An interesting thought: For many young Europeans, the current crisis is the first time in their living memory that Europe's borders are closing. Even if that doesn't directly affect the majority of the population, it still is somehow a sobering thought to me.

I get your point, though I was referring more to the deregulation that allowed the entire mess to happen in the first place. That was a policy born in the Thatcher/Reagan era.

If you owed the money in your bank account, then if they earn money off it, then they have to give you the money. — Antidote

That's why banks usually pay you interest or at least provide free services, such as transfers. If the contract doesn't say you get a share of the profits, then they don't "have to" give it to you.

Sadly, when you deposit the money, it's theirs, and you are now their debtor. This is how banks work. Sadly, most people do not know this and therefore carry a terrible liability with no reward. — Antidote

Are you by any chance confusing debtor and creditor here? Because otherwise this seems to be nonsense.

Those holding the wealth do not give it away to the poor, who are in greater need of it. In fact, the wealthy then pay "accounts / advisors" to tell them what to do with it to make sure they don't lose it. These "experts" are no more then people who understand the law, and therefore how to circumvent it. Otherwise, the wealthy would pay more in tax, but they don't, they pay less. If I am an employee on PAYE, I have no control over my tax, in fact, I don't even see it. If I am a Director, I can manipulate my tax liability to almost zero. In the form of dividends. Until 4 years ago, a Director dividend was balanced by what they call "tax credit". Dividend tax was 20%, tax credit was 20%. I don't need my accountant to tell me that means I used to pay nothing in tax on dividends. — Antidote

This is all true, but I don't see what this has to do with wealth. It's simply the darker side of human nature at work. It's not like wealthy people are a different species that looses all empathy with other humans. It's just easier to justify actions that only negatively impact humanity as an abstraction instead of actual people you know.

No, I was describing assets. There are 4 elements to a financial statement. Income, Expense, Assets, Liabilities. The difference between income and expense is called "cash flow", beit negative or positive. Assets are considered "long term" or "fixed". There's plenty of info out there on this, so little point me repeating it. People who sells assets do so to raise "capital" or/and to reduce liabilities. — Antidote

Yeah, I am pretty sure I know what a balance sheet is. You'd list everything that could be sold for money right now as an asset. Like the building your factory is located in.

Your mixing two things together that are not mixed. Your car gets "YOU" to work, you earn the money, not the car. If your friend gives you a lift to work, your car has not contributed to you "earning money". They are not the same thing. — Antidote

But if I were to open a business, which involves me driving to clients, I could transfer the car to the company and it'd be listed as an asset.

I'm sorry, but you missed the "elephant in the room". WW1 was nothing in comparison to WW2 for the US economy. — Antidote

I gave a single example to illustrate why I am rejecting your claim. Regardless of the exact long term effects WW2 had on the US economy, single examples aren't sufficient to justify your original claim that wars are good for the economy. Your analysis would have to be a lot more thorough.

But for the economy, its very good or they just wouldn't go to war in the first place. Every countries economy is the "crown jewels" and therefore all decisions are made with this in mind. — Antidote

Right. You'd first have to establish that wars are fought only for economic reasons. You could start with any of the two world wars.

This disease is no where near as lethal as it originally appeared to be. — frank

It originally appeared to have a case fatality rate of around 3%, which would suggest an actual mortality of 0.3 to 1%.

However, Italy is experiencing a CFR of above 7.5%. So as far as the numbers are concerned, it's actually more lethal. Of course, conditions in Italy are bad and tests are probably limited to severe cases. But it's still an indication that the virus can indeed be at least as dangerous as initially suspected.

It is a debt on the future economy, i.e. you will call the debt in (ask for the value) at a future point. — Antidote

I'd agree that money represents delayed consumption. You're giving away something you have right now (like your work) but get nothing immediately in return. Instead you get money, that you can then exchange for goods and services later. In that sense, all money is debt. It follows that, if you were to pay back all debts, all money would be consumed. But no-one really wants that, since money is so convenient.

Ask your bank who owns your deposited money? They own it, not you. You are their debtor! — Antidote

That makes no sense to me. It's my money, therefore they owe it to me, not the other way round.

