4 ms·

Three points: 1. It is always going to be a little suspicious, at the very least, that the first COVID-19 outbreak happened in the same city as a virology inst

Three points: 1. It is always going to be a little suspicious, at the very least, that the first COVID-19 outbreak happened in the same city as a virology institute. (Conversely, if we had a bizarre viral outbreak in Atlanta, I would have very similar suspicions.) 2. Nobody is going to start a war with China. On top of the centuries-old reasons that attacking China is stupid, they have nuclear weapons. 3. If it was released from a lab, it was almost certainly the result of an honest accident. SARS was very serious and China would have wanted to invest in research intended to prevent the kind of problems we are having now. If that research led to an accidental exposure and release of this virus, that would be a very cruel cosmic joke on us all, but it wouldn’t be a conspiracy for global domination or anything stupid like that.

stareatgoats 7y ago
> Nobody is going to start a war with China. Hopefully you are right, and I share your opinion (if that is what it is) that there will be no war in the immediate aftermath of covid-19. But I need to point out that the cited remark represents a kind of absolutist statements about the future that have had a chronic tendency to be wrong up through history. There is definitely a risk for war with China as long as the US have a considerable number of weapons pointed against China, a war triggered either by intent or by mistake. The best way IMO to avoid the risk of war is to work towards total disarmament under the oversight of transparent and neutral international agencies. And discredit the warmongering on all sides. Somehow and unfortunately I don't anticipate that such initiatives will be accepted by the world main powers, or by a frightened and easily manipulated public, any time soon.
- philwelch 7y ago
  Disarmament doesn’t prevent war. It only prevents winning. “Transparent and neutral international agencies” are a pipe dream. Furthermore, remember what I actually said. The main reason there won’t be a war with China is because China is too dangerous to attack. When China was less well armed than they are today, they ended up at war much more frequently. Why does the US “point weapons” at China? Same reason. We don’t want them to attack us or our allies, though our commitment to those allies has turned less credible in recent years. In both cases, the basic principle is the same: si vis pacem, para bellum. That is the only way to preserve peaceful coexistence between states that have fundamental differences and distrust between them. Which, after all, is the same basic reason different countries exist in the first place.
  - stareatgoats 7y ago
    You make it sound simple, and simple is certainly compelling. It is however just a theory, and as it happens it's the same theory (to the extent that logic and theories has anything to do with such) that has lead to 2 devastating world wars. It's time to reconsider, and try a different theory, before the 3rd one wreaks havoc on us all. I have great faith in the prospect of brilliant minds finding solutions in the face of adversities like this race towards mutual destruction. Unfortunately, many if not all of our brilliant minds are either tied up in how to convince people to buy stuff, or how to enable first-strike capability (enabling 'winning' in your theory). It doesn't bode well.
    - randallsquared 7y ago
      > as it happens it's the same theory (to the extent that logic and theories has anything to do with such) that has lead to 2 devastating world wars. It appears that you are arguing that those starting the world wars did so because they were suicidal. On the contrary, it seems probable that they started those wars believing it was possible to win them.
      - stareatgoats 7y ago
        No, you misunderstand in that case, sorry if I was unclear. I think people who "start" wars are an anomaly, the vast majority of wars are started as a consequence of a long chain of events, among which the notion of mutual deterrence and the accompanying need for an arms race is one of the most important. Outbreaks of world wars are the empirical proof of failures of that doctrine, and it has happened 2 times with devastating consequences. Let's understand that mutual deterrence is not the way to prevent world wars already. Let's urgently try other options.
    - brianwawok 7y ago
      Hey, you left out brilliant minds moving virtual representations of stocks and futures around to shave off fractions of a cent millions of times a day.
arcticbull 7y ago
1. It is always going to be a little suspicious, at the very least, that the first COVID-19 outbreak happened in the same city as a virology institute. (Conversely, if we had a bizarre viral outbreak in Atlanta, I would have very similar suspicions.) I guess, but the last major hop from animal to human was the Hendra virus in Australia in 2017 -- going from fruit bat to horse to human [1]. This was in the Brisbane area which I'm sure has viral research labs nearby, but because they're Australia, nobody even began to speculate as much. Sometimes shit happens, and it's deeply human to want to create the fantastical explanation. Not saying it couldn't happen it's just again, not the simplest explanation at all, and so it's really just not very likely. 2. Someone sure would start a trade war though. [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170815095124.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170815095124.h...
- jnbiche 7y ago
  It's really strange to me that you call this a "fantastical explanation" when there have already been 2 accidental lab releases resulting in human illness and death that were acknowledged by the Chinese government of a virus in the same family (SARS-CoV-1): https://www.who.int/csr/don/2004_04_23/en/ https://www.who.int/csr/don/2004_04_23/en/ https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/02/content_344755.htm https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/02/content...
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    From the WHO link, 4 people died, and they were tracking 300 contacts. So a million times less severe. Conspiracy Theorists will rant about the WHO being a China shill though, you can never win.
david_w 7y ago
2). If you include civil war and if you allow that civil war to be a war of factions within the CCP then you're wrong. There will be a new leader of the CCP, call him / her China's Gorbachev (and SARS2 is China's Chernobyl) and this will eventually lead, with assistance, to the de-Communization of China within at most 15 years but possibly just two. update: possibly 6 months.
- philwelch 7y ago
  Is Xi in poor health?

