## Rational ideas that are not rational to implement due to irrational population * Author: u/Farmerbob1 *Level 1 author** * URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/3mi7ln/rational_ideas_that_are_not_rational_to_implement/ * Score: 7 * Created: 2015-09-26T20:45:40 ### Post: I'd like to see people's thoughts on rational ideas that are not rational to implement. There are dangerous places the discussion can go with this, please be careful to avoid the really dark corners, or at least spoiler them. There are a lot of really good ideas in the world that simply will not work because of irrational elements in our society. My example is an electromagnetic cargo-only launch system that we could use to shift raw materials and supplies into space, allowing us to more rapidly develop a space industry. We can do it, but it would be expensive. It would take away from other pork-barrel contracts, but it would be an incredible investment for space infrastructure. The irrational element of society just doesn't see space as useful. They won't invest in it. What other examples do you have? ### Comments: > **u/Nepene** [+14] (a day later) > > I think a lot of people are mistaking flights of fancy for rationality. If we don't have the tech to do it, it's not rational. If it's rational for other actors to mess with it, the problem isn't an irrational populace. > > >My example is an electromagnetic cargo-only launch system that we could use to shift raw materials and supplies into space, allowing us to more rapidly develop a space industry. > > We don't have the technology to do this, and a space industry is a low priority for most. Most of the benefits come from satellites, which don't need a big space industry. We could possibly develop the technology, but till we do and know how hard it is this isn't a plan. > > /u/Anakiri alcohol makes sex easier, social interaction easier, and brings a great deal of pleasure. It's not in the interests of many to stop drinking. > > /u/Roxolan > > http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/12/20/health-heart-pacemaker-dc-idUKN1960427320071220 > > You can get atomic batteries, and society is rational enough to use them, but they're absurdly expensive and lithium is cheaper. Unless you have a cost analysis that says there's a load of applications where a 40 year battery is necessary this isn't rationality, this is a theory. > > /u/TimTravel communism is a terrible government system for many reasons. It centralizes power heavily in a central government, reduces responsiveness and reducing politician's need to help far away people, and Marx's ideas and many of his successors are a mess. It also gives people strong incentives to do shoddy work, ignore regional problems, and be corrupt. > > /u/topiary_quail in a democracy there are many competing interests, some of which are rationally against each other. Hilary Clinton wants to cut the private sector at the expense of the public sector. She as such appeals to unions, a major powers in the democrat party. Donald Trump wants to strengthen the private sector at the expense of the public sector. He as such appeals to businesses, a major power in the Republican party. > > /u/IWantUsToMerge https://reason.com/archives/2015/06/11/why-poor-people-stay-poor lead poisoning increases criminality and is more common in poor areas. Financial planning isn't rational if any money you save up is likely to be stolen, and not having babies isn't rational in a high danger environment, children take care of you. Plus, injuries are random and disabilities are random, 'should' has little place in a rationality discussion. We should base our ethics on what works, not on what 'should' happen. > > /u/narfanator if it's rational to conquer any group that's anarchic then it's not rational to be an anarchist. > > On drug use, that depends on what the studies say about whether legalization increases or decreases use. What you think people can handle doesn't matter. > > So to summarize, none of the ideas I saw here are actually implementable plans that would have obvious benefits. > > http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showfeature&featureid=1041&pageid=682&parentid=478 > > Comprehensive sex education. Reduces the pregnancy rate of teens, generally agreed to be bad, lessens healthcare costs, reduces abortions, reduces stds. Objections include irrational religious arguments and irrational beliefs that sex education will increase how much sex people have, contrary to studies. > > http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/norway-has-the-most-luxurious-and-humane-prisons-in-the-world/story-fnixwvgh-1227265315097 > > http://www.correctionsone.com/re-entry-and-recidivism/articles/2030030-6-evidence-based-practices-proven-to-lower-recidivism/ > > Treating criminals like humans. Many proven benefits in reducing reoffending, the cost savings would be immense and if the unions object we could just keep paying union guards to sit in a room and still save money. Not done due to irrational need by people to get revenge on criminals. > > http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free > > Give homeless people houses and starving people food. It's far, far cheaper to give people their basic needs so they can survive than dealing with them in jails and hospitals. Prison should not be used as welfare for the poor. People don't do it for irrational reasons relating to a fear that money will be wasted, so money is wasted anyway. > > Mass vaccination, safety from common diseases. Vaccines massively improve health. Reason why it's not done- irrational fear of it causing autism. Many places are forcing people to vaccinate their children. > > Those are the immediate ones that come to mind. >> **u/Farmerbob1** [+1] *Level 1 author* (a day later) >> >> > So to summarize, none of the ideas I saw here are actually implementable plans that would have obvious benefits. >> >> That was the point of the discussion. The plans are not implementable with obvious benefits, **due to human irrationality.