Printable View
In fairness... who else is going to be that fucking stupid?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The fact that the store even sold it to her in that quantity tells me they'll have the shelves restocked by the time she leaves the driveway. By what magic would the coronavirus affect any supply chain?
Or, that the store doesn't give a shit either.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
But, prefer to believe what you say, as it suggests she's going to have a garage full of tp for the next 10 years, and have to try to explain it to everyone who comes to visit her.
To help keep my mind wise and clear, I consume the extremes of both sides. They both act like they're on acid.
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
How do catch that?
I deleted that after 30s... thought it wasn't condescending enough.
It wasn't!Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Umm, have you ever done acid?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
No. I acknowledge I was using "on acid" like somebody who would pull on his trousers and say "those damn hippies"
I kinda miss the "on acid" description. Better than "on steroids," IMO.
The lady with the camera acting like she's entitled to a store full of goods every time she arrives, no matter the extenuating circumstances is being no less selfish than the woman who bought the paper goods. Just that the camera-woman's whole point is that the other woman is being selfish that leaves me uninterested in whatever happens after the first 60 seconds.
Do they team up and fight a pack of rogue monkeys that swarm in?
Otherwise, this is just stupid people being stupid and acting morally superior over their personal brand of stupidity.
I don't see how it can be read this way. The camera lady is trying to shame the hoard lady (which may in itself be stupid), but the implied gripe is not that 'this is bad for me' it's that 'this is bad for everyone else but the hoard lady, which makes hoard lady a cunt.'Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I noticed that Barr last night issues a statement to criminalise hoarding, but only of essential goods like respirators, masks, etc.. I would have loved to see him add 'and toilet paper' to that statement, and then cut to a video of the SWAT team busting in on hoard lady in her house, surrounded by rolls of toilet paper, which she would throw at them in a desperate attempt to escape while they tazed her.
I don't see the fine line you seem to be drawing where you assume the camera woman is some altruistic do-gooder on a crusade to save us all from the evil hoarders.
Your entire argument is, "the hoarder's selfishness is inferior to the rest of our selfishness."
TP and paper towels are not essential goods. No one is being harmed by the hoarder collecting up paper goods.
If hoarder lady had bought every mask in the department store, I'd have a different song to sing... but I'm not sure I'd be singing it at the poor lady in the parking lot.
All the hoarder did was a perfectly legal consumer transaction. If the store doesn't want to ration sales, then maybe point that camera at the store's manager instead of the poor woman in the parking lot.
Reductio ad bananum. I explicitly said camera lady was probably being stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Her selfishness may not be on a level that results in death, but it's hard to think someone trying to profit off other's desire to wipe their ass is being the kind of 'team player' we'd like have in our society in a time of crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
So, you think facilitating a toilet paper racket (the store) is wrong, but running that racket yourself (hoarder lady) is ok? Surely, they must share the blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Moreover, there's lot of things that are 'legal' to do, but you're still a cunt if you do them.
In a very cynical way, my wish that Trump voters would feel the brunt of their own stupidity, rather than some 3rd world country, could hardly have been better fulfilled than with this pandemic.
Between this and the guy drinking aquarium cleaner because it had a similar sounding active ingredient to the miracle cure that Trump tweeted about, this has been just fantastic:
starts at 3:05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu_HU8I7OOg
There's a similar thing going on here, where moral snobs assume the hoarders are Brexit voters. Of course, they ignore the fact there are plenty of Brexit voters giving their phone number to village shops, offering help delivering supplies to the old folk.
Now is not the time for politics. I guarantee that somewhere there is a Bernie supporter or a remainer hoarding bog roll. It doesn't matter. A cunt is a cunt, regardless of their political persuasion.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Also, stupid people don't deserve to die because they take advice from others they trust when they're scared of dying. People who promote stupid ldeas like shoving a blow dryer up your nose when they should know better are a million times worse than the people who believe them.
