8 ms·

And 50 years from now, what will the story be about say Corona virus, or global warming? Why are we so sure that this time everything is on the up and up? For

by ta8645 6y ago

And 50 years from now, what will the story be about say Corona virus, or global warming? Why are we so sure that this time everything is on the up and up? For instance Big pharma stands to make billions of dollars on the back of Corona, so it's not like they're just our disinterested saviours. Maybe everything is exactly as it is reported on the news and by the politicians. I mean, they have a great track record so we should probably trust them. But how is everyone so damn sure? I look at the history of manipulation like outlined in this story and am now mostly unmoved by the demands that we "listen to the science" when used as a cudgel.

reedjosh 6y ago
Vaccines are highly profitable, and unhealthy things make for a dumber and more easily controlled populace.
- craftinator 6y ago
  Uracunt
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  Being able to prognosticate about a comments fate doesn't in any way make the comment itself more legitimate.
  - reedjosh 6y ago
    Fair enough. Edited.
readflaggedcomm 6y ago
Because science.
- ta8645 6y ago
  I'm not sure if you meant that sarcastically? The very point of the examples given above is that "the science" isn't a fixed beacon of shining truth. It is an idealized process overseen by flawed and biased humans with their own personal agendas. We often fall short of the ideal, and are led astray by those claiming to have the truth supporting their demands. How do we know today is any different than those examples above?
  - reedjosh 6y ago
    Pretty sure it was stated sarcastically. It's an exact example of what you said the problem is, so I'd be quite amused if it was meant literally.
  - agumonkey 6y ago
    The issue is in the structure of organized production (business/finance/economy). This device has a deep cost.. and will taint peoples knowledge, effort, goals. All for the sake of high throughput I guess. But we should spend a bit of time thinking of alternative ways..
  - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
    Because lobbying and abrupt, agenda-driven changes of policy and numbers (e.g., what counts as a "case" or "infection", and what number over what time period is reported) are easy to detect and collate when everything is in the open today. The practice of science, which is not an end unto itself, is possible to indulge in because we each have a chance at examining data and methods. When those are restricted or changed without reason, that is another data point. We no longer need to, nor do we, rely on lobbyists who write legislation and policy.
    - ta8645 6y ago
      Why does anything have to be abrupt? Perhaps Sars was a test run to get everything in place re the data, policy, and propaganda required to make it work? How exactly do you personally verify the veracity of the data and methods used? Why do you think things are so much different today than they were just a few decades ago when the science in regard to sugar was corrupted? The corruption was successful then, and things aren't that much different today. Do you honestly believe that in 50 years time we wont look back and see at least one thing that was purported to be scientifically proven true, subsequently falsified?
- dennis_jeeves 6y ago
  Lol
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tsss 6y ago
A good indicator is that other rich people are losing tons of money, for example the cruise industry.
- ta8645 6y ago
  That's an interesting thought. But there are many examples in history where one group of rich people profited while others suffered -- it's not like they're all one cohesive group. Like in this article, any rich person who had an interest in and ability to make money off of fats, lost tons of money because the rich people who controlled sugar wanted to get richer instead. Just because science is being corrupted for money and power, doesn't mean that it will benefit every rich person and hurt none of them.
croissants 6y ago
> And 50 years from now, what will the story be about say Corona virus, or global warming? Why are we so sure that this time everything is on the up and up? For instance Big pharma stands to make billions of dollars on the back of Corona, so it's not like they're just our disinterested saviours. I dunno, in both cases Big Oil is probably pretty interested in research that suggests coronavirus and global warming aren't real. Big Oil is at least as big as Big Pharma and, as far as I know, bigger than any "green" energy company. Maybe they're politically toxic to researchers at prestigious universities, but if we're going to reduce this down to "who stands to profit?", Big Oil seems hard to argue against.
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  You "dunno" and think "Big Oil" in interested in research that says "the coronavirus isn't real"? What are you basing that on? There is no research that says the corona virus isn't real, that's absurd nonsense.
  - croissants 6y ago
    I'm not saying that they want to prove coronavirus is literally not real, I'm saying that oil prices generally track with the kind of economic activity that a pandemic messes up [1] > As economic activity slowed sharply across the globe, demand for petroleum and petroleum products plummeted. The drop in demand, coupled with an unexpected increase in supply, led to a collapse in crude oil prices and subsequent impacts on prices for refined petroleum products and other downstream items, notably gasoline. As economies reopened, the initial price downturn gave way to reduced oil production and some renewed demand. As a result, prices for oil products partially recovered. so they would prefer a world in which the coronavirus is not a serious problem that merits shutdowns. [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/from-the-barrel-to-the-pump.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/from-the-barrel-to...
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      Now you're saying that as a back peddle, but that isn't what you actually said.
CyberDildonics 6y ago
All of these have a common issue which is that organizations were lying based on their incentives yet people took them at their word anyway.
api 6y ago
There is unfortunately no magic crystal ball that delivers absolute truth and filters out all lies, mistakes, and misunderstandings. There is no substitute for thinking. In the case of global warming I used to be a skeptic but was brought around as I saw more evidence of actual physical effects instead of just models. With COVID we are still under a bit of a fog of war, and it won’t be totally clear which statistics were right or which mixes of approaches were best until 10 years from now.
- ta8645 6y ago
  Yes, you're right and I wish your thoughtful approach was the norm. But what I see is mob like behaviour where "the science" is presented as irrefutable fact with heaps of scorn piled on anyone who dares question the orthodoxy. I just wish there was more general acknowledgement of our limitations and vulnerability with regard to the scientific process and its current conclusions. As for global warming, your acceptance of it makes sense. We do have to proceed in life without 100% clarity in anything at all. We can only make our best assessment and then proceed in good faith. But i'm reminded of a story about ancient astronomers who held closely guarded knowledge not known by the masses -- such as being able to accurately predict eclipses. Unscrupulous actors of the time could perform miracles by telling everyone that they were going to shut the sun off in the middle of the day. Witnesses to such an event might start off as a skeptic, but be brought around as they saw evidence of this miracle man's ability to control the sun. The moral of the story being that even when we see evidence for ourselves, the explanation we're given about why it is happening should not necessarily be accepted without skepticism.
  - api 6y ago
    I like Elon’s take on climate change: (paraphrasing) no we do not have absolute proof that our fossil fuel burning will result in disaster, but is it really a good idea to do a massive uncontrolled experiment with our biosphere to “see what happens” when we do have at least some evidence the effects will be negative and we do have alternatives (and are therefore not forced to do the experiment). For a long time the global warming skeptics argued that the only alternative was to shut down modern civilization and let billions starve. France, Ontario, and California getting almost 50% of its power from solar show that this is bollocks.
nomdep 6y ago
Are you doubting COVID19 is real? How do you explain the unusual few extra millions of deads this past year? Or do you not even have friends and friends of friends that have lost someone and you doubt those deads are real?
- ta8645 6y ago
  I don't really have a strong opinion, other than I do think the response to it is disproportionate. But to answer your question directly, I don't know a single person who has gotten sick, or even a friend of a friend. Although I follow a few people online who did get sick, and my sister is a nurse so knows of cases in the hospital. But she tells me that the facts on the ground, like reports that the ICU was overwhelmed with cases is misleading at best. That because of budgetary measures the ICU always runs at close to max capacity and it doesn't take much of a bump at all to fill it up. Also, we had other cities around us transfer their overflow to use up our extra capacity. Anyway, the point wasn't really Covid in particular, just that it's a contemporary example where most of us believe something that might very well turn out to not be an accurate appraisal with 50 years time in the rear view mirror. Most of us just take what we're told on faith, and have no direct way to verify that it is the whole truth. That is the lesson from all the cases of scientific corruption listed above.
  - seppin 6y ago
    > I don't really have a strong opinion, other than I do think the response to it is disproportionate. Deadliest year in the US since the height of WW2. What exactly do you need to see beyond that?
notriddle 6y ago
Everything that people believed in the past is not wrong. They were right about a lot of stuff, some of which we consider common sense that isn't worth talking about (car accidents are bad for your health) and others of which are now considered controversial (skeumorphic buttons are a good way to distinguish clickable from nonclickable UI). I expect that a lot of things that I now believe will be proven wrong. I have no idea which of those things it will be.

by ta8645 6y ago

reedjosh 6y ago

Vaccines are highly profitable, and unhealthy things make for a dumber and more easily controlled populace.

craftinator 6y ago
Uracunt
SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
Being able to prognosticate about a comments fate doesn't in any way make the comment itself more legitimate.
- reedjosh 6y ago
  Fair enough. Edited.

readflaggedcomm 6y ago

Because science.

ta8645 6y ago
I'm not sure if you meant that sarcastically? The very point of the examples given above is that "the science" isn't a fixed beacon of shining truth. It is an idealized process overseen by flawed and biased humans with their own personal agendas. We often fall short of the ideal, and are led astray by those claiming to have the truth supporting their demands. How do we know today is any different than those examples above?
- reedjosh 6y ago
  Pretty sure it was stated sarcastically. It's an exact example of what you said the problem is, so I'd be quite amused if it was meant literally.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  The issue is in the structure of organized production (business/finance/economy). This device has a deep cost.. and will taint peoples knowledge, effort, goals. All for the sake of high throughput I guess. But we should spend a bit of time thinking of alternative ways..
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  Because lobbying and abrupt, agenda-driven changes of policy and numbers (e.g., what counts as a "case" or "infection", and what number over what time period is reported) are easy to detect and collate when everything is in the open today. The practice of science, which is not an end unto itself, is possible to indulge in because we each have a chance at examining data and methods. When those are restricted or changed without reason, that is another data point. We no longer need to, nor do we, rely on lobbyists who write legislation and policy.
  - ta8645 6y ago
    Why does anything have to be abrupt? Perhaps Sars was a test run to get everything in place re the data, policy, and propaganda required to make it work? How exactly do you personally verify the veracity of the data and methods used? Why do you think things are so much different today than they were just a few decades ago when the science in regard to sugar was corrupted? The corruption was successful then, and things aren't that much different today. Do you honestly believe that in 50 years time we wont look back and see at least one thing that was purported to be scientifically proven true, subsequently falsified?
dennis_jeeves 6y ago
Lol
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tsss 6y ago

A good indicator is that other rich people are losing tons of money, for example the cruise industry.

ta8645 6y ago
That's an interesting thought. But there are many examples in history where one group of rich people profited while others suffered -- it's not like they're all one cohesive group. Like in this article, any rich person who had an interest in and ability to make money off of fats, lost tons of money because the rich people who controlled sugar wanted to get richer instead. Just because science is being corrupted for money and power, doesn't mean that it will benefit every rich person and hurt none of them.

croissants 6y ago

> And 50 years from now, what will the story be about say Corona virus, or global warming? Why are we so sure that this time everything is on the up and up? For instance Big pharma stands to make billions of dollars on the back of Corona, so it's not like they're just our disinterested saviours. I dunno, in both cases Big Oil is probably pretty interested in research that suggests coronavirus and global warming aren't real. Big Oil is at least as big as Big Pharma and, as far as I know, bigger than any "green" energy company. Maybe they're politically toxic to researchers at prestigious universities, but if we're going to reduce this down to "who stands to profit?", Big Oil seems hard to argue against.

CyberDildonics 6y ago
You "dunno" and think "Big Oil" in interested in research that says "the coronavirus isn't real"? What are you basing that on? There is no research that says the corona virus isn't real, that's absurd nonsense.
- croissants 6y ago
  I'm not saying that they want to prove coronavirus is literally not real, I'm saying that oil prices generally track with the kind of economic activity that a pandemic messes up [1] > As economic activity slowed sharply across the globe, demand for petroleum and petroleum products plummeted. The drop in demand, coupled with an unexpected increase in supply, led to a collapse in crude oil prices and subsequent impacts on prices for refined petroleum products and other downstream items, notably gasoline. As economies reopened, the initial price downturn gave way to reduced oil production and some renewed demand. As a result, prices for oil products partially recovered. so they would prefer a world in which the coronavirus is not a serious problem that merits shutdowns. [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/from-the-barrel-to-the-pump.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/from-the-barrel-to...
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    Now you're saying that as a back peddle, but that isn't what you actually said.

