Daniel Dennett's theories of consciousness and the self won me over in undergrad.
our thoughts are ultimately a string of narrative spewing from our brain
so we ultimately are our thoughts, there is no self outside of those thoughts

it's definitely a rabbit hole that erodes some fundamental concepts that societal structures depend on, like self, free will, responsibility...

"I" try not to think about it too much

I would say studying philosophy definitely made me "weird"
As a child I was pretty conventional, a theist, athletic and popular and well liked.
Taking philosophy in first year undergrad completely dislodged my conventional thinking and put me into a spin of confusion that persists decades later
It also made me "different" than others
One example: I have moved (thanks to Dennet) into a view of my self as a far from integrated string of narrative spewing from my brain
Most people have never really even thought about what the self is...
that difference in thinking definitely leads to disconnect and alienation
If I ever had kids, I would definitely steer them away from philosophy, ignorance is indeed bliss

so what do you think is going on here? Why are you being pressured to do so?

I'll admit I find the conspiracy theories that covid is being manipulated as part of some plot by global elites to enslave us all, as pretty much irrational.

On the other hand, when there is a broad policy approach that curtails liberties and promotes the adoption of a drug only approved on an emergency basis by the FDA, it makes you wonder, if the science is so clear that the virus is not a threat to 99.9% of the population under 50, what exactly is going on here?

If more targeted balanced approaches, like that taken in Sweden, clearly don't seem to obviously result in more adverse virus outcomes then why are all these medical professionals in support of the dominant narrative and dismissive of more balanced approaches?

is it big pharma with such amazing world influence?

do you feel the same about the johnson vaccine which is a more traditional one and I'll admit freaks me out less?

I am with you, but as you have experienced novel perspectives on choosing death face a lot of resistance. Maybe in 10 years we will be closer to the model you espouse and my exit will be easy peasy.

i mean the sports performance is just one aspect of the overall deterioration that will significantly diminish my enjoyment in life

yup I imagine life expectancy for savages like me is lower, because if you aren't into the arts and intellectual pursuits, then as your body breaks down the physical sensations and outlets that sustained you wither away....there's less reason to live

btw I have always been a savage, as a child I never read for pleasure (only out of obligation), didn't like puzzles or board games that were strategic...I would rather do than think

[reply="Todd Martin;507451"
it's more like I can see that the party is going to get old and no fun anymore and so want to enjoy the last hour or so

living for the happiness of another (not matter how much I love her) is I think a recipe for disaster
I can't suffer through simply for her sake, I wouldn't expect that from her either

yeah I am a pretty basic dude
my reasons for living are sex, good food, driving sports cars, playing sports, lifting weights, being in nature and sharing laughs and good moments with family and friends
I am entirely uncultured (no interest in the arts or anything the like), don't read and am not interested in broader goods (too difficult to define in my post-theistic chaotic mind)

so as a basic dude, the more my body my breaks down and my reasons for living become less accessible and then clouded by annoyances like poor sleep, physical limitations and ailments, the balance sheet starts to sway towards I'd rather go out on a high...

interesting, sounds like more people think this way than they reveal

my brother!
my wife also hates when I talk this way
and I also love the sense of freedom that comes with conscious recognition of the choice to choose the timing of your exit

appreciate the perspectives.
we all have different tolerances for suffering and I fully recognize I have very little tolerance, so as things break down it affects me more than most.
I've always been a doer, my states of happiness have almost always been related to the physical and sensations
so sports, lifting weights, driving fast cars, eating great food, sex, being in nature (sex in nature being one of the best!)
these have been the primary drivers for me
and what's clear to me is that as I age, my ability to engage in those things and derive enjoyment from those things is clearly declining and will only continue to do so
one example:
I've always been a pretty good soccer player and still play open age but I've gone from one of the better players on my team to one of the worst and am almost a liability now
and yes sure I could move to the over 35 league, and I will, but it's simply not the same
that's just one example of the decline

so i feel like I should maximize what I have left for the next 10 years and not worry if I run out of money by then and can no longer survive...it will be a good run!

yeah I was raised a theist and my brain became a little hard wired with the God gives meaning and purpose to everything and now that's been taken away, and I face the reality that we are complex machines, it does seem all rather hollow in contrast

[reply="Dharmi;506647"
I disagree, there comes a point where the balance sheet shows more suffering than happiness, and then it's time to leave

your reasons are much less selfish!

\
no such thing as choice in randomness

that's a definite possibility I suppose, but not sure about the higher wisdom part, I am pretty convinced this is all just a random mess

yah it's all relative, and that's exactly my point, I only see my level of happiness relative to my own prior level of happiness declining as my body breaks down. There was a guy in his early 60's in my gym who said that every month he got a little weaker...I'd rather not.

