Category: Uncategorized

Another word for God

Martin van Creveld considers the problem of consciousness from the scientific perspective:

Starting at least as far back as Laplace—much earlier, if one cares to go back all the way to Epicurus—scientists have been arguing that consciousness grew out of the matter that preceded it. Not so, says Dr. Lanza: no natural process known to us could have performed that feat. Instead, he says, it was consciousness which gave rise to the world—so much so that, without the former, the latter could not even have existed.

To understand what he meant, take the popular riddle concerning a tree that has fallen in a forest with no one there to witness the fact. did it make a sound? Of course it did, say ninety-nine percent of those asked. Not so, say Dr. Lanza and a few others. The splintering of the trunk and its crash on the ground certainly gave rise to vibrations in the surrounding air. However, in the absence of anyone to receive those vibrations in his or her ears, transmit them by way of the acoustic nerves, and process them with the help of the brain, they would not have amounted to what we know as sound.

What applies to hearing applies equally well to our remaining senses. What the specialized neurons in the back of our brains register is not the world’s existing, objective, sound, light, and impact. On the contrary, light, impact, and sound are created by those neurons. To adduce another example, a single rainbow that can be seen by everyone who looks in the right direction at the right time does not exist. What does exist are trillions of raindrops. Each one carrying a potential rainbow; and all “waiting” to be discovered by animal sense organs and brains to be brought to bear on them. Instead of the internal and external world being separate and independent of one another, as Descartes would have it, they are merely two sides of the same coin. That, incidentally, is also the best available explanation for the riddle of quantum mechanics where, as far as we can make out, the speed and position of elementary particles seem to be determined by the fact that they are or are not observed.

This premise serves Dr. Lanza as the foundation on which to build everything else in the book, leading up to the conclusion that “the universe burst into existence from life [which is the seat of consciousness], not the other way around.” What I personally found most interesting in it is the following. We present-day humans are immensely proud of our scientific prowess. And rightly so, given that it has enabled us to study, and often gain some understanding of, anything from the bizarre submicroscopic world of elementary particles that exists right under our noses to gigantic galaxies more than thirty billion light years away. Dr. Lanza’s contribution is to point out that, without taking account of consciousness and the life with which it is inextricably tied, we shall never be able to understand reality as a whole.

One of the great conundrums that confound atheists is that while the average atheist intelligence is modestly higher than the average religious intelligence, the most intelligent individuals are considerably more religious than the norm. This is, of course, because we are less likely to cling stubbornly to our preconceived assumptions than midwits are.

The Fourth Turning

Since the concept often comes when people are metaphorically beating up on Baby Boomers, it might be helpful to understand what is meant by the generational Turnings, which is a four-phase model of social change based on the interaction of the availability and demand for social order:

Fourth Turning

The Fourth Turning is a Crisis. Old Artists die, Prophets enter elderhood, Nomads enter midlife, Heroes enter young adulthood—and a new generation of child Artists is born. This is an era in which America’s institutional life is torn down and rebuilt from the ground up—always in response to a perceived threat to the nation’s very survival. Civic authority revives, cultural expression finds a community purpose, and people begin to locate themselves as members of a larger group. In every instance, Fourth Turnings have eventually become new “founding moments” in America’s history, refreshing and redefining the national identity. America’s most recent Fourth Turning began with the stock market crash of 1929 and climaxed with World War II. The generation that came of age during this Fourth Turning was the Hero archetype G.I. Generation (born 1901 to 1924), whose collective spirit and can-do optimism epitomized the mood of the era. Today’s Hero archetype youth, the Millennial Generation (born 1982 to 2004) show many traits similar to those of the G.I. youth, including rising civic engagement, improving behavior, and collective confidence.

In Parsons’ terms, a Fourth Turning is an era in which the availability of social order is low, but the demand for such order is high. Examples of earlier Fourth Turnings include the Civil War in the 1860s and the American Revolution in the 1770s—both periods of momentous crisis, when the identity of the nation hung in the balance.

I have to say, the Zoomers look a lot more like a Hero generation to me than do the Millennials. But, we’ll see. Of course, the only two things the Boomers will take from this is a) prophet? I like the sound of that, and, b) see, it totally WASN’T our fault!

Mailvox: but you will age too!

This email tends to demonstrate, as if it was necessary, the utter inability of Boomers to imagine that everyone else isn’t as relentlessly narcissistic as they are:

After reading the “boomers need to be left to die” post I was reminded of something. Logan’s Run seemed to advance this basic strategy. Now though, facing another of the inevitable crises that blindside everyones cool plans, age has been upped to about 65+.

