State Your Unpopular Opinions

the only way man can survive is to learn how to control population or, learn to breath polluted air , learn to drink polluted water and how to live in a sea of sewage

 

Population.....machine gun.
(Actually most likely population will be self controlling due to lack of resources, there soon will not be enough space to harvest/farm what we need to survive at a growing rate, but machine gun covers it, balance will redress itself in a nasty but natural way, starvation/cannibalism—/—zombie apocalypse)
Polluted air.....electric vehicles.
(Clear evidence of how this can be achieved is currently being demonstrated by the lockdown, air pollution is significantly lower)
Polluted water.....reverse osmosis.
And have you seen the turbidity of water post sewage plant. We drink it again. Yum yum.

Problem solved.

 

Cute as hell : )
I'm happy for you, D
I feel the same.

 

So if you knew for sure that more old people would die as a result of the lockdown than the virus, you'd change your mind?

And if more children than old people die as a result of the economy issues?

You'll say it's speculation, but I think you ignore a lot of good evidence that these are likely occurrences.

 

It annoys me that you describe it as caring about people, OR the economy, and don't acknowledge that the worry about the economy IS worrying and caring about people.

 

Are we talking about forcefully, or even asking politely, relocating an entire generation of retirees for an indefinite amount of time? I don't think that's practical. I don't see them or most of their loved ones ever agreeing to that. Would it be better than what we are doing now? Yeah, I tend to agree with VG that it would. But honestly it seems a total non starter and not exactly a mystery why it's not being done.

 

I HAVE to speculate on that, just like everybody else. What I don't have to speculate on is what happens if we let the virus spread among the average population by not locking down. The healthcare system will collapse, healthcare personnel will collapse, a lot of people who would guaranteedly live with good treatment would die.

Btw: I don't necessarily draw the line or make a decision on the death count. As mentioned: if everyone would have a shitty life in the next 50 years or so because of how we supposedly overreact now that could be enough to change my mind. BUT we are likely not overreacting now, we are taking the measures that need to be taken. I don't think we can have it more atrocious in the future than people (both personnel and patients) in the hard hit areas right now.
If the economy would be really that shitty for a lot of people you will be amazed what kind of changes can be made (its a human construct anyway, albeit granted not exact fully in our control). Famine? To quote Seinfeld: un-bloody-likely!

 

..You agree it would be better than what is being done..
But it's not a mystery why it isn't.

If it's better than what we're doing, it IS a mystery to me.

I mean, all the older people are in lock down anyway? We could have more younger people keeping the world going so that the old and vulnerable weren't having trouble buying food etc. It would be better for THEM.

But anyway whatever. Lockdown all summer, please! I'm enjoying it : )

 

Fair enough Asmo but whenever I suggest radical changes to society and how the economy works you are the first person to tell me it's not doable, too "idealistic".

Anxiety medications and mental illnesses are going to skyrocket even after this. And as i said.. If we maintained massive backup hospitals rather than nuclear warheads, we COULD let it run faster and cope. If we choose weapons, we deserve (as a species) to die.

 

I'm afraid i just did that again in the wuhan corona thread. I do that because we are talking about current issues and realistic scenarios applying to the current issues. I can think of farfetched solutions that would work if everyone agreed with them too. I just generally pass on that with topical issues.
I hope you realize though that its not only about old and weak people. A minority, but not insignificantly or neglectable at all, healthy people are at risk too. And they have a far bigger chance of survival without complications if we don't overburden the healthcare system more. Which we will anyway in the coming weeks.

Thats going to happen regardless.

It's arguable if we could have let it run faster then. We can also put it if we had a non profit society no one would suffer economically in a lockdown.
Yes, I acknowledge your point about 'if we would have'. But what does that help us now?

 

I'm actually interested in the mystery reason (that's not exactly a mystery apparently ) as well It can't be money because locking all the risk groups up and continue most of the economy seems the cheaper option

 

@Asmodean, being Dutch, how in the world are you so fluent in English? It's really good! (you are Dutch, right? I don't know if I said it right...)

I know that's not on-topic, or an unpopular opinion for that matter. I just think it deserves mentioning. And happy Easter while I'm at it!

 

Of course.
But the species is NOT at risk.
However, many other species are, purely because of us.

 

I'm not concerned with helping us.
I'm pointing out that because of our shitty choices and what we create and have, we don't particularly deserve to keep thriving as we do.

And have you watched that long video yet? I'm not going to write out all the points, it's just he sounds he knows what he's on about and I want to know your refute of that.

 

And would any of those endangered species be helped by quitting the lockdown?

A lot of wild animals in our countries must be having the time of their lifes! Less risk of getting hit by traffic when crossing the road, an amazing increase in air quality

 

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Then i see little use arguing with you about decisions to save people or the economy.

I take notice of many (different) people who sound like they know what they talk about. Not gonna watch that vid in order to refute his points, sorry. Granted I have more spare time than usual, but not eager to spend it on debunking internet vids.
If you want me to refute a set of very good arguments you would have to give them to me. Not gonna filter them out a lengthy vid myself.

 

As I said, that started this, it's not about a choice between people OR economy. It's about which people, and in what way.

And as I also said, I'm not even arguing on the side of the economy. I'm extremely happy at the moment and have no personal desire for the world to return to normal.

 

I'm just saying it makes no sense, if you want to take care of people : )

 

I'm fine with all of that Just seemed you were arguing with VG against current measures because it would cause more death and/or suffering for humans later. And hold it against me for not going along with that claimed certainty, and doubt the actual use of the current lockdown.

 

I do agree with VG.
But on behalf of other people, is my only reason to.
I'm relatively safe. Grow food, live in isolated area.
But for everyone else.. I worry about the lockdown.