CyberDildonics 6y ago

All of these have a common issue which is that organizations were lying based on their incentives yet people took them at their word anyway.

api 6y ago

There is unfortunately no magic crystal ball that delivers absolute truth and filters out all lies, mistakes, and misunderstandings. There is no substitute for thinking. In the case of global warming I used to be a skeptic but was brought around as I saw more evidence of actual physical effects instead of just models. With COVID we are still under a bit of a fog of war, and it won’t be totally clear which statistics were right or which mixes of approaches were best until 10 years from now.

ta8645 6y ago
Yes, you're right and I wish your thoughtful approach was the norm. But what I see is mob like behaviour where "the science" is presented as irrefutable fact with heaps of scorn piled on anyone who dares question the orthodoxy. I just wish there was more general acknowledgement of our limitations and vulnerability with regard to the scientific process and its current conclusions. As for global warming, your acceptance of it makes sense. We do have to proceed in life without 100% clarity in anything at all. We can only make our best assessment and then proceed in good faith. But i'm reminded of a story about ancient astronomers who held closely guarded knowledge not known by the masses -- such as being able to accurately predict eclipses. Unscrupulous actors of the time could perform miracles by telling everyone that they were going to shut the sun off in the middle of the day. Witnesses to such an event might start off as a skeptic, but be brought around as they saw evidence of this miracle man's ability to control the sun. The moral of the story being that even when we see evidence for ourselves, the explanation we're given about why it is happening should not necessarily be accepted without skepticism.
- api 6y ago
  I like Elon’s take on climate change: (paraphrasing) no we do not have absolute proof that our fossil fuel burning will result in disaster, but is it really a good idea to do a massive uncontrolled experiment with our biosphere to “see what happens” when we do have at least some evidence the effects will be negative and we do have alternatives (and are therefore not forced to do the experiment). For a long time the global warming skeptics argued that the only alternative was to shut down modern civilization and let billions starve. France, Ontario, and California getting almost 50% of its power from solar show that this is bollocks.

nomdep 6y ago

Are you doubting COVID19 is real? How do you explain the unusual few extra millions of deads this past year? Or do you not even have friends and friends of friends that have lost someone and you doubt those deads are real?

ta8645 6y ago
I don't really have a strong opinion, other than I do think the response to it is disproportionate. But to answer your question directly, I don't know a single person who has gotten sick, or even a friend of a friend. Although I follow a few people online who did get sick, and my sister is a nurse so knows of cases in the hospital. But she tells me that the facts on the ground, like reports that the ICU was overwhelmed with cases is misleading at best. That because of budgetary measures the ICU always runs at close to max capacity and it doesn't take much of a bump at all to fill it up. Also, we had other cities around us transfer their overflow to use up our extra capacity. Anyway, the point wasn't really Covid in particular, just that it's a contemporary example where most of us believe something that might very well turn out to not be an accurate appraisal with 50 years time in the rear view mirror. Most of us just take what we're told on faith, and have no direct way to verify that it is the whole truth. That is the lesson from all the cases of scientific corruption listed above.
- seppin 6y ago
  > I don't really have a strong opinion, other than I do think the response to it is disproportionate. Deadliest year in the US since the height of WW2. What exactly do you need to see beyond that?

notriddle 6y ago

Everything that people believed in the past is not wrong. They were right about a lot of stuff, some of which we consider common sense that isn't worth talking about (car accidents are bad for your health) and others of which are now considered controversial (skeumorphic buttons are a good way to distinguish clickable from nonclickable UI). I expect that a lot of things that I now believe will be proven wrong. I have no idea which of those things it will be.