Allow me to exaggerate:

Sure sounds neat if you are younger. Because all the points you make are largely true. What you and the bulk of the responses put forth as the logical solution seems incredibly dangerous.

On one hand, if you really believe this, the consequences of the consequences may well roll right over you once it becomes the culture. Perhaps you could volunteer to self extinct upon achieving that benchmark age, because that is at the bottom of the slope you are promoting.

Second, when you successfully implement this “boomers must die” program, the message is: Now that you have spent your life paying and paying not only for your own family, but every unproductive fellow citizen the state could force upon you, just die already, now you are useless and unfortunately expensive.

Please, explain to me why anyone witnessing this regime would feel eager to work to support it, as any contribution in the positive you have made is deemed worthless at the cut off age.

This isn’t some butt hurt defense of being older. This crisis isn’t some Titanic sinking unexpectedly, this is simply life being random and deciding your new and better form of socialism is kill the old. How old is too old? When the bottom really drops out, is 65 too old? How about 40?  30?

Triage is fine, and necessary in short term disasters with small populations of a common culture and will obviously be employed until resources are found to save the remainder. Once you cast aside the elderly, you define life not worth living. Pick a demographic, demonize it. Replay Zimbabwe. $$$$$$$

And yes, boomers are not your friends and yes they have created a lousy situation. Many generations do. Are you promising your way is better? Because that is clearly what they thought.

First, we know perfectly well that we will experience the consequences. So what? We don’t care! We have known we weren’t going to be collecting much, if anything, in the way of social security since literally the very first day we paid into it. We have known that our selfish, self-centered predecessors weren’t going to leave us any inheritances since we first started saving money. Our only mistake was to believe that they would at least leave us a functioning society. The Boomer’s very questions reveal his total ignorance of the generation that follows him, let alone the subsequent generations.

 Second, this isn’t The Day of the Pillow. This isn’t a “Boomers must die” program. This is merely the time-honored, eucivilizational concept of “child-bearing women and children first”. Only a Boomer could possibly assume that not being prioritized is tantamount to a death sentence.

Third, the Boomer again reveals his narcissism. Who would work to support such a regime? The very same sort of men who have planted the acorns for the mighty oaks under whose shade they never sat for generation after generation. The fact that this is not only an alien concept, but one that is actually perceived as a negative one is something that damns the Boomer far more comprehensively than anything I can possibly say.

Fourth, we’re not those who “cast aside the elderly”. We loved our grandparents. We prioritize our children. The Boomers are those who adopted the twin philosophies of “never trusting anyone over thirty” and “he who dies with the most toys wins”. Yes, I promise that our way is better, because our way is the old way, the way of our ancestors, the way that you Boomers proudly rejected.

And fifth, whether what I have put forth as a logical solution is dangerous or not is irrelevant, because it is inevitable. The math doesn’t lie.

You made your beds. Now die in them, preferably with some dignity if you can muster it for the first time in your cursed dyscivilizational existences.

Boomer logic

Save the useless old people first! The cri de coeur of the Boomer facing the possibility of a Corona-chan-based Boomercaust.

Throughout the developing crisis in Italy, however, I’ve noticed a worrying ageism in the language surrounding the question of who to treat first. Some medics have been openly admitting that they are prioritising younger patients over older ones.

I appreciate the huge difficulties doctors in Italy are facing, but this is not acceptable. Ageism is the last bastion of acceptable prejudice in society. Phrases such as ‘they were old anyway’ and ‘they’ve had a good life’ are bandied about without thinking about what they really mean.

Does your age mean your life is worth less than someone else’s?

Yes, absolutely! There are multiple reasons to prioritize saving younger people in these circumstances and every elderly individual worth his salt wouldn’t hesitate to agree. Damned Boomers can’t even die with dignity; it’s no surprise that so many of them are going out caterwauling and crying about their importance to the bitter end.

First, the principles of triage dictate that the old people most at risk be treated last. Their treatment consumes more medical resources to less avail than any other population. Second, the principles of economics dictate that old people most at risk be treated last. Their treatment costs considerably more, which means fewer of them can be treated. Third, the principles of fairness dictate that old people be treated last. They have already lived most of their lives, where the young have not. And fourth, the principles of societal survival dictate that old people be treated last. They can neither maintain or sustain society, while the young must live if society is to survive.

Prioritizing medical treatement for the young over the elderly is not only acceptable, it is absolutely necessary, especially in times when resources are limited. Not only is it not “agism” to deprioritize the treatment of the elderly, it is pure anti-societal narcissism for any elderly individual to demand equal medical priority for his age cohort.

