There's the detail here about how young people always underestimate how much they will value their life when old. When people are young they say they'd rather be dead than live to 90, but 89 year old people seldom want to die. That to say, it's fair to question your ability to speak now for your elderly future self.
Leaving aside situations where the 89 has completely lost their mind, why wouldn’t we chalk this up to fear rather than rationality.
People want lots of things they come to regret for emotional reasons, and the end of life is rarely a time when they are at their most rational.
I highly recommend pre-committing to a graceful death. The system is biased towards preserving very painful and pointless existence, you need to have your ducks in a row to avoid it.
Who else can we trust about the value of a person's life more than that person (at that time)? You don't know what it's like to be 89 (I assume), so how can you look in from the outside and assume that life has no value? Fear could be a reason, but I think this has been well studied and it's not the case. 89 might be extreme, but people at 20 think they'd rather be dead than be 70 and many 70 year olds rate it as the best time of their lives. Studies have been done on arguably worse things like going blind or becoming paralyzed, and even then people typically return to their happiness set point, even though it's inconceivable to people looking in.
All that said, I agree that our system and culture also makes it very hard for people to admit and act on a real belief that they are miserable and want to die. It's touchy though, because we don't want to pressure people, nor encourage death due to temporary unhappiness. Canada is pushing the boundaries here.
"Who else can we trust about the value of a person's life more than that person"
That person when they are of more sound mind?
We have some idea of when people aren't thinking right. When they are too young. When they are too old. When they are under the influence of drugs. When they are gambling addicts. Etc. All of us understand there are circumstances where we might not be making the best decisions for ourselves if we could step out of ourselves so to speak.
I think 70 is disingenuous. Who wants to be dead at 70? 70 year olds are sound of mind and relatively sound of body. That's the age where you are playing with grand kids.
89? Most 89 year olds I know are husks, mentally and physically. They are in a nursing home waiting to die or it's equivalent. Yeah, I don't want that.
If I was 20 and debating between an amazing life of adventure in which I might die before I get old and a life of mediocrity in which I get to be old that's kind of a different choice. It's like that episode of Star Trek where Q offers Picard a chance to not die, but at the cost of his being an lieutenant his whole life.
You forgot to add, "... if, in complete contrast to the Covid mRNA vaccines, the vaccine(s) for this future disease are adequately tested over a period of several years, as was always the standard before Covid."
While I applaud the GBD for taking a stand against COVID tyranny, the merits of "focused protection" are overstated. The rational basis for not locking down and not masking up is that life is worth living everyday and this applies to everyone, young and old.
The main thrust for minimizing pandemic harms should have been treatments and therapies. Put everything on the table including the forbidden Ivermectin and HCQ. Most importantly, the truth of COVID survivability should have been impressed on the public.
Alas, it is well documented why inexpensive treatments were forbidden and effective medical protocols ignored and why FEAR was amplified - calm resolution threatened the for-profit vaccine solution. The inescapable explanation for COVID tyranny is the powers that be demanded lockdown with jabs as the exit from lockdown. This is the evil we were up against.
This is brilliant, and in retrospect I'm shocked nobody else seems to have thought of it before.
To those who might think "what if I change my mind?" I reply that you can always change your will as long as you're of sound mind: precisely the point of one is to make it so that there's a reasoned directive in case I can no longer reason.
You should probably specify that this doesn't apply to normal, acute illness. If your grandkids have a nasty tummy bug and you can easily reschedule, then you should do so. Outdoor activities can often substitute for indoor ones if everyone has a runny nose, which is about six months out of the year.
The one exception being that we gave up going to indoor restaurants or other not particularly important indoor activities until my parents got vaccinated since they lived with us. This wasn't a big sacrifice. Once during the winter before the vaccine when we had cabin fever I paid to rent out an indoor playground so they could run around.
We did send them to daycare partway through the pandemic when it seemed like they needed the socialization and my parents needed a break. My Dad said he didn't care if it killed him.
I don't really understand the opposite mindset. My wife's family is still trying to stay isolated TODAY. My best man won't go anywhere in public. My friend from college wore an N95 alone in the car for hours driving to see us.
I assume it's because they vote Democrat. I wonder if I ever knew these people. They were not at all like this before the pandemic.
The 100. I had never heard of it before today. Opposed to a Nietzschean view where we revisit this life in an eternal return, an infinite universe is one in which we will surely all meet, once, and then again and again. So remember make your best first impression!
If you're trying to maximize _quality_ of life, why go on a crash diet? If you had a weight that substantially increased your risk, what are the odds you'd get to a lower risk level fast enough to be worth the discomfort?
This presumes that the next pandemic primarliy affects the elderly. The 1918 pandemic influenza pandemic produced extreme mortality rates among your adults.
I really like this. Wish more people would say things with this combination of emotion and reason.
There's the detail here about how young people always underestimate how much they will value their life when old. When people are young they say they'd rather be dead than live to 90, but 89 year old people seldom want to die. That to say, it's fair to question your ability to speak now for your elderly future self.
Leaving aside situations where the 89 has completely lost their mind, why wouldn’t we chalk this up to fear rather than rationality.
People want lots of things they come to regret for emotional reasons, and the end of life is rarely a time when they are at their most rational.
I highly recommend pre-committing to a graceful death. The system is biased towards preserving very painful and pointless existence, you need to have your ducks in a row to avoid it.
Who else can we trust about the value of a person's life more than that person (at that time)? You don't know what it's like to be 89 (I assume), so how can you look in from the outside and assume that life has no value? Fear could be a reason, but I think this has been well studied and it's not the case. 89 might be extreme, but people at 20 think they'd rather be dead than be 70 and many 70 year olds rate it as the best time of their lives. Studies have been done on arguably worse things like going blind or becoming paralyzed, and even then people typically return to their happiness set point, even though it's inconceivable to people looking in.
All that said, I agree that our system and culture also makes it very hard for people to admit and act on a real belief that they are miserable and want to die. It's touchy though, because we don't want to pressure people, nor encourage death due to temporary unhappiness. Canada is pushing the boundaries here.
"Who else can we trust about the value of a person's life more than that person"
That person when they are of more sound mind?
We have some idea of when people aren't thinking right. When they are too young. When they are too old. When they are under the influence of drugs. When they are gambling addicts. Etc. All of us understand there are circumstances where we might not be making the best decisions for ourselves if we could step out of ourselves so to speak.
I think 70 is disingenuous. Who wants to be dead at 70? 70 year olds are sound of mind and relatively sound of body. That's the age where you are playing with grand kids.
89? Most 89 year olds I know are husks, mentally and physically. They are in a nursing home waiting to die or it's equivalent. Yeah, I don't want that.
If I was 20 and debating between an amazing life of adventure in which I might die before I get old and a life of mediocrity in which I get to be old that's kind of a different choice. It's like that episode of Star Trek where Q offers Picard a chance to not die, but at the cost of his being an lieutenant his whole life.
"Obviously try to vaccinate me ASAP"
You forgot to add, "... if, in complete contrast to the Covid mRNA vaccines, the vaccine(s) for this future disease are adequately tested over a period of several years, as was always the standard before Covid."
There are several ways to oppose the current pernicious hegemonies of our time. You always do it in the most endearing manner.
While I applaud the GBD for taking a stand against COVID tyranny, the merits of "focused protection" are overstated. The rational basis for not locking down and not masking up is that life is worth living everyday and this applies to everyone, young and old.
The main thrust for minimizing pandemic harms should have been treatments and therapies. Put everything on the table including the forbidden Ivermectin and HCQ. Most importantly, the truth of COVID survivability should have been impressed on the public.
Alas, it is well documented why inexpensive treatments were forbidden and effective medical protocols ignored and why FEAR was amplified - calm resolution threatened the for-profit vaccine solution. The inescapable explanation for COVID tyranny is the powers that be demanded lockdown with jabs as the exit from lockdown. This is the evil we were up against.
Steward Brand did something similar back in April 2020
https://twitter.com/stewartbrand/status/1249054846033883142?s=20&t=a1Bl5za4LE3Xv6q6DrzC5g
This is brilliant, and in retrospect I'm shocked nobody else seems to have thought of it before.
To those who might think "what if I change my mind?" I reply that you can always change your will as long as you're of sound mind: precisely the point of one is to make it so that there's a reasoned directive in case I can no longer reason.
I wholeheartedly agree with your objective. Your equation is amusing.
You should probably specify that this doesn't apply to normal, acute illness. If your grandkids have a nasty tummy bug and you can easily reschedule, then you should do so. Outdoor activities can often substitute for indoor ones if everyone has a runny nose, which is about six months out of the year.
This is basically how we lived.
The one exception being that we gave up going to indoor restaurants or other not particularly important indoor activities until my parents got vaccinated since they lived with us. This wasn't a big sacrifice. Once during the winter before the vaccine when we had cabin fever I paid to rent out an indoor playground so they could run around.
We did send them to daycare partway through the pandemic when it seemed like they needed the socialization and my parents needed a break. My Dad said he didn't care if it killed him.
I don't really understand the opposite mindset. My wife's family is still trying to stay isolated TODAY. My best man won't go anywhere in public. My friend from college wore an N95 alone in the car for hours driving to see us.
I assume it's because they vote Democrat. I wonder if I ever knew these people. They were not at all like this before the pandemic.
Extremely rational Bryan. Not that I expect less from you of course.
It would be easier to take this seriously if you didn't say you refuse to be isolated for even a day.
+1
The 100. I had never heard of it before today. Opposed to a Nietzschean view where we revisit this life in an eternal return, an infinite universe is one in which we will surely all meet, once, and then again and again. So remember make your best first impression!
If you're trying to maximize _quality_ of life, why go on a crash diet? If you had a weight that substantially increased your risk, what are the odds you'd get to a lower risk level fast enough to be worth the discomfort?
This presumes that the next pandemic primarliy affects the elderly. The 1918 pandemic influenza pandemic produced extreme mortality rates among your adults.