The little lady will be fine, if I really decide to go down this path, I won't let her stick around, I will set her free to find a new partner.

ha ha yes I have, is the suggestion that weed might give me a reason to want to stick around longer than 10 years?

As I see it, Katz fails to acknowledge the unknown risk in pursuing herd immunity. Maybe it will work out for the best, as Sweden hoped for early on. Or maybe it will be an unmitigated disaster. — Andrew M

Actually I think we have a good sense of what would happen if we are able to properly and fully insulate the vulnerable (and those who choose to identify as such) from those for whom the threat poses no real risk (i.e. 99% of the population)...there would be no great disaster, the virus would eventually become endemic for 99% of the population and the vulnerable will be protected once they are all vaccinated.

The only tricky part to this solution as I see it is:

How would enforcement of isolation for those who COULD have contact with the vulnerable be maintained? Would the health workers and others who might have contact with the vulnerable be required to have a tracking device such that if they moved outside of certain parameters at certain times enforcement would occurr?

I

I actually meant my reply to be at you, I don't think it actually is all that complex....

So no one has really pointed out flaws in the risk based covid policy approach suggested by Katz?
I do wonder why no region has actually tried this approach. Sweden did sort of, but they didn't properly protect the vulnerable. Thinking about it more, it's really not all that complex. If we really made the vulnerable and those who come into contact with them shelter in place and let the rest of the population live normally, there is no question in my mind that we would better off. The collateral damage of the restrictions would be immensely diminished.

The virus would spread through the non-vulnerable and eventually play itself out as immunity across the healthy population increases. The vulnerable would be protected from the virus as they isolate and avoid contact.

The only tricky part of this plan is making sure those who come into contact with the vulnerable also shelter in place and stay locked down. It may well be that the impracticality of this is the barrier to implementation...

The other barrier to this plan is of course those who say "you never know how it might affect one individual" which is where I get exasperated, we do know that the odds of a healthy person under 70 having serious implications from covid is about the same as winning the lottery, you can't plan social policy to avoid such an unlikely event.

this suggested surgical approach to covid policy makes a lot of sense to me

https://davidkatzmd.com/coronavirus-information-and-resources/

base restrictions on level of risk

anyone care to point to flaws in this approach?

I can;t see any and think it would work well, I don't see it ever actually being followed due to its complexity.

I am sympathetic to a more surgical approach to covid response policy, i.e. protect the vulnerable but otherwise allow the virus to spread amongst the healthy so that it will ultimately be defeated.

Indeed this approach has been very clearly articulated by a Dr Katz here:
https://davidkatzmd.com/coronavirus-information-and-resources/

if you review his suggested approach, you will see it is incredibly complex and difficult to administer.

This is why I think governments are simply resorting to simpler "solutions" (restrictions and lockdowns) that are actually not as effective. Administering complex social policy is in fact well very complex and governments tend to avoid complex solutions.

agreed the logic escapes me

.

Don't do restrictions: lesser evil. My vote. It will be messy, it will leave a mark, and it will not be popular, but it will be over relatively quickly. Everyone left will recover, more quickly and will be functionally immune to the virus (as anyone who isn't is dead) meaning they can move forward with less fear about that thing anyway. — Book273

I am sympathetic to this, but it will never take hold and I think it's a huge function of the fact that the significant majority of people still believe in God

I tend to agree, while places without restrictions do seem to have higher death and hospitalisation rates, I am not sure the decreases that restrictions bring are worth the collateral damage...but a utilitarian based analysis of that is off the table (I have yet to see a government actually do an analysis on the collateral damage vs the decreased deaths and hospitalisations) for public policy because it's simply not politically viable to say we should endure increased deaths of some for the greater good of the majority

I am sympathetic to the idea that the current mainstream policy response might not be the best (particularly because of the massive collateral damage that is ongoing), but I do wonder about your assertion that "things are the same" with or without restrictions in terms of hospitalisation rates and deaths?

I always looked at Sweden hopefully, as an example of how more reasonable restrictions might be the right policy response, but their death rate does seem to be much higher than the neighbouring countries which had stronger restrictions...

do you have other examples of places that didn't bother with restrictions and are no worse off in terms of hospitalisations and deaths?

I also get the pull the band aid off in one big feel swoop argument versus slowly pull it off and prolong the damage, but I think the idea was that they were waiting for the vaccine which would make the pain of pulling it off much less.

yup no easy answer to that, but I would suggest it's not mere preservation of life (survival) at the cost of lots of collateral damage

so basically we're fucked with covid, no way around it

fucked if we do restrictions (all the collateral damage)
fucked if we don't (covid will kill and injure many people)

so which is the lesser evil?

no easy answer to that, but I would be happy if policy makes at least turned their minds to a weighing of those alternatives instead of simply not entertaining some policy options which I think are not politically viable in our society due to the continued mainstream belief in God (75% apparently believe in God in the US).

he probability of contracting Covid is proportional to the number of people you directly or indirectly interact with, e.g. the number you speak to, the number who touch the same door handle as you, the number who use the same ATM, etc. Sweden has a population density of 25 people per square kilometre. New York has a population density of 40,000 people per square kilometre. Can you see how that will effect the spread of the virus and the measures necessary to contain it? — Kenosha Kid

yes I can see that there will likely be more cases in densely populated areas but this does not mean that our hospitals would in fact become over-run.

