[ExI] UN worried about police brutality against protestors
William Flynn Wallace
foozler83 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 24 14:25:40 UTC 2021
Staying at home is not an option everyone has. Not everyone delivers to
homes. If infected, one should wear a mask so as to not infect others.
Period. What part of responsibility in protecting others do you not
understand? bill w
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 9:56 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 6:08 AM John Klos via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> People who ignore science and ignore precautions in a pandemic don't just
>> put themselves in peril. They are a potential risk to anyone around them.
>> They are unilaterally making decisions for others.
> ### Really? Did you think it over before committing this to the keyboard?
> Let me upack the logic here for you. Let's assume that a population of
> well-informed individuals who are at risk of a deadly infection if they
> leave their homes but are safe if they stay in (but can still starve to
> death, suffer a heart attack, get restless and unhappy and prone to
> drinking themselves to death, etc.). Let's assume they are free to choose
> whether to stay at home or venture out.
> Obviously, every single individual who ventures out knowingly assumes the
> risk of infection, therefore every single individual they meet is also an
> individual who knowingly assumed the risk of being infected. Not a single
> person who chooses to avoid infection can be infected by them, since the
> avoidants are all, every single one of them, staying at home. This means
> that every single person infected is somebody who knowingly accepted the
> risk of infection before leaving home. In every single dyadic interaction
> that results in a new infection, the infecter and the infectee both made
> the decision for themselves, and are paying the consequences, in a
> bilateral decision. Since we posit well-informed individuals, their
> decisions weigh the individual costs and benefits of staying vs. venturing,
> and are therefore individually and collectively efficient, and therefore
> morally superior to enforced lockdowns, which discard individual opinions
> in favor of political grandstanding and witless moralizing.
> Obviously, this situation is not analogous to environmental pollution,
> where the polluter affects the lives of non-polluters. A more apt analogy
> is that of driving on a public road, which involves some risk of killing
> another driver, or being killed by another driver (we try to reduce that
> risk by various means but it remains non-zero). All drivers assume a
> certain risk of dying when they get on the road, a risk they can entirely
> avoid by staying at home. Yet, we normal people don't accuse all drivers of
> "tremendous amount of selfishness and a criminal lack of self reflection".
>> The same kind of logic is used to rationalize waste, pollution, abuse of
>> natural resources, et cetera: why should I have to care about my effect
>> anyone else? I will do what benefits me, no matter the consequences to
>> myself or others.
>> I feel sorry for those that believe their right to possibly infect others
>> supercedes others' right to avoid infection. Only a tremendous amount of
>> selfishness and a criminal lack of reflection can lead to such beliefs.
> ### It's easy to get on the moral high horse and spout about "logic", it's
> much more difficult to actually think things through, isn't it, John?
> Being too lazy to think is bad enough when it happens in an individual but
> it gets much worse when lazy, witless moralizing results in a virtue
> signaling frenzy that plunges the whole world in turmoil that cost tens of
> trillions of dollars and millions of lives.
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat