Elders also tamp down the temperament. I'm convinced that part of the reason everything went off the rails in the way it did was removing so much senior input from the equation, replaced with frustrated youth.
i put one link earlier in thread, and also discussed the difficulty in attributing lockdowns to saving lives, with similar difficulty in separating covid policy impact from other sources of non-covid excess death.Data?
world would have to be incredibly skewed (like, more children than resources to support them) before value of knowledge lost would outstrip damage to future productivity + knowledge acquisition. there were some concerns of this, but it looks like country populations are going to stabilize without much regulation given fertility trends as nations develop. fewer children as a % of population makes losing them even more brutal.Strictly speaking, children have more potential, and so you lose potential every time we lose a child. And the elders have more memories and embedded knowledge, so you're losing more knowledge whenever an elder dies.
It depends on what type of measures being discussed. Face masks, distancing, or simply lockdowns? There are also many types of lockdowns ranging from useless ones that the West use for pretty points to the Chinese ones that get demonized.i put one link earlier in thread, and also discussed the difficulty in attributing lockdowns to saving lives, with similar difficulty in separating covid policy impact from other sources of non-covid excess death.
i am sure china is aware or can reasonably anticipate policy of other countries, long-term, and made its policy decisions regardless of that fact. it seems their choice is better predicted by government trying to save face than a legit belief that (at any point) the world was going to successfully implement some kind of perfect draconian lockdown measure.Wuhan-style lockdowns are pretty effective. China was able to operate with essentially no COVID within its borders before Omicron. However, unless the rest of the world joins in on the effort, it's just delaying the inevitable. Given that people are bawling over wearing a mask, it'd be more likely for aliens to invade than for this to happen.
off topic is special so noAlso, please use capitalization in your writing. I believe you used to do that back in Paradox forums.
No idea what you're talking about.In the US the entire country is already basically at the mercy of people who will almost certainly be dead in 20 years and you think the problem is that the geriatrics have insufficient power and influence?
The measures taken by China are widely criticized largely because it's China and everything it does attracts negative spin. Aside from hard-lockdowns (e.g. Shanghai-style) Taiwan follows very similar measures and often gets praised in the press instead because Taiwan is the media darling.i am sure china is aware or can reasonably anticipate policy of other countries, long-term, and made its policy decisions regardless of that fact. it seems their choice is better predicted by government trying to save face than a legit belief that (at any point) the world was going to successfully implement some kind of perfect draconian lockdown measure.
If I try to put aside underlying issues/merits of folks self-describing, I lean towards the outlook that asking a person if they self describe that way comes off as a put-down, whether intended or not, for many of the essentially toxic reasons you yourself have identified.I'm not asking that question to be a jerk, FFS, as I've already explained, I'm asking to find out the answer
I remember reading somewhere (I'm too lazy to try and find a cite), that the relative cuteness of babies/young creatures was an evolutionary defense mechanism that overcompensates for their relative lack of utilitarian usefulness vis-a-vis adults and elderly folks. People prioritize children because they're adorable and old people are less so.Valuing children over the elderly is actually very interesting. Societies that do it will probably perform societies that don't, given that the children will end up doing all the work as they age. Strictly speaking, children have more potential, and so you lose potential every time we lose a child. And the elders have more memories and embedded knowledge, so you're losing more knowledge whenever an elder dies.
Sure you can engage in a flame war back but then you don't get to claim moral high ground.reminds me that the mere fact that someone was mean or insulting to another person, does not, in-and-of-itself justify or warrant sympathy or support of the insulted/attacked person. Sometimes, oftentimes, people get attacked, mocked, etc., with good reason... and you (the royal you) don't necessarily need to feel bad or unjustified in giving someone as good as they give, or calling them out for being wrong, sexist, bigoted, etc. I'd say society functioning partially depends on garbage ideas being rejected and criticized.
Breeding chattel looms as the counterbalance?The unavoidable dystopian extension of "the elderly are more valuable for their experience/knowledge, etc.", is a society (that has already been depicted in movies/shows) where babies are banned and the adults are given treatments make them live forever.
This guy is a racist?
Sure you can engage in a flame war back but then you don't get to claim moral high ground.
You're just bored, this isn't fighting, just a cheap dopamine fix distracting from impotence towards the things you actually care aboutI'm not claiming the moral high ground
I am the abyss
I fight monsters on the internet, so that innocent civilians don't have to
I am the thin blue line
I enjoyed Tropic ThunderHe said he enjoys blackface? I know pretty mild, but utterly bizarre to bring up without even being asked.
You're just bored, this isn't fighting, just a cheap dopamine fix distracting from impotence towards the things you actually care about
I enjoyed Tropic Thunder
And those who do not obey orders and get shot by the military as part of an operation to restore order are acceptable casualties from my perspective.They are... acceptable casualties for those who want to pretend COVID is not a big issue.
This is CivFanatics not AskQuestionsAboutUnclePaul'sVirginityStatusFanatics.Yo on the real are you a virgin
Who care about their "joy of living"? The world is far too soft these days. It's best to be cruel, but fair.Masks always were gonna be political.
There’s value in masking to slow the spread of disease. Debateable value, value that must be weighed against the inconvenience of masking, the harm it does to the joy of living for many.
Outdoor dining?We saw the pros/cons debate play out with restaurants. Everybody knew it was ineffective to mask until you’re at your table, then remove it. But what was the alternative? To close restaraunts entirely? Is that worth it? That question was always going to have to be settled at the political level.
You don't need collective will, you just need to enable the Armed Forces to shoot people on the spot for noncompliance. We don't need freeDUMB or DUMBocracy.As a society I suppose we fell into that ridiculous compromise: wear mask to the table, then take it off to eat and talk. It was ridiculous, but when it came down to it, we had insufficient collective will to shutter the entirety of the restaraunt industry, I suppose.
It's mostly something women do.quoted doesn't make sense to me. presumably, men pursue this for enjoyment as well, or are at least attempting to enjoy it. if they do not enjoy it, then what is it, compulsion? that doesn't make sense.
I rather like sausage, especially boerewors.at best, you can say that if there are more men vs women, or more women vs men, that supply/demand predicts that the side with fewer people will "enjoy" it more because that group is able to be more picky while still meeting demand. i don't think "most men don't want to be in sausage fest clubs" is breaking any new ground conceptually though, lol. if you don't like it, don't go, then there are fewer men there.
Personally, I think using the computer or TV is far more enjoyable than socializing with others or clubbing, which is degenerate behavior.i'm sorry to hear that. i don't think it should inform general policy, though. people lose relatives to many things we do not ban, with higher odds in some cases. while i would prefer if it were not true, it is unlikely that any of us are alive in 100 years no matter what (likely much less for most). if you try to optimize to maximize time alive vs risk, you won't get to experience much life has to offer, so you have to strike a balance. it is not good process to have the government force that balance preference onto individuals at scale.
Well, I like senior citizens better than children, senior citizens in my country are more likely to be members of my ethnic group than children are, senior citizens are more likely to share my political beliefs than children are, etc...maybe you believe that, but i don't see how "good of society" --> "elderly are more important than infants" can square, for most any functional definition of "good for society", and you certainly haven't provided any rationale that supports such a position yet.
Why were most maskless people in bars female last year? Or even in 2020?evidence suggests we should predict otherwise. where is your evidence that goes against such prediction?
I'd rather have teenagers be depressed than have senior citizens die.or maybe those just don't want to *cause* more casualties than they save.
Then shutter it!the sensible move would be to either shutter the place, or don't require what amounts to a signaling ritual. one or the other. which is the sensible answer depends on your belief about and acceptance of risk given what is known at the time, but one or the other of these must be more sensible than that nonsense.
Children were very useful to society, back in "Oliver Twist" days.Valuing children over the elderly is actually very interesting. Societies that do it will probably perform societies that don't, given that the children will end up doing all the work as they age. Strictly speaking, children have more potential, and so you lose potential every time we lose a child. And the elders have more memories and embedded knowledge, so you're losing more knowledge whenever an elder dies.
Why should senior citizens have to take orders from snot-nosed kids?In the US the entire country is already basically at the mercy of people who will almost certainly be dead in 20 years and you think the problem is that the geriatrics have insufficient power and influence?
China's policies are good now, but let's not forget, that China inflicted the pandemic on the world back in 2020.It depends on what type of measures being discussed. Face masks, distancing, or simply lockdowns? There are also many types of lockdowns ranging from useless ones that the West use for pretty points to the Chinese ones that get demonized.
The Western-style lockdowns are pretty useless because there are too many gaps. It's like building a Maginot line along the Ardennes while leaving the Belgian border wide open. Expensive but really not that scientific. It's done for show.
Wuhan-style lockdowns are pretty effective. China was able to operate with essentially no COVID within its borders before Omicron. However, unless the rest of the world joins in on the effort, it's just delaying the inevitable. Given that people are bawling over wearing a mask, it'd be more likely for aliens to invade than for this to happen.
Also, please use capitalization in your writing. I believe you used to do that back in Paradox forums.
There is no right to "not be mocked".Not at all relevant. RDJs character wasn't a tool to mock black people.