Sure. I think I'm being fair when I assume that Bernie people are more likely of the trust-the-scientists and help-your-neighbours persuasion and as such are probably less likely to drink aquarium cleaning products on the vague recommendation of the president.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
debatableQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
To be clear: If a Bernie supporter reads this:
https://imagevars.gulfnews.com/2020/...inal-ratio.jpg
and then decides to self medicate based on that, then I have no sympathies either.
Maybe in a Darwinian sense they do. I'm talking about from a moral perspective; it's not a deliberate choice to be too dumb to figure things out for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
And yeah, this is where it really hits home why you don't want a Captain Retard in charge when the shit hits the fan.
On another note, looks like Fauci is on his way out; hasn't been seen in public and either has CV himself or (more likely) C.R. heard about that interview he did.
Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. Maybe weed smokers are more likely to help old folk than pissheads. Doesn't mean I'm going to go around accusing selfish people of being pissheads.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I wonder how many aides were hanging off his arms and legs while he was tweeting that begging him to stop, or holding out a cheeseburger to try to distract him.
Also, anyone who comes to harm by blowing a hair dryer up their nose, sorry but I don't have too much sympathy. Don't be a fucking retard. Of course, those suggesting it are cunts, but unless you're actually a retard, then it's pretty obvious you don't do it.
Maybe I should start a theory that spunk is the cure for cornoavirus. Might get free blow jobs.
I have no idea if Trump's comments about those drugs are credible.
According to people who do have an idea, they need a lot more testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Here's one consequence of this Trump behaviour thats already happening: the people who legitimately need those drugs for medical reasons other than CV can't get them because they are under such huge demand after Trump started touting them as a miracle cure for CV. And (speculation), his experts probably told him that would happen and he figured he knew better and said it anyways.
Well at least Boris isn't taking this kind of path. He appears to be listening to those who are advising him. He didn't want to close the schools and force us to stay home, but he did because someone close to him told him that it was necessary. Boris doesn't seem to have the ego that Trump has. Maybe he's just fooling me though, I mean I don't trust him. With that said, I'm very much glad Corbyn is not in charge during this pandemic.Quote:
According to people who do have an idea, they need a lot more testing.
If I'm being completely honest I don't even think Trump deserves any blame for that. Trump deserves blame for a lot of things, but if some cunt decides drinking cleaning products is what he needs right now, that's really just on him.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm thinking bigger picture: a second Trump term would be a disaster for the entire world. Economically and ecologically... he's been better than Obama on foreign wars, but his rhetoric doesn't inspire confidence in what's to come. People will have to die either way. I'd rather it be by some cartoonish reverse shotgun contraption than it reaching across the border like it did with Bush Jr.
Not prepared to give BJ too much credit, apart from not being as bad as Trump.
Plan A was to let the virus rip through the country so we could build 'herd immunity.'
Plan B is to do what others countries are doing and try to flatten the curve.
We won't know for sure if we moved to plan B soon enough or not until we see our cases peak and start to fall.
Why did he change his mind? Did he cave in to public pressure? Or did he take advice from someone? That's what matters. If it's the former, then he's weak. If it's the latter, that's a sign of strength.Quote:
Plan A was to let the virus rip through the country so we could build 'herd immunity.'
Plan B is to do what others countries are doing and try to flatten the curve.
The "herd immunity" thing has become a buzzword for people who wish to have a dig at him. When we talk about "herd immunity", it's not total bollocks. If 80% are immune to a virus, then the remaining 20% cannot cause a pandemic. That's the logic behind it, and I would assume that it's based on rigorous science. It just can't spread fast enough, it ceases to be exponential.
Whether such immunity happens against this virus is another matter; if it were flu then it would be a near certainty, but it's not flu. If I were calling the shots, I'd be taking the advice of my chief medical advisor on this matter, who in turn would be drawing on the expertise of respected virusologists (yes I made that word up).
I don't think he pulled that phrase out of his arse. I think it's based on what he was being told at the time by his advisors.
Virologist is the correct term.
I'm no fan of Boris, but I have to say, I'd much rather he be in charge right now than Corbyn.