Side effects

It’s fascinating to observe all the beneficial “side effects” of the pandemic developing over time:

The coronavirus outbreak that has led to the quarantine of all of Italy has stopped the activity of migrant transport NGOs in the Mediterranean. Migrant transport NGOs have seen their ships remain in dock due to the spread of the coronavirus with the last activity taking place in late February when the NGO Sea Watch was able to land 194 migrants in the country.

Arrivals of migrants in their own boats from North Africa have also halted since February 28th, according to a report from Italian newspaper Il Giornale, which states that the last boat to depart from the area took place off the coast of Libya and was intercepted by the local coastguard.

The migrant transport NGOs, meanwhile, have written a letter to the Italian Agency for Cooperation and Development expressing their concerns over the coronavirus outbreak and how they can continue to operate, likely fearing a collapse in donation money.

Thank you, Corona-chan!

UPDATE: Looks like a Storm warning….

President Donald Trump plans to declare a national emergency on Friday over the coronavirus outbreak, invoking the Stafford Act to open the door to more federal aid for states and municipalities, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The president said he will hold a news conference at 3 p.m. in Washington. Trump spoke Friday with Emmanuel Macron, the French president tweeted, about the pandemic, and agreed to organize a video conference with world leaders on Monday to coordinate research efforts on a vaccine and treatments and work on how to respond to the economic fallout.

Trump is under increasing pressure to act as governors and mayors nationwide step up actions to mitigate the spread, closing schools and canceling public events.

This may answer the question “why isn’t Trump acting faster.” It’s a lot easier to act if people are putting pressure on you to do so. And it’s a lot harder for them to claim that your actions are too harsh if they begged you to take action.

But it shouldn’t end with a national emergency, as the next step will be a declaration of martial law as the Storm is unleashed. Note that European governments are already beginning to extend school and other closures to April 30th.

UPDATE: Ever wonder how long it would take to round up, process, and try 150,000 people? Apparently about two months.

White House coronavirus expert Dr. Anthony Fauci said on Friday morning that the current state of crisis in the US would last for two months.

This is not fear porn

First, if you think this is fear porn, then you aren’t old enough to remember either AIDS or the Cold War. Second, this can’t be “the same as SARS” or other recent epidemics, because corona-chan is observably at least one, and possibly two, orders of magnitude more infectious.

The SARS epidemic in 2003 reported 8098 cases with 774 deaths, and was eventually brought under control by July, 2003, in a matter of 8 months. Although 26 countries reported cases, the vast majority of cases were concentrated in five countries or regions: China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Toronto, Canada. SARS was eventually contained by means of syndromic surveillance, prompt isolation of patients, strict enforcement of quarantine of all contacts, and in some areas community-level quarantine. By interrupting all human-to-human transmission, SARS was effectively eradicated.

By contrast, there are presently 134,317 reported cases with 4,968 deaths in 116 countries in less than three months of the present pandemic. One of these things is not like the others. To claim that it is accomplishes nothing but to parade one’s statistical innumeracy.

The refusal to take action in the face of potential adversity is not indicative of courage or intelligence. To the contrary, it is paralysis based on denial, fear, and binary thinking.

Neither pestilence nor war are influenced by your opinion of the reality of their existence.

China calls out the US Army

The Chinese do not appear to be inclined to maintain the globalist media’s nonsensical cover stories concerning corona-chan and other matters:

A Chinese foreign ministry official pushed a conspiracy theory the U.S. army may have had a role in spreading the virus, highlighting growing tensions between the world’s biggest economies as both governments seek to deflect blame for the outbreak.

“It might be US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan,” Zhao Lijian, a foreign ministry spokesman, said in a tweet. “Be transparent! Make public your data! US owe us an explanation!”

He later followed up with another tweet urging his 284,000 followers to share an article arguing that the virus originated in the U.S. It was posted on a website promoting conspiracy theories, including articles lambasting the “Vaccine Deep State” and questioning whether Osama bin Laden ever existed.

On Friday in Beijing, Geng Shuang, another spokesman for the foreign ministry, said that “international society, including the U.S., has different opinions about the source of the virus. But China always believes that this is a matter of science which requires professional and scientific assessment.”

Geng was asked twice if the earlier tweets by his colleague, Zhao, represented the view of the Chinese government. “I think you may want to ask certain senior U.S. officials — did they speak on behalf of the U.S. government when they attacked and smeared China recently?” he said in response to one question.

“What I said represents the Chinese government’s attitude,” he said, in response to the other.

