it. The backers simply choose the next 'leader' and back away while he's installed. The changeover is always a messy business; they don't want any blood splashed on their own hummingbirdskin loafers.

A giant quantum computer overseen by workers in dark robes? — 0 thru 9

White lab coats. That computer is our best hope of redemption, because the aliens are not coming.

We would make even more progress if we understood a few things differently. — Athena

Yes, I agree.

Your generalised historical description of those events are accurate and you know I fully agree that they cannot be justified. My question to you then becomes. Do you think many more humans, all around the planet, now utterly condemn those events, than ever have in the past? If you agree, then does that not speak well for the progression of the general enlightenment of our species? I would also say to Athena, that I think such improvements in general enlightenment, are happening, despite regressive god posit influences or old Greco/Roman fables. My main argument with you Vera , is, as you know, your at times, general disdain of your entire species, because of the vile actions of a nefarious few. — universeness

Thank you for the mention. You made me think of today's news about national leaders who appear to benefit themselves by exploiting others. To jump on universeness's side of the argument, CEOs who get million-dollar salaries are no better than those terrible leaders who use force to silence unhappy citizens. I am really quite amused right now by the unions demanding the workers get the same pay raise as the millionaire CEOs have gotten. Auto workers, nurses, the entertainment industry.

:chin: How long do you think it will take the capitalist to realize their is a problem with their formula for wealth?

I was a caregiver for a while and my wages were so low I could provide my children with a decent standard of living. Doing my very best was not good enough for the children's well-being and they turned against the values they were taught. They came back to those values, but not before having children of their own and really messing up their lives.

If I were king, all decisions would be based on what is best for the children and living sanely within the limits of nature. It would be a law that the population can not exceed the resources of the community. Diverting a river that many states must use, to provide for overpopulated places would be forbidden.
Laws would be based on laws of nature!!!

Yes, I agree. — Vera Mont

Okay, I now hope we can bring Universeness around to the possibility that is the foundation of our democracy- humans will do as well as they know how to do and if we want to change things, we need to begin with education, including the education of adults. That is the importance of this forum.

We need to make some agreements about how things should be and then how we can achieve it. People breeding like rabbits was great when most of us died before our 40th birthday but it is not a good thing today. Waiting for a God to solve our problems is not an option if we destroy this planet, He is not going to give us another one to mess up and we will mess it up as long as He gives us free will.

:heart: Humans are intelligent animals and that is best when they are well educated but that is not thinking of the young as products to prepare for industry or education for technology that makes them dependent on authority over them.

That being said, there will be those who haven't even noticed it, tucked away as it is.
I haven't read it all. Only sampled a few pages. That was enough for me to 'pipe in'.
I felt the need to question. But that's me being me. Avoiding housework. — Amity

This thread has wandered all over the place and I hadn't noticed it was moved to the lounge but I can live with all that because I think the few of us who stayed with the thread have made progress. What is happening here will seep into other threads and eventually, the movement may change the world because this is not the only place that is part of the movement. The whole notion of democracy and logos has been around for thousands of years, but right now that knowledge seems seriously limited.

The priority purpose of education in the US was good citizenship that would make our republic united and strong. We prepared everyone for good moral judgment without the Church! As the Athenians did we created an American mythology and this was part of preparing our young to be good citizens. That is education transmitted a culture that is essential to democracy and our liberty. Only when democracy and liberty are defended in the classroom is it defended. That is what makes culture critical.

I would first, again clearly state, my lack of academic qualifications in philosophy. — universeness

It is not knowledge that is the end all but how we process our thoughts. Anyone can be valuable in the discussions providing the individual has had preparation for logical thinking and is not 100% driven by emotions. Today most arguments are nothing but emotionally driven conflicts. Especially in politics.

The conflict Athenians had with those who taught rhetoric skills and the old-school philosophers tickles me.

Plato and Socrates believed these teachers and their rhetorical teachings were dangerous because they promised anyone the ability to make compelling arguments in courts and the assembly without a clear sense of the values that should guide this kind of speech.