Cross posting from the other thread.
Quote:
Yep-- also herd immunity comes about in two different ways:
1 we develop a vaccine and immunize all who can safely have the vaccine administered
2 lots and lots of people die, and the survivors develop immunity, thereby leaving the remaining population immune.
I believe these two things get conflated when people talk about Covid19. We don't have a vaccine yet, so championing herd immunity in this case is to call for the deaths of potentially tens of millions of people.
Also, MMM, your stance on that video of those two spazzes is baffling.
As Poop pointed out, legality and morality do not have a total overlap.
Also, the one filming could be lashing out from a totally selfish place (she wanted TP and didn't get any), but the way she is acting out further's the greater good.
As for TP being an essential good, I don't think it's a tragedy to draw a hard line with TP on the outside of "essential goods", but if we allow for any sort of nuance, it certainly is more essential than birthday cards. There certainly is demand for it, and when it is hoarded it will cause all sorts of havoc. A clear cut case is that instead of visiting one store when people venture out for supplies, they'll visit 10. Then visit 10 more the next day because they didn't find TP in the first 10. Then they'll start crowding the entrance of the stores leading up to opening, hoping to grab some from a freshly stocked self. All of which will contribute to the spread of the virus.
Back to nuance: Admittedly there's a blurry line between hoarding and being well supplied, helping to minimize trips out and mitigating the spread of the virus. If she had two or even five cases of TP, I probably would have thought the woman filming was overreacting. But she cleared out the store and had something like 20 cases. She also could have been supplying an institution in need (such as a nursing home) which had no luck with their typical distributor, but she didn't offer up any of this info when she could have, so we can only assume she's hoarding, or just super socially awkward.
Both are spazzes, but I 100% want the lady behind the camera in my society if I had to pick one.
Bog roll is something I'd consider essential, just not as essential as some things. I'd put in in the second group of "essential goods", along with tampons. Food, water, medicine and shelter are the "group one" essentials.
Yeah, this all seems reasonable, and a much better approach than the binary. It's kinda surprising that (if) the people tasked with planning for this shit don't have a tiered cheat sheet like you're proposing.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The world has never needed an expert sniper with an aggressive brain tumour more than it does now.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1242537995103846400
"Wouldn't it be great to have all the churches full on Easter Sunday?"
^^^
I guarantee you that every day in the WH for the next few weeks, if not months, Trump will be arguing with his experts as they try to talk him out of all sorts of stupid ideas like that one.
I'm saying they're both acting badly.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
What greater good? The woman is actively loading her purchase into her truck.
What was accomplished aside from making a bunch of internet droolers white knight over the TP lady?
No one's being shamed into not hoarding because of that video. Hoarding is a perfectly normal human response to scarcity. The news told us that TP is scarce and people went and reacted in a predictable way.
There's no moral right, here, IMO.
The TP lady was within her civil rights to purchase goods with her money.
The camera lady is within her civil rights to film in public. (Though what she's doing is bordering on harassment, IMO.)
Whether or not it was moral is beside the point. Who TF is the camera lady to jump on a soap box and take the moral high ground over this? Who's following her around with a camera and calling her out? Bet it's not a long wait before you see her do something the internet can froth over how immoral it was.
mojo is right about one thing, which is that it is a predictable panic reflex for people to stockpile. If you find an article older than a year old predicting what would happen if a pandemic took hold, people stockpiling toilet paper would be on the list.
This reminds me of japanese porn: I'm somehow aroused and creeped out at the same time.
https://twitter.com/IvankaTrump/stat...58065857458177
This is fucking gold.
(btw, Is there some way to just post the video from a tweet instead of the link?)
https://twitter.com/JLCauvin/status/1242515702688485376
It appears notQuote:
(btw, Is there some way to just post the video from a tweet instead of the link?)
Love it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's the same link poop posted, I was trying to embed the video but failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's maybe the best thing I've seen in a year. Tremendous stuff.