What a clever move by the bankers. Imagine I could have a business and get that type of guarantee, it would make life a lot easier because now I have no responsibility for your deposit what so ever. If it fails, so what, the tax payer picks it up. — Antidote

Indeed. Neoliberalism has been taken too far, and that is one result.

Why would a bank fail? Because now they own your money, they can sell it to other people (loans). You carry the liability, their earn the interest/reward. — Antidote

That's really a problem with a capitalist economy in general, not specifically with fiat money.

You see, anyone with wealth has one objective, to hold on to that wealth for as long as possible (delayed gratification). — Antidote

And your justification for that claim is?

The fact you say you can buy stuff with your wealth, suggests its not wealth, it just savings, or money in the bank. Will your wealth be able to buy you the thing you want in 20 years time? In 40? In 3 generations. That's what wealth is. — Antidote

I think what you're describing would commonly be referred to as "capital". Investments that keep generating returns.

Assets are things that make you income. Yes you can pretend that your TV and your car and all that "stuff" is an asset because someone said it is, but its not. It doesn't generate income, instead it ties up your capital (an bad thing) and then loses money whilst making you no money. Do you see? — Antidote

Technically my car makes money, because it gets me to work. And if we're treating individuals like a business, all the necessities of life would be assets, since they are required for you to function. One might exclude stuff like TVs or gaming consoles, of course.

To be honest, you could google search this one to get the answer. War boosts an economy like nothing else. Read a little history and you will see very clearly. — Antidote

I have read "a little" history. I haven't arrived at the same conclusion you have. There are isolated examples of wars helping an economy (like the US in WW1), but for the countries that the war is fought in, it's usually pretty terrible economically (see all other participants of WW 1).

I do believe that shiny rocks became a thing way after the concept of trade and wealth. — Zehir

And why do you believe that?

Salt was also a thing to store value but I could see mischievous children destroying stored wealth with water. — Zehir

Access to salt would also have been extremely limited. There are other ways to preserve foodstuffs, but in general there wouldn't have been a way to store large quantities.

Because the piece of paper we call "money" is an I.O.U. — Antidote

While money is fundamentally connected to debt, it hasn't been directly convertible for decades. And even when it was, it was mostly a theoretical exercise. Money works regardless.

None of the items are wealth. The illusion is that if 5 people each have a ticket that says they are owed £1000, but there's only £2000 available, £3000 is an illusion in that it doesn't exist (times this by a billion). The items are all consumables items, continually devaluing to nothing. It would be hard to even call them assets, because they do not increase in value year on year. — Antidote

You have unusual definitions for both "wealth" and "assets". What I was going for is this: I can actually use my wealth to acquire things I want. Therefore, it can't be all illusory, can it?

However, history tells us (taking Germany in the 1930s) that when you have nothing to lose, because their economy was so bad after WW1, war is a big boost to the economy. — Antidote

Wars are usually pretty terrible for the economy.

Of course. Food and shelter is not the only thing to trade. This is why this example takes place in early humanity, where few other necessities existed at the time.
Remember that many of our needs are invented as we go along.
In my example, the technology in had is very limited to the needs. — Zehir

What I think you're missing is that trade need not be limited to necessities. Why not use your surplus to buy that nice shiny rock the neighboring tribe has found?

The only reason I see for you to produce more than what you eat is either because someone outside your tribe need this and is unable to acquire it on time on itself, or because you found another individual like yourself that has at the very least another kind of food or shelter (and you engage in trade). — Zehir

Food and shelter are not the only things you can trade. What about tools. Or shiny things?

They are now so out of step, the financial economy could never pay back the debts it owes. — Antidote

Why are we assuming debts must be repayed, or repayable?

The wealth we perceive is an illusion because it cannot be repaid. — Antidote

So my car, my TV and this computer are all illusions?

That, or start a massive war and hope they can kill off hundreds of millions of people and therefore the wealth will be destroyed by destroying the depositors instead. — Antidote

How would that work, exactly?

How exactly do statistics not follow. — SonOfAGun

Your statement is not connected to the post you were replying to.

"Birth rates in India are going down"
"The population will probably reach X in year Y"

Those are separate. There is a topical connection, but no logical one.

