4 ms·
> But I'm struggling to understand what we know now that scares us so much. Could PFAS concerns be partly some kind of enviro-moral panic? I will tell you what
by frognumber 3y ago
> But I'm struggling to understand what we know now that scares us so much. Could PFAS concerns be partly some kind of enviro-moral panic?
I will tell you what scares me:
- I think covid has maybe a 10-20% chance of leaving a large portion of the population partially disabled (with small but significant effects like lead)
- We have new diseases coming out all the time. This is pretty new, and specific to humans living with the density and travel we have today. Most serious human diseases are <10,000 years old. I think this is >20% risk.
- I think PFAS are also in a 10-20% chance range.
- I think there are a half-dozen similar things currently in the environment.
- Toss in some reasonable probability for biological superweapons (which can now be made at many university labs by a clever undergrade).
- Add in thermonuclear war, which was very possible during the cold war, and seems increasingly possible now.
- Global warming. I think it's overblown, and I'd also toss it in the same 10-20% range of being a civilization-ending crisis.
- AI apocalypse
... and so on.
Modern humans have been around for (big-O) 100,000 years. Prior to 200 years, we had zero ways to cripple or end or all human life (or all life) on the planet. Today, we have literally dozens. I don't think any individual one is that likely, but I am increasingly concerned that we might have reached:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
I'd like for us to invest the resources to take each of these seriously and address them. That's really where I'd like a big chunk of my tax dollars spent. Right now, we're spending big-O zero resources on serious crisis mitigation.
FEMA is maybe 0.01% of our GDP.
That's not really a fair way of looking at it, since military, CDC, etc. aren't part of FEMA, and play similar roles, but the point is that I'd like us to have a holistic infrastructure for:
- understanding risks
- mitigating them
- having big projects to eliminate them (like we had with getting rid of many diseases like smallbox a half-century ago)
- leading and coordinating globally
- having food stores, medical supplies, shelters, and access local manufacturing capacity
- having emergency capacity (e.g. producing all the artillery shells Ukraine needs, or all the respirators we thought we needed during the acute phase of covid).
... and so on.
If that takes up 10-30% of our GDP, I think that's money well-spent. I actually don't think that would take that big of an increase in spending, since a lot of our existing capacity could be generalized. For example, the military could train for a lot of domestic disaster relief and coordination as well. We could give small subsidies to e.g. manufacturing plants if they maintain more general capacity and excess capacity. Etc.
- anonuser123456 3y ago> I think covid has maybe a 10-20% chance of leaving a large portion of the population partially disabled I struggle to understand why people believe this. Every person I’ve met has had covid at this point, and I’ve never met anyone with any kind of disability from it. When you look at the randomized control studies, long covid (excluding those intubated) basically doesn’t exist.
- frognumber 3y ago> Every person I’ve met has had covid at this point I know a half-dozen people who have long covid at a level it impacts daily life. I believe all were immunized before. For myself, I definitely have reduced lung capacity (e.g. how far I can swim underwater is significantly reduced). I'm not an athlete and it doesn't matter, but if every time I catch covid reduces this by a similar amount, it definitely will add up to where it does matter. > When you look at the randomized control studies, long covid (excluding those intubated) basically doesn’t exist. References? We must be reading different studies. As a footnote, there's no such thing as a "randomized control study" here (unless we were willing to intentionally randomly infect people with covid), which suggests you might not be qualified to read studies.... Most studies I see show long covid in the low double-digit percent range. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9978692/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9978692/ has a nice reference trail. Click around and you'll see most studies do, in fact, show pretty high levels of prevalence https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2023&q=long+covid-19&hl=en&as_sdt=0,22 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2023&q=long+covid-...
- anonuser123456 3y agoYou can’t post an article like this “ 1645 articles were screened but no randomised controlled trials were found. 16 observational studies from five countries (USA, UK, France, Italy, and the Netherlands) were identified that reported on 614 392 patients” and say “ which suggests you might not be qualified to read studies....” Without expecting derision and mockery to follow.
- 3y ago