Chapter 2: The “Origins” of Rhetorical Theory
https://open.lib.umn.edu/rhetoricaltheory/chapter/chapter-2/#:~:text=Plato%20and%20Socrates%20believed%20these,guide%20this%20kind%20of%20speech.

Wouldn't Plato and Socrates have a cow if they saw today's advertisements and political campaigns?

This thread has wandered all over the place and I hadn't noticed it was moved to the lounge but I can live with all that because I think the few of us who stayed with the thread have made progress. — Athena

OK, that's good to know. :smile:

Moral, is a matter of cause and effect. When the consequences are good it is moral. If the consequences are bad it is immoral.
— Athena

How would this understanding apply to something like abortion? I think that for any normal person abortion 'feels' wrong, so one consequence of it is a bad feeling. That indicates that it's immoral, according to the cause & effect view. On the other hand, studies indicate that legalizing abortion reduces crime/poverty, a good consequence.

Things become less clear when it comes to personal rights, authority, and tradition. The values that shape our personal and social identities often disagree on the consequences of abortion. — praxis

Athens's patron goddess favored the life of a man over a woman's life and I have a problem with that patriarchy.

I

In the case of ancient Athens, abortion was not forbidden by law. However, this right was not directed at the woman and her sovereignty over her body but at the rights of the father of the child she was carrying (Flacelière, 1971).May 19, 2023

Ancient Athenian Women and the issue of abortion
https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/archaeology-classics-and-egyptology/blog/2023/ancient-athenian-women-abortion/#:~:text=In%20the%20case%20of%20ancient,carrying%20(Flaceli%C3%A8re%2C%201971).

I think, when it comes to abortion we might want to ask what does "liberty" mean? For darn sure a woman with a child, in her belly or her arms, does not have liberty. If she does not want to be a mother and/or does not have the ability to provide for the child, the effect of her pregnancy will not be good.

How does society look at mothers who need help supporting a child? Is she honored almost as much as the Great Earth Mother or is she shamed and marginalized? Will her child be welcomed by the community and be valued by this community? It is not just the mother and child we need to consider but also the community the child is being born into.

PS How about privacy? I think privacy is very important and what we do with our bodies including not only abortion but also the right to die with dignity, is between ourselves and God. There are some things that are public and others that are private. Government and our neighbors should stay out of what is private.

If she does not want to be a mother and/or does not have the ability to provide for the child, the effect of her pregnancy will not be good. — Athena

Unwilling parents have been known to rise to the occasion and a child add much to their lives, so the overall effect could turn out to be good in many cases, in which case your cause-and-effect moral theory doesn't pan-out so well.

Unwilling parents have been known to rise to the occasion and a child add much to their lives, so the overall effect could turn out to be good in many cases, in which case your cause-and-effect moral theory doesn't pan-out so well. — praxis

Unwilling is not the same as unable.
Yes, some able but unwilling parents have 'risen to the occasion' in some ways. Usually by giving up what they wanted to do with their own lives for what they needed to to do for the child. However, many more able but unwilling parents either attempted to rise to the occasion and failed, having to give child up, willingly or more often by force, and some end up hurting or killing the child while some raise the child so badly that he or she becomes another liability to society. Overall, not a happy outcome for the people involved or for society.

Unwilling is not the same as unable. — Vera Mont

There would seem to be no moral issue for women who are unable to give birth, given that there's no choice in the matter.

Yes, some able but unwilling parents have 'risen to the occasion' in some ways. Usually by giving up what they wanted to do with their own lives for what they needed to to do for the child. However, many more able but unwilling parents either attempted to rise to the occasion and failed, having to give child up, willingly or more often by force, and some end up hurting or killing the child while some raise the child so badly that he or she becomes another liability to society. Overall, not a happy outcome for the people involved or for society. — Vera Mont

You seem to be suggesting that forcing birth, or rather that making abortion illegal is immoral because in some cases it may result in bad consequences. Why are you identifying giving birth as the cause of the bad result? It would seem more reasonable to identify the raising of the child "so badly" as the cause of the bad result.