I will say that yours and others comments have made me feel better about the policy response and how it is quite complicated and not necessarily driven by archaic beliefs

interesting

I think what is meant by good is "human flourishing" coined by Sam Harris, positive states of consciousness of humans.

I don't think it is predictable, given what happened in Sweden and other areas with little to no restrictions, where they were also providing care to the over 80's

Yes it does. Once the hospitals are maxed out, or as in your schema simply not employed for Covid, the rate plummets because there's no room for more patients. It becomes a one-in one-out deal. — Kenosha Kid

huh?

worst case we let it spread and in fact it wreaks havoc among those under 80 such that our hospitals can't cope then we respond with restrictions
— dazed

I agree that is the worst case. Kind of weird that you're advocating for it. — Kenosha Kid

I am not advocating for it, I am saying restrictions and lockdowns should only occur if we get to such a state...which I don't think we will if we follow the under 80 only suggestion.

How are you measuring 'good'? — Isaac

yes it's complicated, but I think you know what I mean

are you a theist?

I mean there is no question it is a hard difficult choice to make but this virus is forcing is into this position,

do you honestly believe that the good gained by saving the lives of those over 80 (whose quality of life is obviously significantly diminished by that point) outweighs the suffering of the billions that covid lockdowns and restrictions cause?

increased suicides
mental health issues
domestic violence and abuse
loss of livelihoods
delay in surgeries that would otherwise promote life and quality of life

if by "normal" you mean people who believe in God and souls, then you are correct, most "normal" people would not opt for my suggestion..

the hospitilization RATE does not alter with the amount of infection, my argument is that the hospitilization rate is low enough in those under 80 that even if the virus were allowed to simply spread the hospitals would not be over-run if we limited care to those under 80

in jurisdictions like south dakota or sweden where there were little to no restrictions, the sky did not fall and they were still treating those over 80

worst case we let it spread and in fact it wreaks havoc among those under 80 such that our hospitals can't cope then we respond with restrictions

our current policy is based on the FEAR of the potential of our health resources not being able to cope

Noone knows how common they are with any certainty, which is part of the reason why we should be pessimistic about them. The force of the overall argument does not remain. It cannot remain. If you properly understand utilitarianism, you understand that every consequence needs to be accounted for, so you do need to take this into account. If your argument remains unchanged after hearing about negative consequences, then you're doing it wrong. — Echarmion

I'll admit it is hard to find clear information on this (I wrongly assumed based on the lack of reporting of such complications that it was very rare) so perhaps this is a flaw in the utilitarian argument I've presented.

But I don't think it is the fear of this that motivates public policy, it's more about preventing deaths and survival of everyone that motivates public policy and for me this focus is rooted in archaic theistic tinged beliefs that every soul is sacred..I honestly don't think the collateral damage being caused by covid public policy is worth the amount of good that is gained by saving the lives of those over 80

But it is simply publicly not palatable for a politician to come out and say "we need to limit our medical resources to protect the lives of those under 80 to preserve our way of life and society for those under 80"...and why is that not palatable? because the mainstream narrative is still dominated by archaic beliefs in God, souls etc We must save lives at all cost! There is no deeper analysis about quality of life.

No, the social, political, economic and cultural consequences of letting millions of people die, apparently at home or in some kind of mass palliative care, burying them in mass graves, and telling everyone they really shouldn't get all emotional about it, since it really was the only rational choice.

And what about the pressures this kind of strategy puts on people? With the virus at high tide, how many people are forced into a decision of going to work and risking their health and that of their families or loose their job? And what if you miscalculated the chance of complications and hospitals are forced to triage the patients under 80? Did you actually consult any statistics and look at likely scenarios for your plan or do you just figure it'll work based on "common sense"? — Echarmion

my argument is that the consequences of letting the over 80's die (come on they've had a good run!) is indeed outweighed by the immense consequences of the collateral damage being done by covid public policy

As I said above, I'll admit your point about covid wreaking more havoc in terms of severe complications could remove the force of the argument...

So letting the virus run rampant and closing hospitals to those over 80 would, of course kill tons of those over 80, but it would also have overwhelmed hospitals with younger COVID patients so regular sick folks (without COVID) would be crowded out and death rates for everything else would have jumped. — LuckyR

umm, no, half of the hospitalisations are those over 80, take away half the hospitilizations and there is no issue with hospital capacity