I bet some people view it as great insult to Trump and others think it's endearing fun.
Is there no moral right here, or is morality besides the point? You haven't established that there's no moral high ground here, you've just stated it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The interest of the greater good is that unnecessary hoarding does not occur. I outlined the costs of hoarding on society.
Nothing is accomplished in this instance, but shame plays a crucial role in societies. If you're putting your money on more likely/just as likely, I'll take less likely to continue hoarding all day and print money. But that's not the big win, the big win is that those viewing this who had no opinion are going to be less likely to hoard.
On the flip side, being a busybody is look down upon-- but it's always dependent on circumstances. If you attempt to shame someone when it's not called for, you'll be labeled a busybody, you'll be told to mind your own business, and you'll be the one being shamed. That's because a society doesn't have the energy to police every minor transgression.
Now where is the line? I'm not sure, but as I said before, a few cases, and I probably am thinking "what's this busy body's problem?" Yet I think ~20 cases is egregious. I understand that we may not agree on where the line is, but if you think there is no line, that public shaming doesn't serve a function in society, I think you're simply confused.
p.s. making the semantic shift from "legal" to "civil right" doesn't change anything. There are plenty of shameful and amoral things I can legally do-- things that I should and would be shamed for, and society would be better for my being shamed.
I'm not trying to define morality because it cannot be defined, IMO. Morality is a personal and cultural grey area, and the collective disagreement among all ethicists seems ubiquitous. What is moral in one ethical system is immoral in another, and there's no way to evaluate the goodness of one system against another aside from invoking their own internal claims of what is moral in the first place.
If you want to say either person is acting morally or immorally, you have to state the fundamental assumptions inherent in your moral code and then we're not talking about the specifics of your judgement, but whether the code is good for us.
You seem to be latching on to Utilitarianism and saying that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is to not hoard, but to evenly distribute the scarce resource.
Which is fine and all, and I'm not opposed to Utilitarianism on the whole, but in this case, it's promoting socialism. You're asserting that you or I or the camera lady have the right to decide what's best for the hoarder lady, and to evaluate the amount of good that is done by allowing her to hoard compared to the predicted good that happens when she doesn't hoard.
The thing is, you don't know the answers to any of the questions about "how good is A vs. B" You only have an emotional response to side with one lady or the other. Then the mental gymnastics to convince yourself you're right.
What is the moral right for the hoarder is to protect the security of herself and her kin.
What is the moral right for the camera lady is to try to shame the hoarder as it reduces her own perceived security.
(TP security may be hogwash, but it's obv. a real perceived concern to both people in the video.)
Both people have a claim to the moral high ground, and there's nothing deeper to the discussion.
My point is that it's not up to you or me or anyone what is best for the hoarder lady. That's her call. I certainly don't want hoarder lady telling me what's best for me, so I don't see any righteousness in the rest of us telling her what is best for her.
We don't even know her.
***
Even if her "need" is purely speculative - i.e. even if her whole ambition was to speculate that TP is cheap today, but could be expensive tomorrow and that's a good business opportunity to buy low and sell high - even if that, that's just capitalism at work. She's not morally wrong for seeing a business opportunity and striking while the iron's hot, so to speak. That's just business.
Does your analysis change if you believe that hoarder lady is actually profiteering lady?
I.e., that she's collecting all the scarce goods just so she can make a buck by marking them up and selling them out of her garage (cf. hand sanitiser dude)?
'Cause I think that's a more plausible interpretation of her motivation than that she believes she needs 50 years worth of toiler paper herself, and this is her only chance to acquire it.
Is there something more than my final paragraph above that answers your question?
If the answer isn't contained in that, could you rephrase your question, please?
Oh didn't see that, sorry.
So basically profiteering is just good capitalism in your eyes.
So if someone decides to hoard ventilators as well, you're ok with that? And if it isn't immoral, then why did they just enact a law against it?