What I assume is that there will always be those who have more than others, regardless of whatever system is in place. I don't see the downfall of capitalism coming anytime soon, it is more efficient than any other currently known/demonstrated system. — SonOfAGun

Efficient at creating growth and thus wealth, certainly. But there are situations where one wouldn't choose it. Like if you were embarking on a long journey on limited resources, which is one case where there might actually be a reason to regulate procreation.

No this is not what that means, because it would not be only the "rich" that would be allowed birth rights. you would never be able to sell something like that to society as a whole, and if you were to emplement it over time it would eventually be revolted against. You do not need only the rich to have children, just the poor not to, there is plenty of middle ground there. — SonOfAGun

That depends a lot on the exact situation. If anyone only wants to have between 1 and 3 children anyways, with about equal outliers to either side, the problem hardly comes up unless you need to drastically reduce population. On the other hand, a system where you buy procreation rights might cause more affluent families to have more children, "cornering the market" so to speak. What better way to ensure your family/caste/class stays in power than to control how the next generations are raised? Have your children literally inherit the earth.

And yet the statisticians are still calculating a possible 15 billion in 2100.

https://nationalpost.com/news/could-earths-population-hit-15-billion — SonOfAGun

I feel compelled to point out that this is a complete non-sequitur

Survival of the fittest has always been the way. I don't see any reason to change that. Those who can afford to feed their children will be granted licenses. — SonOfAGun

For one that assumes money is available as a metric in the scenario we're talking about. You seem to be assuming a capitalist system here, but in a situation of strictly limited resources that's hardly a given.

But given that, such a system would mean that every generation, the poor people die out, leaving only the rich families. That means for those left over, there is only one way to go on the economic ladder - down. That means everyone rich who decides to procreate will be hell bent on ensuring the status quo remains unchanged. It's not hard to imagine all the ways in which this could go horribly wrong.

The bigger problem, in my opinion, would be to figure out a system that determines who can procreate and when, without causing unintended shifts in either the genepool or the culture.

Statistics seems to suggest the "true danger" of the virus is actually more-or-less equally dangerous to all age groups in that catching the virus doubles your chances of death this year; however, if you're plus 80 and have a 10% chance of dying this year, now it's 20% so results in way higher absolute numbers for older age groups (in addition to the triage bias). — boethius

Great. Now I am afraid :wink:

Any idea why Germany has a CFR almost an order of magnitude lower than everyone else?

4.5k cases, 9 deaths, comes out at .2 percent. The only other country that comes close is south Korea. Is Germany underreporting deaths? Keeping people on life support far longer? Just random chance?

Under what circumstances or conditions do people believe that procreation should be regulated; or do they believe in completely unregulated procreation. — IvoryBlackBishop

Well first of all it would have to be possible to regulate it in a manner that doesn't cause massive followup problems. China's one child policy is a cautionary tale here.

The second condition would have to be that it's strictly necessary for survival, as in the resources are clearly so limited that only a specific population size can survive. Technically, this is the case for earth, but since technology is constantly changing the number it cannot be established.

Once something is going off the shelves and we use it on a daily basis, the hoarding starts. — ssu

Yeah, but how did it start going off the shelves in the first place? I understand what is happening now, in terms of the psychology involved, but I don't get how it started.

Any thoughts on how this whole toilet paper craze got started? By now it's clearly a self-reinforcing cycle. But at some point, someone must have figured that the one thing they'll need in case they are cut off from supplied is toilet paper. Lots of toilet paper.

Does anyone know whether Italy has a different method for reporting deaths due to the virus? Because the numbers coming out of Italy are pretty scary.

I have heard that Italy is the only country doing extensive post-mortem tests in all cases of respiratory illness of some kind.

An interesting anecdote: Italy has received a shipment of masks and respirators from China, of all places, to help combat the virus.

I do not know if he made a "mistake", and neither do you. He re-assured the public, appointed a Corona zar to coordinate the response, and ordered travel restrictions, all of which looks reasonab le to me. If better actions were possible, maybe, probably. But I do not automatically switch to "orangeman baaaad!!" mode like so many. (I.e. the CNN consumers) — Nobeernolife

I am not asking you if you "know" he made a mistake. I am asking you if you think he did. As in, do you think he should have taken different measures, and sooner, given the information you have.