With the coronavirus spreading from China into the U.S. and around the world, both nations are trading tit-for-tat claims about its origins. While it’s unclear whether Zhao was being facetious, earlier this month he became the first official in China to suggest that the virus didn’t originate there, even though he hasn’t provided any evidence for that claim.

Conspiracy theorists are well aware that the COVID-19 virus wasn’t made in China. And it would be very interesting to see how well the globalists are able to maintain their ever-shifting narratives if the Chinese government – which knows perfectly well how fake those narratives are – decides to systematically demolish them.

Because worldwide pandemics starting because someone ate a bat, no, wait, a pangolin, are so much more convincing than biowarfare.

Preparation is the play

Now, you are certainly welcome to bluster and posture about how you aren’t afraid of no virus, or pontificate concerning the probabilities that corona-chan is just a hoax, and so forth. I don’t mind that sort of thing. Everyone deals with these situation in a wide variety of different ways. Personally, I find the bluster-prone to be as needlessly annoying as the panic-stricken.

But what I do mind is actively telling people not to prepare for 2-3 weeks of quarantine, and here is why. Preparation is necessary if you are planning to stay home and keep the excursions outside to a minimum, we all understand that. But what most people fail to keep in mind is that if you, or anyone in your family, even gets knowingly exposed to the virus, (much less actually comes down with a case of the Wu-flu) you will be facing the same 2-3 weeks of home quarantine, only then it will be too late for you to obtain the necessary supplies. And then you will become an unnecessary burden on someone else to keep you supplied.

I understand that not everyone believes a nine-month supply of red and white wine supplemented by a six-month supply of prosecco – yes, we’re ready now – is necessary, but there is literally no harm in doing the month’s grocery shopping ahead of time and it might make your family’s life considerably more easy in the next six-eight weeks if you take the trouble to do so.

One more thought on the subject. If corona-chan is a hoax being perpetrated by the good guys for Storm-related purposes, FFS, play along! 


UPDATE: There is also a major US military exercise taking place in Europe right now.

UPDATE: CDAN asks: “Does anyone think this will turn into The Purge?”

Why slowing the transmission rate matters

An epidemial modeling explains why it is hugely beneficial to slow the rate of viral transmission even if the entire population gets infected, based on the Chinese numbers:

Total population 327 million, with a single initiating infection. 12 day course of disease, initial R0 of 3.5 (as per the stats from China that Steve linked.) Assume 5{de336c7190f620554615b98f51c6a13b1cc922a472176e2638084251692035b3} of cases are critical, 2{de336c7190f620554615b98f51c6a13b1cc922a472176e2638084251692035b3} of those critical cases die with ICU care, 5{de336c7190f620554615b98f51c6a13b1cc922a472176e2638084251692035b3} with general hospital care, and 50{de336c7190f620554615b98f51c6a13b1cc922a472176e2638084251692035b3} with no care. 90,000 available ICU beds and 900,000 available hospital beds.

Run this model through to completion and it sweeps through the population in about a year, infecting most everyone (less about 9 million who escape), killing 5.4 million.

Now, suppose we impose infection controls on day 80, right about when there’s 1000 deaths from this thing. And then we vary how strong those controls are: from 0.35 (what the Chinese managed) up to nothing at all.

Here we see how the # of deaths varies with the strength of our controls. If we impose Chinese-style controls, we get away with only 5K deaths, or 1000-fold fewer than without the controls. But the inflection point isn’t just at 1.0. In particular if we can get the R0 below about 1.5 that gets us down under 500K, or a 10-fold reduction. At 1.0 we get down to about 50K.

And this is why it is best to leave the opinionating on these matters to those who are, at the very least, statistically numerate. Don’t be like the NBA idiot who, in his clueless effort to demonstrate his brave lack of concern over corona-chan, went out of his way to touch all of the media’s microphones and promptly contracted the virus.

It costs very little to alter your day-to-day life for a few weeks, so why take even a low risk of putting yourself through the experience, even if it is nothing more than a bad flu. If you don’t suck on the runny noses of strangers on the bus just to prove you’re not afraid of the flu, why would you feel any need to avoid taking a few simple steps to avoid altering your routine now?

You can’t run

I could be wrong, but that’s how I’m seeing this play out.

President Donald Trump told the nation he was ordering an immediate shut-down of all travel from Europe to the United States as he addressed the nation on the coronavirus in a prime time Wednesday speech.

‘We will be suspending all travel from Europe to the United States for the next 30 days,’ Trump announced, in a speech from the Oval Office to the nation.

One step at a time….