Yeah I'm not really buying into moral relativism. Obviously if you're describing any current moral codes, written or unwritten, they will mostly be personal, cultural, in many ways arbitrary and always changing. That doesn't mean they're all "right", unless you define them to de facto have to be. I would also like to think a thinking man such as yourself wouldn't sink so low as to define something as bad because "it's socialism". Results should matter, not some arbitrary labels.
Day 13 of self-quarantine. Starting to get slightly bored.
A fun game to play is to try to imagine if every little ache, pain or cough is a sign you've got a dose.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I've had something the last day or so that I even hesitate to call a malaise. Just feeling kind of tired and achy, but nothing really cold-ish like a runny nose or cough. I'm so far sticking to the hypothesis that it's just stress. If by some chance it is CV, it's doing a very poor job of trying to kill me, which somehow feels re-assuring.
Ah yeah probably not the dose.
Quote:
health officials say the most common symptoms of coronavirus infection usually include:
A dry cough
A high temperature
Shortness of breath
What do you mean by "profiteering?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No. I don't even see how these are comparable situations. Are you suggesting that the life and death implications of the lady hoarding TP are similar / on par with the consequences of someone hoarding ventilators?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
IDK. Probably "they" stand to gain something from passing said law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
laws != morals
Sometimes, laws guide morals. Sometimes, morals guide laws. Often, they're unrelated.
Chill, bro. No one's selling you anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I'm not attempting to persuade anyone of anything.
Besides, I wouldn't say I'm a moral relativist. More of a moral agnostic.
Can you name any single moral or ethical framework (past or current) that doesn't start in its first, opening statements by blindly asserting that something is "right" or "good" and then drawing out all the conclusions of that statement? Implying that the entire system is "right" if the opening statement is "right."Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Can you conceive of any moral or ethical foundation that is provable?
If no past or current or conceivable future code of morals can be "right" outside of its own conceit, can we ever know if we have the "right" one?
I'm not saying anyone's wrong. I'm not saying there is no moral right. I'm saying we just don't know. Can't know.
So let's all be nice to each other in the mean time.
I never!Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
:shock:
I'd like to think you'd recall me saying the exact same things over and over again. That there is no best social or political or economic system. Each excels at different scales and applications, and trying to pigeon-hole everything into any one system is definitely never best.
Yeah. I think we're all a little stir-crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Quote:
it's not up to you or me or anyone what is best for the hoarder lady.
Quote:
even if her whole ambition was to speculate that TP... that's just capitalism at work.
MMM, you make a case for moral relativism, but then you sneak in moral judgements.
Quote:
The thing is, you don't know the answers to any of the questions about "how good is A vs. B" You only have an emotional response to side with one lady or the other.
I disagree. In a utilitarian framework-- you may not be able to quantify things precisely, and of course mistakes will be made, but that's due to a lack of tools. I don't claim that we can settle any of this for certain, but we can definitely orient ourselves in the correct direction. Either you're a nihilist (you're not), or you're placing your bet on the improbable position that there's no moral difference between these two actions.
Quote:
I'm not opposed to Utilitarianism on the whole, but in this case, it's promoting socialism.
As poop pointed out, this is oddly lazy.
What is your stance on war time rationing in WWII? How about your thoughts on much of the economy being shifted to a planned economy during the same time?
Quote:
You seem to be latching on to Utilitarianism and saying that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is to not hoard, but to evenly distribute the scarce resource.
There's a couple of issues here. First, it's not a scarce resource, there's plenty of TP. It's a logistics issue. TP is a low cost, low profit commodity that also happens to be bulky. Therefore it doesn't make sense to have large quantities of it at the retail end of the supply chain, as the $/sqft to warehouse it is dramatically higher. Do to this quirk in the supply chain, if there's a run on essential(ish) supplies, consumers will be given a false sense of scarcity.
Second, my stance is not that things should be evenly distributed, but that they should be allocated to their best use. That may mean even distribution, but it may mean simply each person should make a judgement call on what they personally need. If you end up towards the hoarding end of the spectrum, you risk being called out. If too many people end up on the hoarding end of the spectrum, then we are forced to some sort of enforced even distribution. Right now we have the mildest stage of that, retailers limiting quantities/purchase.