You claim to be the reasonable and sane person here. Yet you refuse to give a clear answer to an innocuous question. "I think Trump made a mistake" isn't "Orange man bad".

Because he is not perfect and does not have divine foresight? Like everybody else, apparently? Do you apply strict criteria to your preferred politician, whoever that is? — Nobeernolife

So you think he made a mistake there? Everyone makes mistakes, right?

Misguided attempt at sarcasm. Why do you think China restricts travel from Wuhan province? Why do we have the concept of quarantene at all?
Crickets... — Nobeernolife

So, why didn't Trump close the borders 2 weeks ago?

I assume there are tunnel-visioned Trump fans out there too, but I don´t really see many glaring example of parrotting blatant false talking points — Nobeernolife

Do you have a mirror?

The Netherlands is not one of them. I've decided to keep my kids home and I'm working from home. — Benkei

Things may change quickly though. 2 days ago, the only measure in my state was that large gatherings were canceled. Today it was announced that all schools, kindergardens etc. will close on Monday for 5 weeks. If the infections don't slow down markedly, I suspect all non-essential services will shut down in a week.

The case of Italy seems to have shocked Europe into more drastic action. Germany is taking steps to shut down public life. I suspect most other countries (that haven't already done so) will follow.

Would travel restrictions still be useful? Or is the only thing left to do to avoid contact with other humans as much as possible?

1. Reality is fundamentally flux, and permanency is constructed
2. Reality fundamentally is, and change is an illusion

Of those two postulates, which one is less offensive to you? That is, which one seems fundamentally more plausible and less counterintuitive? I want to know your intuitions. — Pneumenon

I would say the first. I find it easier to mentally construct the appearance of permanence out of a fundamentally flowing reality.

See if you can watch this entire compilation video of Joe Biden’s love of hair sniffing. The first one to be able to get through the entire 7-minute plus video wins! (I had to shut it off after a minute or so. I hope to make it through eventually... ) — 0 thru 9

It's actually a lot of repetition after the first three minutes. The framing is odd too. Why do people assume it's hair sniffing? It looks to me like he is whispering to them.

Because the hard problem potentially alters what we think about the world and ourselves. But again, you can ignore that if you want. — Marchesk

It's not that I want to ignore it. It just seems to me there should be implications of this line of reasoning that go beyond circumventing this specific problem.

Nope, because an illusion of qualia does not present a fundamental conceptual problem That's what the illusionists think. — Marchesk

Isn't the conceptual problem at the heart of the "hard problem" that no algorithm can translate wavelengths into the feeling of redness? In Illusionism, something still has to provide the qualia. They don't need to be generated by the specific input, but they do need to be generated somehow. But since we can't seem to come up with a physical process for generating qualia, they remain non-physical.

That's the point of the debate. If there's no hard problem, then it's just a matter of the easier problems amenable to neuroscience and psychology. Easier as in they don't cause a metaphysical or epistemological issue. — Marchesk

But we don't need a justification to ignore the hard problem. We can just concentrate on the easier problems regardless. It's not like the hard problems presents any barrier to physical research.

In addition, it seems to me that all Illusionism does is shift the problem. Isn't the problem of creating illusins of qualia just as hard?

It would not surprise me at all if Trump beats Joe.

The ticket out of this...

A Sanders/Warren ticket. — creativesoul

Well, if it's true that the capitalists (holders of economic power) dislike Sanders and campaigned against him, wouldn't that mean he'd have worse chances to be elected?

Yes, but this is a rejection of the hard problem, while explaining why we mistakenly think there is one. — Marchesk

But does it really explain, in the sense of giving additional information? What is it that Illusionism says beyond "the hard problem is an illusion?"

Yes, the brain is presenting an "interface" to itself. Some people have suggested this is for an greater ability to reflect instead of just automatic responses. — Marchesk

And what are the implications, other than that the hard problem doesn't exist?

One leads to a hard problem and one doesn't. — Marchesk

That strikes me as a bit circular. The hard problem is the reason we are even considering the approach.