Moral, is not a matter of cause and effect. It's a matter of intuition and culture, to put it broadly. It involves reason of course, though I don't know if it can be said to be rational, not strickly rational anyway.

How long do you think it will take the capitalist to realize their is a problem with their formula for wealth? — Athena

Getting them to care, is the problem.

That is not easy, no one pays attention to what I have to say about logos, education, or democracy — Athena

That's just not true. I very much agree with Education! Education! Education! I just don't see much value in any emphasis on Greek/Athenian values or on the musings of ancient thinkers such as Plato or Aristotle. I prefer more contemporary musings.

There would seem to be no moral issue for women who are unable to give birth, given that there's no choice in the matter. — praxis

Of course they do! Lots of women who can't give birth adopt babies from women who could and didn't want to, or children taken away from parents who could not or would not adequately rise to parenthood, or import one from a country too poor to care for all of its children, or commission a surrogate or buy one on the black market. All those children are available and negotiable.

You seem to be suggesting that forcing birth, or rather that making abortion illegal is immoral because in some cases it may result in bad consequences. — praxis

I don't see that anywhere in the quoted text. I will say now that forcing parenthood on the unwilling will always have bad consequences, especially for the unwanted child. There are several ways both for the woman and her society to avoid that bad outcome; abortion is only one option. I didn't invoke morality on either side of the issue, nor do I wish to engage in yet another debate on abortion.
As regards education, which was central to this thread all along, it could and should imo be instrumental both in preventing unwanted pregnancies and in promoting sound family management.

Why are you identifying giving birth as the cause of the bad result? — praxis

Because without a birth, there would be no child of contention. And of course I did not identify the birth as the cause of a bad result, but rather the forcing of a child on unwilling parent(s).

These people don't desire war, or mass shootings or terrorism or genocide; those are just some of the means to get things done. They just want to own more stuff, so they promote and support men who get things done . And because we humans are tribal, we always follow men who get things done. Except, of course, they don't: we do. The 'leaders' are absolutely sure of what is wrong, who is to blame and how it must be fixed. They are very good at communicating their certainty - and we are so thirsty for certainty, we'll follow them anywhere for just another drop. In pursuit of certainty, we are eager to take direction from them, take instruction, take orders, take up arms and leave our individual selves behind, just to have a meaning in their cause.

Of course, when it comes time to charge, the modern leader is usually in a tent or bunker or dining room far behind the lines. And his invisible, anonymous backers are farther back still, ready to abandon any 'leader' who falters, loses his grip on the peons or is defeated by some other leader. — Vera Mont

:up: Thanks for your reply!
If our civilization as a whole were a car, it would be one being held together by duct tape and wire with a frame so rusted that hitting a pothole could cause collapse.
We are like the children in the backseat fearing for our lives.
Daddy driving the car is a penny pincher who thinks he can squeeze more mileage out of it.
And he doesn’t want the kids to mess up his other car, a Lambo.

A giant quantum computer overseen by workers in dark robes?
— 0 thru 9

White lab coats. That computer is our best hope of redemption, because the aliens are not coming. — Vera Mont

Interesting. Why do you think that computer is our best hope?
(Besides the nonexistent aliens who are not coming, not surprisingly :yum: )

Why do you think that computer is our best hope? — 0 thru 9

Humans have so far proved incapable of rational resource management.

:up:

@universeness

He who despairs of the human condition is a coward, but he who has hope for it is a fool. — Albert Camus

Of course they do! Lots of women who can't give birth adopt babies from women who could and didn't want to, or children taken away from parents who could not or would not adequately rise to parenthood, or import one from a country too poor to care for all of its children, or commission a surrogate or buy one on the black market. All those children are available and negotiable. — Vera Mont

We seem to have lost the plot here so I will ignore this part.