I think you're all reading me say one thing, then extrapolating it out like we're talking about someone hoarding water.
We're talking about a lady buying a non-essential good, and another lady getting all in the first lady's face about literally nothing at all.
We're not talking about someone hoarding respirators, or other life-saving goods.
We're talking about 2 people behaving badly, and I'm simply saying that there is no moral high-ground for the camera lady to stand on.
This is a mole-hill at best, and the white-knighting surrounding it like as though we're talking about war rationing is absurd hyperbole.
"allocated to their best use"
According to who? According to the hoarder lady? Or according to the camera woman?
They disagree about how to best allocate the resource.
Who are you to stand over them in judgement? By what authority do you claim that right?
Why should your voice be any louder or more significant than the 2 voices already in disagreement at the outset?
What do you add other than your personal opinion?
If we're just talking personal opinions, then why do you expect / want mine and yours to be the same?
Also, I should point out (I think I did in the split thread), I'm not anti-hoarding. I think there is a point (we're far from it) where we're in a true state of scarcity that can't be compensated for (think, shit really hits the fan, and we end up in failed state.) In this case there's a moral prerogative to hoard, because now it's a zero sum game and you're going to be playing against some less moral, immoral, and amoral actors.
btw: even if we never agree, MMM, this is a fun exercise, you're certainly making me consider things I hadn't fully explored.
We're social creatures, we're talking about the functioning of society. It is by all of our authority. By what right can you tell me not to walk around in public naked, the way I was born, my natural state? Well, you (if not you, the royal you) do tell me that, and enforce that norm-- first through shame, then through force. Some norms we codify into law, some we leave unwritten and discourage outside of the legal system.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Again, I don't think either person is behaving badly universally. Morality is contextual. And it's perfectly normal for people to misread the context and therefore act immoral. As I've said, camera lady is a nosy busy body if you shift a few variables, and naively out of step with the looming disaster if you shift a few more. Each person is rolling the dice with their action.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I don't think any of these people are bad, or evil, or any thing like that. I don't even know what that means tbh. What I do think is that they're performing social functions-- when they're well used, our reaction rewards them, and when they're misused, our reaction discourages such use.
Precisely what the dictionary means.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/profiteering?s=tQuote:
a person who seeks or exacts exorbitant profits, especially through the sale of scarce or rationed goods
Fear not, I'm chill.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
From those I've seen, utilitarianism comes the closest. We'd of course would been to start with defining what the framework is supposed to describe, such as something like "maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering of all organic life on earth". Or something, I don't know. If I knew I'd be much more famous. The point is I don't see a reason why it couldn't be done, in theory. And if it can be done in theory, it suggests there exists a provable calculable definition for right and wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Wrong. We "only" need to define the worth of well-being and suffering on a scale with enough parameters for it to workable. And obviously, I don't know how to do that, and most likely neither can anyone else right now. Mostly because of the outrage of even attempting it would cause, with people clamoring how life is priceless. Well, it isn't, and the public and insurance sectors among others have routinely been using them in decision-making for ages. There's nothing mysterious or unknowable about them, we just lack the will and courage to work them out.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
More than assuming that's what you thought I was more just commenting on your phrasing:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
"Which is fine and all, and I'm not opposed to Utilitarianism on the whole, but in this case, it's promoting socialism."
That's a weak argument, and the rest of it seemed to amount to "we can't know".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Again, empty TP shelves means people will visit multiple stores unnecessarily, thereby working against flattening the curve. There is a cost to this. I don't think I've seen you interact with this idea. What gives?
Here's where I'd disagree. The social effects of death on one's loved ones' happiness can't be quantified. Sure, you can say they take two weeks off work and that costs the economy X dollars, but you can't actually put a figure on their suffering.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
When people say 'life is priceless', that's how I interpret it at least. Not that a single human life is worth all the wealth in the world, just that we can't turn its value into any number, financial or otherwise. Within a utilitarian perspective, it's pretty much impossible to quantify certain outcomes in terms of overall good.