stareatgoats 7y ago

> Nobody is going to start a war with China. Hopefully you are right, and I share your opinion (if that is what it is) that there will be no war in the immediate aftermath of covid-19. But I need to point out that the cited remark represents a kind of absolutist statements about the future that have had a chronic tendency to be wrong up through history. There is definitely a risk for war with China as long as the US have a considerable number of weapons pointed against China, a war triggered either by intent or by mistake. The best way IMO to avoid the risk of war is to work towards total disarmament under the oversight of transparent and neutral international agencies. And discredit the warmongering on all sides. Somehow and unfortunately I don't anticipate that such initiatives will be accepted by the world main powers, or by a frightened and easily manipulated public, any time soon.

philwelch 7y ago
Disarmament doesn’t prevent war. It only prevents winning. “Transparent and neutral international agencies” are a pipe dream. Furthermore, remember what I actually said. The main reason there won’t be a war with China is because China is too dangerous to attack. When China was less well armed than they are today, they ended up at war much more frequently. Why does the US “point weapons” at China? Same reason. We don’t want them to attack us or our allies, though our commitment to those allies has turned less credible in recent years. In both cases, the basic principle is the same: si vis pacem, para bellum. That is the only way to preserve peaceful coexistence between states that have fundamental differences and distrust between them. Which, after all, is the same basic reason different countries exist in the first place.
- stareatgoats 7y ago
  You make it sound simple, and simple is certainly compelling. It is however just a theory, and as it happens it's the same theory (to the extent that logic and theories has anything to do with such) that has lead to 2 devastating world wars. It's time to reconsider, and try a different theory, before the 3rd one wreaks havoc on us all. I have great faith in the prospect of brilliant minds finding solutions in the face of adversities like this race towards mutual destruction. Unfortunately, many if not all of our brilliant minds are either tied up in how to convince people to buy stuff, or how to enable first-strike capability (enabling 'winning' in your theory). It doesn't bode well.
  - randallsquared 7y ago
    > as it happens it's the same theory (to the extent that logic and theories has anything to do with such) that has lead to 2 devastating world wars. It appears that you are arguing that those starting the world wars did so because they were suicidal. On the contrary, it seems probable that they started those wars believing it was possible to win them.
    - stareatgoats 7y ago
      No, you misunderstand in that case, sorry if I was unclear. I think people who "start" wars are an anomaly, the vast majority of wars are started as a consequence of a long chain of events, among which the notion of mutual deterrence and the accompanying need for an arms race is one of the most important. Outbreaks of world wars are the empirical proof of failures of that doctrine, and it has happened 2 times with devastating consequences. Let's understand that mutual deterrence is not the way to prevent world wars already. Let's urgently try other options.
  - brianwawok 7y ago
    Hey, you left out brilliant minds moving virtual representations of stocks and futures around to shave off fractions of a cent millions of times a day.

arcticbull 7y ago

1. It is always going to be a little suspicious, at the very least, that the first COVID-19 outbreak happened in the same city as a virology institute. (Conversely, if we had a bizarre viral outbreak in Atlanta, I would have very similar suspicions.) I guess, but the last major hop from animal to human was the Hendra virus in Australia in 2017 -- going from fruit bat to horse to human [1]. This was in the Brisbane area which I'm sure has viral research labs nearby, but because they're Australia, nobody even began to speculate as much. Sometimes shit happens, and it's deeply human to want to create the fantastical explanation. Not saying it couldn't happen it's just again, not the simplest explanation at all, and so it's really just not very likely. 2. Someone sure would start a trade war though. [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170815095124.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170815095124.h...

jnbiche 7y ago
It's really strange to me that you call this a "fantastical explanation" when there have already been 2 accidental lab releases resulting in human illness and death that were acknowledged by the Chinese government of a virus in the same family (SARS-CoV-1): https://www.who.int/csr/don/2004_04_23/en/ https://www.who.int/csr/don/2004_04_23/en/ https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/02/content_344755.htm https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/02/content...
- JetSpiegel 7y ago
  From the WHO link, 4 people died, and they were tracking 300 contacts. So a million times less severe. Conspiracy Theorists will rant about the WHO being a China shill though, you can never win.

david_w 7y ago

2). If you include civil war and if you allow that civil war to be a war of factions within the CCP then you're wrong. There will be a new leader of the CCP, call him / her China's Gorbachev (and SARS2 is China's Chernobyl) and this will eventually lead, with assistance, to the de-Communization of China within at most 15 years but possibly just two. update: possibly 6 months.

philwelch 7y ago
Is Xi in poor health?