I will say now that forcing parenthood on the unwilling will always have bad consequences, especially for the unwanted child. — Vera Mont

Really? You can't even imagine parents who were initially unwilling but ended up with a good outcome for themselves and their initially unwanted child??? Personally, my wife and I chose not to have children but I can imagine that if we were unable to avoid it things could have turned out well.

I did not identify the birth as the cause of a bad result, but rather the forcing of a child on unwilling parent(s). — Vera Mont

That doesn't dismiss the question in any way. Forcing parenthood is only one cause out of literally countless causes that could be identified for a bad result.

I think the bottom line here is that sapiens are not rational beings and therefore suggesting that morality is essentially rational, that it "is a matter of cause & effect" is false and misguided. Morality involves personal and shared values, identity, and intuitions that we may not even be consciously aware of.

You can't even imagine parents who were initially unwilling but ended up with a good outcome for themselves and their initially unwanted child??? — praxis

I can imagine it, but that image doesn't fit with anything I've seen in the real world.
For a grown woman in a stable marriage with reasonably secure income and health insurance, an unplanned baby is no great hardship. For a 15-year-old homeless girl whose boyfriend/stepfather/john/rapist agent of conception is long departed from the scene, it's the disaster. Which do you suppose is more likely to want an abortion? Which do you suppose has less access to one?

suggesting that morality is essentially rational, that it "is a matter of cause & effect" is false and misguided. — praxis

Fine. I didn't say a word about morality. But now it's here, I might remark that I'm not a fan of people who are not required to pay the price of the outcome thrusting their moral judgment on the people who are, and justify it by being able to 'imagine' a situation where the outcome isn't bad.

How does society look at mothers who need help supporting a child? Is she honored almost as much as the Great Earth Mother or is she shamed and marginalized? Will her child be welcomed by the community and be valued by this community? It is not just the mother and child we need to consider but also the community the child is being born into. — Athena

This is a crucial question.

And because it seems difficult to not think it sounds like a naïve question or adopt a jaded, cynical, or pessimistic attitude towards it, may illustrate how low our expectations have slid.

A culture that can’t cover such a basic need is in trouble. (Probably not breaking news to anyone… )

Why do you think that computer is our best hope?
— 0 thru 9

Humans have so far proved incapable of rational resource management. — Vera Mont

Ok, won’t argue with that point!

But the computer would have to be given authority to make important decisions with many nuanced circumstances and possible consequences.
As of now, AI is having trouble driving a car without doing something bafflingly dangerous.
Also, Elon Musk would probably own the world-ruling quantum computer.
So that’s gotta be a strike against it.

But seriously though, as a tool to help guide those truly interested in helping the world at large (instead of their own bank account, if there are any such people) then sure… let’s eventually give it a try. :nerd:

Fine. I didn't say a word about morality. But now it's here... — Vera Mont

It was there from the start. It was the entire focus, actually, and abortion was merely an example. I could have used many other examples. I guess it was too good an example, you getting so caught up in it that the point was lost.

He who despairs of the human condition is a coward, but he who has hope for it is a fool. — Albert Camus

Sounds like a man who experienced a lot of self-contradiction. He probably died quite young in a car accident.

I could have used many other examples. — praxis

I wonder.

He who despairs of the human condition is a coward, but he who has hope for it is a fool.
— Albert Camus

Sounds like a man who experienced a lot of self-contradiction. He probably died quite young in a car accident. — universeness

He was a candle who burned at both ends, lit by an older, fluttering flame ...

Oh, plenty of hope, an infinite amount of hope – but not for us. — Franz Kafka

Anyone - fool, coward, hero, saint, old maid, disowned son, abandoned child - can have hope. Hope doesn't need reason or evidence. "In sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life". Hope doesn't cost anything or mean anything or affect anything. Despair is transitory: if you chicken out on the next exit, you have to keep truckin' and leave it behind.