And when you guys argue insurance companies or other businesses already do these equations, well that's because they don't give a shit about the people who are dying. If you made it the CEO's or chief economist's wife who was going to get it, they'd put down their calculators pretty fast imo.
Wouldn't there be a range of reactions with confidence intervals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Pretty much or absolutely? I'm not arguing it's easy or feasible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Absolutely, but doesn't change the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Arguing with engineers when you're a theorist sucks.
MMM, which extreme is better, everyone suffering as much as possible, or everyone suffering as little as possible? Both maximum suffering and agnosticism are unworkable answers, as these answers, like nihilism, are betrayed by one's actions. I understand that the details get murky (that's where the fun is), but that's the basis for utilitarianism.
Sure, you can assume there's a range of reactions between 1= completely devastated and 10 = being happy they're gone I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
But your data aren't on any sensible linear scale that could be analysed. And even if they were, how do you convert them to a dollar value?
It is not about whether I can, it is about why wouldn't it be possible in theory. Our reactions, especially on a societal scale should be pretty predictable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You're trying to find if there are any use cases where our current understanding wouldn't enable us to accurately price every possible eventuality. Sure, there's plenty, far more than workable scenarios. That doesn't mean though that there wouldn't already be many practical scenarios where it could be applied, and imo nothing to suggest any of them are somehow unknowable and indescribable.
To me, this is like looking for an equation to show how many meters a kilogram is worth. They're just not translatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
The only way life and money become translatable is if you take the human element out of the life's value.
Of course it's impossible to have a all encompassing model. That model would require more energy than is present in the universe. What we can do is do our best to model these things, and in doing so we can better approach the best answers to tough questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Honestly, I think a big problem with economics when applied to this sort of thing is that those attracted to the field probably skew towards the sociopathic(not using this as a pejorative) end of the spectrum. And so more empathetic points of view aren't modeled.
We need to allocate resources. Surely you understand triage. Typically that's done in a much more ad hoc way, which is better than not at all, but don't you think it would be better if, for example, combat medics had triage training based on the work of some egg heads whose goal is to save as many lives as possible?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
In triage, you try to tend to the most urgent cases first. Afaik, it doesn't go much deeper than that. I suppose if they figure there's only a 10% chance this guy will live even if we give him our last three pints of blood, versus give it to three other guys who each have a 50% chance of living if they get one pint each, yeah ldo you do the latter. They probably do similar kinds of calculations in hospitals as a matter of routine - short on antibiotics? well fuck let's use it to save the mother of three in her twenties instead of the 80 year old guy.
What I'm talking about is related to the current situation - we're not crawling around trying to find enough to eat because of social distancing, we're short on toilet paper. Even if there is ultimately a global depression resulting from measures to combat an epidemic, hardly any of us will die from it. So it's not a choice of sacrificing a few million lives now to save several million later. Its a choice between saving lives versus giving people a higher standard of living (still probably better than their parents' had, for that matter), after having them watch loved ones die.
If we didn't take measures to manage a pandemic, I think the population would be much more pissed than they might be now (I mean the population in general, not the CEO of Boeing).
Most things look like that to me before I understand them. Would you agree for example, that the range of reactions of people losing a loved one is more severe then them losing $10? If you do, would you also agree, that for some, not all, the range of reactions might be more severe for losing everything they have? If you do, we have a tangible piece of information about how some people value life. We can keep adding examples (a lot smarter and more efficient ones) and keep getting more data that can be applied to solve problems, step by step getting to closer and closer approximations of The Truth[tm].Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
We don't need to know whether Trump's life is worth $4.50 or $4.55 to use this information to do all sorts of things, and obviously not just death but all human interactions, feelings, achievements, whatever. You may "feel" like it's wrong, have an emotional response against doing any of that, but I don't see any logical reason why it's categorically impossible.