An analogy used is that the illusion is like a computer desktop, which is a useful abstraction for users, while the underlying computer system is quite different from the visual interface. — Marchesk

But since, in that scenario, we are the computer desktop, it seems entirely irrelevant (much like the simulation hypothesis, incidentally).

Even if the virus is 0.25% to 0.5% lethal (which are very optimistic projections for developed countries), that is still deadly enough to tens of millions of people over the next couple years — dclements

Which is tragic on an individual scale, but will not necessarily impact society much. Even the impact of the Spanish Flu was limited, and it's still around (in less deadly strains) killing people.

You may not realize it but the governments of the world are in no way equipped to handle this virus if it keeps going at the rate it has been. — dclements

It's likely to be a serious strain on hospitals and other healthcare providers. How bad it gets will depend on the rate of hospitalisations, how well we can protect the medical personell, and whether a vaccine is available quickly. I don't see why you think governments are "in no way equipped" to handle it. What do you think will happen?

If you listen to the experts on this, and even read between the lines with some of the things they are talking about you should realize this is likely going to effect us mush like the Spanish Influenza that happen close to one hundred years ago and kill more people than World War I and world War II combined. — dclements

The Spanish Flu had a significantly higher mortality rate, and hit societies which were in bad shape and had no warning. It also disproportionately affected young adults, possibly due to the war.

Thus, illusionism is not denying there is something it's like. That's the illusion. — Marchesk

I'll second here. You'll have to first define illusion in a way that makes sense when inside the mind. What's the difference between experiencing the illusion of qualia and experiencing qualia themselves? What difference does it make in any practical capacity?

if what you want to know is how dangerous and disruptive the epidemic will be, or what your chances of falling ill are, or what your chances of dying will be if you develop symptoms — SophistiCat

I see your point, but for most people, the "chance I die if I catch it" is very relevant in determining their reaction. For the big picture, cases requiring high intensity care are probably the most important statistic. For society at large, it doesn't matter all that much whether the eventual mortality rate is 1% or 3. But individually, 1% or lower feels better than 3.4%.

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.

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".

If that is the case, then even electrical appliances which operate when they pick up electron flow, shoud be considered conscious in some sense. — StarsFromMemory

The important part here is the qualifier "in some sense". We really only understand one kind of consciousness - our own. We infer from that understanding certain observable features that we consider evidence for similar consciousness.

Beyond that understanding, the term is meaningless. Yes you can muse about whether a computer, or even a specific program within is "in some sense conscious", but the phrase contains no information, it's empty. You have no idea how such a consciousness would feel like internally, or what it entails for your treatment of the device.

How do you compare these things in their attempts to seek knowledge about the world? Is science a part of philosophy? Is science an entirely different method of seeking knowledge about the world? Does religion have any meaningful role to play in seeking knowledge about the world? — Malice

Science as a method is part of philosophy. Actual scientific research, on the other hand, is not. I'd say that all methods of gaining knowledge are part of philosophy, including a possible "religious method". However, unlike the scientific method, a "religious method" has not been established.

Without using labels, I imagine humans first began understanding the world through a lot of storytelling and basic intuition, with little data to aid them. From there they began to focus on logic and discovered much, but tried to explain far too much with it, such as why things fall to the ground. Eventually they started to focus on collecting data to fuel their logic, by creating observational tools like telescopes and constructing well measured experiments like Galieo. — Malice

I don't think it works out quite so neatly. For one, I think our mental machinery only changes very slowly over thousands of years. What has changed the way humans think is primarily the education they received, and the values they lived. The "religious" impulse is still very much there, it just manifests differently. Many of the core questions of philosophy are based on the same search for answers, rather than just predictions, that have led to religions. It's the very structure of our minds that leads us to search for meaning.

And to the population growth, a corona virus won't mean anything. Even if a million died of it, you wouldn't notice it in the statistics. — ssu

Well, if we assume the Covid 19 infects about 20% of the world population within the next 2 years, and the mortality rate is 1%, that'd be 15 Million deaths, 7.5 Million a year.

Though, admittedly, at this point this is pretty much just guessing, it shows how significant even a virus that is relatively harmless to each individual can be.