** >> >> Several of your counterarguments center around social irrationality of humans. >> >> The resources available to us in space dwarf the resources available to us on Earth. For us to not be aggressively pushing the envelope in space is irrational. But for us to try to push the envelope is also irrational, because it will not be supported by people who don't see the potential. >> >> No government will ever function rationally, because too many people are irrational. People who will vote based on a single letter 'R' or 'D', instead of based on issues, for an example that shouldn't start too much squabbling. Similar types of human fallacies will impact every type of government. >> >> I *DO* like most of your ideas that you bring up, and they definitely fit. >> >> I'm not entirely certain about mass vaccination for diseases with low death rates. If we don't use our immune system, it might not be ready to deal with the unexpected, and less capable when needed. MMR and similar shots for children, hell yes. Yes to smallpox and polio vaccinations if those diseases ever make a resurgence. If we can find something that works effectively against HIV, yes. Allowing lesser diseases to infect the population every now and then is like exercise for the immune system. >>> **u/Nepene** [+3] (a day later) >>> >>> >That was the point of the discussion. The plans are not implementable with obvious benefits, due to human irrationality. >>> >>> Yes, and they're generally very vague and theoretical. They should at least have some evidence they can work. Lots of things aren't done because of irrational populations making it rational for politicians to note push them. >>> >>> >The resources available to us in space dwarf the resources available to us on Earth. For us to not be aggressively pushing the envelope in space is irrational. But for us to try to push the envelope is also irrational, because it will not be supported by people who don't see the potential. >>> >>> A particular approach was proposed, using rail guns to shoot things up into space. You didn't argue about the pure benefit of space so much, and didn't prove your particular approach would actually work, as opposed to more mature and reliable tech like rockets. >>> >>> Plus, what if due to the expense the risk of failure was too high? It might be rational to try again in a century when technology is more advanced. >>> >>> You didn't do an actual analysis showing that financially, if everyone was rational, asteroid mining and colonization is currently a rational choice. >>> >>> >No government will ever function rationally, because too many people are irrational. >>> >>> There are ways around that. I believe the Scandanavian governments generally employ experts to design prisons, rather than letting the voters decide, hence why they have a much lower reoffending rate. >>> >>> Politicians who trust scientists can be much more rational. >>> >>> >I'm not entirely certain about mass vaccination for diseases with low death rates. If we don't use our immune system, it might not be ready to deal with the unexpected, and less capable when needed. >>> >>> Vaccines engage your immune system. They put some heat treated or whatnot bit of the 'corpses' of a bacterial or virus infection in a person so your immune system can learn to target that. Vaccinations make you use your immune system, they don't stop it. >>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+1] *Level 1 author* (a day later) >>>> >>>> >Vaccines engage your immune system. They put some heat treated or whatnot bit of the 'corpses' of a bacterial or virus infection in a person so your immune system can learn to target that. Vaccinations make you use your immune system, they don't stop it. >>>> >>>> Yes, but if everyone is vaccinated, then only a few individuals will encounter the actual, live disease. Vaccinations are specifically designed to be easy for a healthy immune system to defeat. This gives the body an advantage when the live disease is encountered. >>>> >>>> It's like eating right, vs. eating right and exercising. You might be healthy if you eat right, but you will be healthier if you eat right and exercise. >>>> >>>> As another example, if you are in a low-risk group, and are seriously impacted by the flu, it may be a sign that there is something else wrong with you on a deeper level. Catching the flu might save your life by exposing something more insidious. >>>>> **u/Nepene** [+1] (a day later) >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15308362 >>>>> >>>>> Vaccination has been shown to not cause immune disorders like asthma or allergies. >>>>> >>>>> Do you have evidence for your assertion that 'exercising' the immune system with live pathogens leads to better health than vaccines? >>>>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [-1] *Level 1 author* (a day later) >>>>>> >>>>>> > Vaccination has been shown to not cause immune disorders like asthma or allergies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't go there. **I am most definitely not claiming anything like this.** I fully support vaccinations for diseases that have a high death rate, or for less virulent diseases, in high risk populations. >>>>>> >>>>>> >Do you have evidence for your assertion that 'exercising' the immune system with live pathogens leads to better health than vaccines? >>>>>> >>>>>> Vaccinated people frequently contract a weak-to-moderate case of the flu despite the vaccine. People who were not vaccinated, do not catch the disease twice, unless they have a severely inadequate immune system. The live virus clearly generates a stronger immune response, and a stronger future defense. >>>>>>> **u/Nepene** [+2] (a day later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >Vaccinated people frequently contract a weak-to-moderate case of the flu despite the vaccine. People who were not vaccinated, do not catch the disease twice, unless they have a severely inadequate immune system. The live virus clearly generates a stronger immune response, and a stronger future defense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What evidence do you have for this statement? In particular, that people with a live virus (rarely or never?) catch the disease unless severely inadequate with their immune system? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems like a fairly improbable statement, given the variety of flu viruses. >>>>>>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [-1] *Level 1 author* (a day later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What evidence do I have? Reality. It is well documented that people will frequently contract the flu even if immunized. That's what they call a success rate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And you have misattributed me a second time. Please note that I said that healthy individuals: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > do not catch the disease **twice,** unless they have a severely inadequate immune system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not digging through the internet for articles to prove common sense. Vaccinations are intentionally weakened strains. This means they are less effective at inoculating individuals than the a live strain. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This, in turn, indicates that the immune system is stressed more by the live flu. For a healthy individual, a moderate disease stress is just like other sort of moderate stress. It strengthens the body systems that are stressed. This is true of skeletal muscles, the cardiopulmonary system, bones, our brains, and the immune system. Use it or lose it. Our body will happily devote calories and resources to other things if we don't seem to be needing our immune system very much. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please do not come back and say that kids, elderly, and the infirm should be vaccinated for the flu. I agree with that. I simply do not agree with healthy adults being vaccinated against diseases that have almost no chance of harming them significantly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there's a really nasty flu that is particularly virulent, sure, I could see people being careful. I might even get a flu shot if a really horrible flu was detected. I have never gotten a flu shot in my entire life that I know of. I'm old enough that flu vaccinations were not common when I was a child. I'd have to ask my mother if I was vaccinated in 1976 for that scare. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In short, here's where I'm coming from. People need medical care. Yes. But medical care is not a substitute for staying in shape. For the healthy person's immune system, staying in shape means not sanitizing/using antibiotic everything, and only immunizing yourself against significant disease threats. I have never seen any reputable medical documentation to refute this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps I am being irrational in this. I don't think so, and it's going to take a great deal of convincing to make me change my mind, which should be conducted by PM if you want to continue the discussion. >>>>>>>>> **u/Nepene** [+4] (a day later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >What evidence do I have? Reality. It is well documented that people will frequently contract the flu even if immunized. That's what they call a success rate. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, but you don't have evidence that those who have caught a natural flu can't catch it again. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >And you have misattributed me a second time. Please note that I said that healthy individuals: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, I got you. People with a live virus in them (who have caught it once, is what I meant) never catch it again, I just phrased in poorly. I want evidence for that statement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >I'm not digging through the internet for articles to prove common sense. Vaccinations are intentionally weakened strains. This means they are less effective at inoculating individuals than the a live strain. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Common sense is silly. For some vaccines the vaccine is more effective than the natural infector, like Hib (Haemophilus Influenzae type b) and tetanus vaccines, for some it's less effective. Also, many natural illnesses have a high risk of death, 2/1000 for measles say. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/misconceptions-about-vaccines >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You should stop relying on common sense. It's making you state well known falsehoods that are on lists of myths about vaccines. You're an evolved ape, not a superhuman intelligence, your common sense is no substitute for actual science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your ideas are not rational to implement because you're using common sense rather than maths and science. >>>>>>>>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [-1] *Level 1 author* (a day later) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When the body defeats a natural flu, the immune response to re-introduction of the same strain is overwhelming. Dead virus vaccinations do not generate the same response, but it helps, so it is useful, and appropriate, in the young, old, and infirm. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is the underpinning of vaccination theory. How you can even consider this to be in question is baffling. Maybe years later, the same strain might make headway against your immune system again, but not in the same season - unless you are immune system deficient. Your body is ready for it, sitting there, waiting like Tom from Tom and Jerry with a raised baseball bat over the mouse hole. The smallest new infection is smashed out of your system by an intense, successful response. That's how the immune system works. That's what vaccination attempts to duplicate. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Common sense is rationality without numbers, friend. Protecting the weak is rational. Weakening the strong with unnecessary medical treatment is irrational. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A hundred years ago, people said smoking was good for you. Seventy or so years ago, radiation therapy was commonly given (NOT chemotherapy or clinical radiation treatments). We only figured out what the appendix actually does recently. We are still puzzling out how to deal with some of the nastiest viruses. Our fascination with sanitation and antibiotics has given rise to superbugs, and even [bleach-resistant strains](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22296329) are possible. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is a waste of resources, time, and money to vaccinate healthy young/middle-age adults for the flu unless there's a truly nasty flu that year. The medical community tends to have the view that if doing X helps a certain demographic, then everyone should do X, even if [there is no clear reason for it](http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/734387_1). >>>>>>>>>>> **u/KerbalFactorioLeague** [+3] (a day later) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In this comment, it sounds like you're ignoring herd immunity. If only people who needed vaccines used them, then the people who can't take them but are still at risk are no longer protected >>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+0] *Level 1 author* (a day later) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Flu is a constantly evolving virus. It changes every year, and there are frequently multiple different strains in the same year. If it were possible to completely immunize everyone forever against the flu, then I'd agree to herd immunization tactics. I'm all for eliminating diseases, if they can be eliminated. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But it's not. The flu isn't a single-strain disease like Smallpox, which, once exposed via vaccination or survival, generates a near-permanent immunity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Even if there were 100% flu vaccination coverage, flu vaccinations are simply not effective enough to prevent it from spreading. A very large part of our population is at risk for the flu, and those at-risk populations will spread the disease quite effectively, even if vaccinated. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I fully support vaccination for more virulent diseases, and for at-risk groups. But as noted in the article above, there's no need for healthy young-to-middle-aged adults to get a flu shot. Even if you consider herd immunity. Healthy adult flu immunization is an irrational practice because it has costs, but no meaningful value. >>>>>>>>>>> **u/Nepene** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >When the body defeats a natural flu, the immune response to re-introduction of the same strain is overwhelming. Dead virus vaccinations do not generate the same response, but it helps, so it is useful, and appropriate, in the young, old, and infirm. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Speculation, which contradicts actual scientific websites. Also, speculation that this overwhelming response leads to a better immunity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >This is the underpinning of vaccination theory. How you can even consider this to be in question is baffling. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Because it contradicts every actual scientific source I've consulted on actual vaccines. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >Vaccines also don't cause autism, incidentally. >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe years later, the same strain might make headway against your immune system again, but not in the same season - unless you are immune system deficient. Your body is ready for it, sitting there, waiting like Tom from Tom and Jerry with a raised baseball bat over the mouse hole. The smallest new infection is smashed out of your system by an intense, successful response. That's how the immune system works. That's what vaccination attempts to duplicate. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You're making up loads of bs. Healthy people can get sick too, depending on the exact nature of the infection and the quantity of infection and their genetics. Immunity, natural or otherwise, is protective, not an absolute defense. Also, vaccination both attempts and succeeds at duplicating it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You're speculating about scientific matters that require actual research. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >Common sense is rationality without numbers, friend. Protecting the weak is rational. Weakening the strong with unnecessary medical treatment is irrational. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You're not being rational with your common sense. You're making things up which are contradicted by scientific sources. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >A hundred years ago, people said smoking was good for you. Seventy or so years ago, radiation therapy was commonly given (NOT chemotherapy or clinical radiation treatments). We only figured out what the appendix actually does recently. We are still puzzling out how to deal with some of the nastiest viruses. Our fascination with sanitation and antibiotics has given rise to superbugs, and even bleach-resistant strains are possible. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> True, but irrelevant to anything we're talking about. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >It is a waste of resources, time, and money to vaccinate healthy young/middle-age adults for the flu unless there's a truly nasty flu that year. The medical community tends to have the view that if doing X helps a certain demographic, then everyone should do X, even if there is no clear reason for it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://lesswrong.com/lw/l81/a_cost_benefit_analysis_of_immunizing_healthy/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Maths and science says otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+1] *Level 1 author* (a day later) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > Speculation, which contradicts actual scientific websites. Also, speculation that this overwhelming response leads to a better immunity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree with immunization theory, but think it's a good idea for everyone to get immunized for even the most inconsequential threats. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Definitely done here. >>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Nepene** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree with your quirky and unusual interpretation of immunization theory. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >When the body defeats a natural flu, the immune response to re-introduction of the same strain is overwhelming. Dead virus vaccinations do not generate the same response, but it helps, so it is useful, and appropriate, in the young, old, and infirm. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That the immune response is overwhelming, that dead virus does not generate the same response, and that it's useful in the young, old, and infirm. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean, the article you linked earlier said "Unfortunately, a recent review of influenza vaccination among adults at age 65 or older also suggested that the vaccine was of questionable efficacy.[9] While vaccination appeared to reduce the symptoms of influenza, the heterogeneity and poor quality of the collected research prevented any strong conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing complications of influenza in this high-risk population." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I personally from the evidence think the effectiveness in the elderly is more clear, from other studies, but your own study said it's not great in the elderly. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with immunization theory, not farmerbob1's special immunization theory based on their common sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I also didn't say everyone should get vaccinated for everything. It should obviously be based on appropriate science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+1] *Level 1 author* (2 days later) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, Wikipedia is short on examples and specifics, but quite long on references. The Science Direct article is quite extensive and probably interesting if you have deep knowledge of the topic, and it is also laden with references. It was fairly painful for me to read, as I am not a subject matter expert, but the conclusions were written in terms that I was able to comprehend. WebMD mentions a study, and is generally a solid source of basic medical data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you believe that Wikipedia is incorrect to include this medical research as legitimate, feel free to try to prove it to people far more knowledgeable about such things than I am. I feel that your dismisal of these peer-reviewed ideas is premature. My belief in immunological systems being strengthened by exposure to microorganisms is not me simply making things up. I'm not turning this information gathering into an all-nighter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are some links and quotes from the links. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * #1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [The appendix as part of the active immune system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut-associated_lymphoid_tissue) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *On the appendix. Ten years ago, the medical community had only recently thought they figured out what the appendix was for. Since the last time I looked into it, the medical comunity has found what does look like a better explanation.* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * #2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Sucking your baby’s pacifier can make him less likely to develop allergies.](http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/features/boost-immune-system?page=2) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Fact. Do you cringe when you see a parent pick up a baby’s pacifier and suck it before returning it to the baby’s mouth? Don't. A recent study found that parents who suck their infant’s pacifier may lower the baby’s risk of having allergies. The thought is that germs transferred to the infant from the parent’s saliva will kick-start the baby's immune system.* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * #3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [The Hygiene Hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The hygiene hypothesis is supported by epidemiological data. Studies have shown that various immunological and autoimmune diseases are much less common in the developing world than the industrialized world and that immigrants to the industrialized world from the developing world increasingly develop immunological disorders in relation to the length of time since arrival in the industrialized world. This is true for asthma[41] and other chronic inflammatory disorders.[5]* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * #4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Helminthic Therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helminthic_therapy) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Helminthic infection has emerged as one possible explanation for the low incidence of autoimmune diseases and allergies in less developed countries, together with the significant and sustained increase in autoimmune diseases in industrialized countries.* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * #5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Homeostatic Expansion of T Cells during Immune Insufficiency Generates Autoimmunity](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867404003356) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Importantly, we show that immune stimulation causes an increase in T cell numbers and creates a population of long-lived memory T cells that are otherwise absent from the NOD strain. Indeed, an extensive list of stimulatory factors is reported to reduce the incidence of diabetes in NOD mice, including the following: persistent viral infection, mycobacterial infection, complete (heat-killed mycobacterium-containing) Freund's adjuvant (CFA), and other bacterial antigens (Rabinovitch, 1994). The “clean” domestic environments of Western societies resemble the specific pathogen-free conditions under which NOD mice are housed. This concept of hygiene developed from the original ideas of Oliver Wendell-Holmes, Sr., and Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis in the 1840s (Greenhill, 1966) and was subsequently popularized by Louis Pasteur with his “germ theory of disease” (Mendelsohn, 2002). However, the increase in autoimmunity in Western societies in recent years Kukreja and Maclaren 1999 and Kwoh 1992 may be compounded by the zealous use of disinfectants and antibiotics during the 20th century. Indeed, protection from diabetes by immunostimulation with bacterial antigen or infection parallels the state of non-Western societal contexts and reflects the fact that microinoculations can beneficially instruct the maturation of the immune system in infancy (Holt, 1998).* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **I have zero interest in continuing this discussion. I am replying because of this.** >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I agree with immunization theory, not farmerbob1's special immunization theory based on their common sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not MY theory, but I feel it is rational, and I am far from the only one. The Hygiene Hypothesis has several names. I've seen some strange things that quacks have attempted to connect to it - mostly people afraid of vaccines for reasons that have been disproved, or people like the above poster that are attacking it with strawmen. What I have discussed are core to the concept. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Nepene** [+1] (2 days later) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're misinterpreting the hygeine hypothesis. Epidemiologists doing statistics on children discovered that there was a large and obvious difference between countries that had limited exposure to most childhood diseases and ones which due to various public health policies such as Strachan studying Hayfever in the 1950s. This meant that some certain diseases would reduce the incidence of childhood diseases. As I showed from early citations, vaccines have no effect on autoimmune diseases. Many scientists are trying to search for a magic bullet style infection- a single or small group of infectious agents which are minimally harmful and which reduce incidence of autoimmune diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There have been numerous false hopes and dreams from various diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1778688/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Measles doesn't seem to have a protective effect, despite early studies suggesting it might. People suggested that this may have been due to the survivor bias due to 25% mortality rate of the disease. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14755072 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Helminth has shown a protective effect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9343275 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lactobacilli and Eubacteria, gut flora bacteria which children can gain from farm exposure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12614441 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Endotoxin, likewise from farm exposure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10943631/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hepatitis A, strong evidence for this one, a 50% reduction in various immune disorders. May only have a protective effect in certain people with a special gene. Hasn't shown an effect in some populations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12239261/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14534576 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15355464 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For measles, mumps, rheumatic fever, tuberculosis and HAV the epidomological evidence is that they declined before or after the spike in autoimmune diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respiratory track diseases like influenza, barring measles, haven't shown much of a decline and there certainly wasn't a rapid decline around when autoimmune diseases became so common. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your pet theory that flu vaccines caused mass autoimmune diseases is incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to reduce the incident of autoimmune diseases we could ban the hepatitis A vaccine, though that would have serious health implications since it's a pretty dangerous virus and you'd need to do some genetic studies first probably. You can also take children on more trips to farms to prime their immune systems with endotoxins and lactobacilli. As noted, infection with Helminth has some positive effects, although I've seen studies that have noted its protective effects may be limited against particular types of autoimmune disease like asthma or allergic rhinitis. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't just throw your hands up say YOLO and mass infect children with diseases and hope for the best. Some bacteria and viruses and worms improve immune function, some don't. Your theory isn't the proper one. Actual science is needed, not common sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Edit. This also isn't evidence that the immune system was affected by intelligent design or that infection strengthens it. The effect may be due to the immune system being weaker due to poorer health, or downregulation of the immune system by pathogens. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+1] *Level 1 author* (2 days later) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > So your pet theory that flu vaccines caused mass autoimmune diseases is incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. I did **NOT** say that. STOP putting words in my mouth. I want to be done with this conversation but you're driving me nuts with the strawman arguments. What I have said **repeatedly** was that healthy adults subjected to live viruses without vaccinations will have a stronger reaction to the disease, with nearly no risk of permanent harm. This results in the immune system being strengthened by use. That's part and parcel of the Hygiene Hypothesis. While a lot of studies are based around children, a lot of the studies were also based on adults too, if you care to look at them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Challenging the immune system with threats it can successfully counter is shown to be a plausible way to improve immune system health. What I linked is actual science. You don't get to define what science is. Scientists do, and you better believe that the Wikipedia hard sciences folks would be all over those articles if there wasn't science to back them up. That is one thing that Wiki does do pretty well, provide accurate information on hard sciences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > You can't just throw your hands up say YOLO and mass infect children with diseases and hope for the best. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where in the hell are you even coming up with this absurdity? Where have I even hinted that this was a good idea? Have I gotten lost and found myself in 4Chan? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am Agnostic. God is going to have to come down and prove his own existence to me before I'll consider him to be anything other than a fairy tale. I used the word 'created' once. It was an error. I will go fix it now, since you are so bothered by it that it has apparently destroyed your ability to argue against points I actually made. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Nepene** [+1] (2 days later) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >What I have said repeatedly was that healthy adults subjected to live viruses without vaccinations will have a stronger reaction to the disease, with nearly no risk of permanent harm. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And as I noted, respiratory track diseases haven't actually declined and they are harmful and can cause death. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448690/#b69 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2841828/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest reading actual scientific articles on the matter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nhs.uk/livewell/homehygiene/pages/are-we-too-clean-for-our-own-good.aspx >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or reading the various well written public health guides. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Challenging the immune system with threats it can successfully counter is shown to be a plausible way to improve immune system health. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867404003356 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Human autoimmune diseases are often associated with viral infections that disrupt T cell survival mechanisms, resulting in lymphopenia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember the article you cited? It noted that viral infections could cause mass deaths of immune cells, causing them to need rapid repopulation which leads to malignant immune cells. And as I noted, a number of illnesses have been proven to not have any effect on autoimmune diseases. It's a super complex picture. Some illnesses help, some hurt. Some do both. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >You don't get to define what science is. Scientists do, and you better believe that the Wikipedia hard sciences folks would be all over those articles if there wasn't science to back them up. That is one thing that Wiki does do pretty well, provide accurate information on hard sciences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this based on talking to actual professional scientists? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have, and while many note the usefulness of wikipedia for student research and getting a basic overview, they've also noted that it often lacks a lot of research, and their efforts to edit in accurate research were often stopped by non scientist bureaucracies which overruled them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want actual really good science look for a review, not wikipedia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not that I'm actually contradicting much info in wikipedia. You've just taken wikipedia and gone far further than it suggests to push your personal theory of immunology, contradicting your own sources in your efforts to prove your points. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Where in the hell are you even coming up with this absurdity? Where have I even hinted that this was a good idea? Have I gotten lost and found myself in 4Chan? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >What I have said repeatedly was that healthy adults subjected to live viruses without vaccinations will have a stronger reaction to the disease, with nearly no risk of permanent harm. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you noted influenza, a dangerous disease that's killed millions, as an example of that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since many diseases worsen the immune system as your cited article noted, and many have no effect as mine noted, this mass infection would be a bad idea. You may want them to acquire the viruses naturally, but I'd see preventing people from using good sanitation techniques is similar to mass infecting them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >It was an error. I will go fix it now, since you are so bothered by it that it has apparently destroyed your ability to argue against points I actually made. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+1] *Level 1 author* (2 days later) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > And as I noted, respiratory track diseases haven't actually declined and they are harmful and can cause death. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, as I have noted, I am referring to the flu, in healthy adults, and made exceptions for consideration of more dangerous strains. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I suggest reading actual scientific articles on the matter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which I have done, and you have ignored. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Or reading the various well written public health guides. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Written by oh, so knowledgeable individuals with one goal in mind. Universal vaccination, because anything else would require too much thinking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Remember the article you cited? It noted that viral infections could cause mass deaths of immune cells, causing them to need rapid repopulation which leads to malignant immune cells. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It ALSO stated that individuals that regularly encountered immune system threats experienced fewer mass die-offs of immune system cells and fewer malignancies. In layman's terms, the immune system is being used, therefore, it stays strong. Does this mean that I think everyone should put anthrax powder on their cornflakes? No. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Since many diseases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get it through your head. I am referring to forgoing vaccination for the flu, in healthy adults, with exceptions for the most virulent strains. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every time you suggest something different, you broadcast to every reader that you cannot follow the thread of a conversation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand what a strawman argument is? I am beginning to believe you do not, since you are constantly reverting back to them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you come up with something that's not a strawman argument, AND is relevant to what I have been saying, I'm done here. Again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Nepene** [+1] (2 days later) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >And, as I have noted, I am referring to the flu, in healthy adults, and made exceptions for consideration of more dangerous strains. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The flu, which is also a respiratory track disease, didn't decline around when auto immune issues started appearing. There's no actual evidence that flu infections improve your immune system functioning. The article also noted that they managed to stimulate long living immune cells by vaccinating them with mycobacterial cell wall fragments, not that they infected them with flu or a live disease. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So yes, you cite scientific articles, but not ones that actually support your point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vaccines use the immune system too, and certain ones can make it work better is what your scientific article proved. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Written by oh, so knowledgeable individuals with one goal in mind. Universal vaccination, because anything else would require too much thinking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, all this science that disagrees with you is a vast conspiracy! Reading it will pollute your mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In reality, as mature, proper scientists they want to improve public health using science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >In layman's terms, the immune system is being used, therefore, it stays strong. Does this mean that I think everyone should put anthrax powder on their cornflakes? No. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Layman's terms aren't good. In actuality, when mice are given cell wall fragments of mycobacteria they have a healthy immune system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's like if a study found out "Eating things seems to keep cats fur healthy." and you concluded from that. "Eating forks will improve my muscle growth." You should stop using your common sense. Scientific studies don't prove random things you think are rational that they didn't study. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Allowing lesser diseases to infect the population every now and then is like exercise for the immune system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Get it through your head. I am referring to forgoing vaccination for the flu, in healthy adults, with exceptions for the most virulent strains. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >It ALSO stated that individuals that regularly encountered immune system threats experienced fewer mass die-offs of immune system cells and fewer malignancies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you noted, lesser diseases, immune threats. I wouldn't count flu as a lesser disease anyway, but this isn't a strawman, this is what you said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless of whether it's just flu or anything else minor that you value, you haven't shown that the flu specifically boosts your immune system. You certainly haven't shown that when the immune system is used it stays strong. >>>>>>>>>>> **u/Nepene** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, issues with your rationality- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You're claiming that once you get infected you have some sort of superior immunity. This puts others in danger, as natural immunity is often inferior. Flu vaccines for example cover you against multiple strains, and as such are superior, and many vaccines are superior. Also, many diseases have a high risk of death, and pox parties and similar things where people seek natural immunity are incredibly dangerous. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You're disregarding science in favor of aligning yourself with the anti science anti vaccers who make absurd claims about vaccines. This weakens the credibility of other people who claim rationality. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You're claiming that healthy people with appropriate immunities don't get sick from those diseases. This gives people a false sense of invincibility and increases danger. In reality, immunity is just one element of a complex, multilayered set of systems to resist disease, and one which can fail or be evaded. Minimizing exposure is always important to minimize chances of an infection defeating your immune system. If you have too numerous an infection they may evolve past your immune system, and there are parts of your body where your immune system has a much weaker presence, like your brain. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So yes, your attitudes are very dangerous and risky for the future of humanity. >>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+1] *Level 1 author* (a day later) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have repeatedly indicated that this position is a position I hold for flu immunizations. Please do not engage in strawman arguments to draw other diseases into the conversation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >You're disregarding science in favor of aligning yourself with the anti science anti vaccers who make absurd claims about vaccines. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am not. If you think that I am, then you are clearly not reading what I am writing. You are picking out the little bits that you disagree with and rearranging my arguments in your own mind so that you can believe me to be wrong. I noticed that you did not comment on the study I linked. Facts are painful, no? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >You're claiming that healthy people with appropriate immunities don't get sick from those diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am not. I am claiming that healthy people with appropriate immunities do not grow severely ill from most strains of the flu, and that is born out in any research you care to examine that isn't entirely focused on the most deadly strains. If someone who is otherwise healthy does grow severely ill from a flu strain that isn't one of the more dangerous strains, that flu infection might have just warned them about an immune system disorder or other ailment. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > This gives people a false sense of invincibility and increases danger. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is not a false sense of invincibility. For most strains of the flu, a healthy adult between 16-60 or so will be irritated, but not have their life threatened. This is proven repeatedly in flu research. Most strains of the flu are a minor inconvenience to healthy individuals between 16 and 60. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >Minimizing exposure is always important to minimize chances of an infection defeating your immune system. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of a disease which has a credible possibility of defeating your immune system, sure. Very few strains of the flu have any significant chance of defeating the immune system of healthy individuals between the age of 16 and 60. The immune system has evolved to encounter and react. In fact, the body aggressively seeks out disease vectors. **That's what the appendix is for. It samples the digestive tract for things to introduce to the immune system.** The more different encounters the immune system has, the stronger it becomes overall, unless a disease or infection is encountered that directly attacks the immune system. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Medicine should work with the human body to promote the body staying in health, not take over the job entirely. For mild diseases, like most strains of flu, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for universal vaccination, unless you can eliminate the disease completely. And we certainly can't do that with the flu yet. Show me a well-tested universal flu vaccination that is as safe as current flu vaccinations, and I'll take it tomorrow. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The medical community and the CDC promotes universal vaccination, because it's easier to say "Everyone get a shot" than try to explain to the public that some years you need a shot, others you don't. If you are on certain medications or have certain conditions you need a shot, even if you are a healthy adult. Etc. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Excessive, unnecessary medical intervention is not rational. Period. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria is one example where an out of control medical community accidentally created something dangerous because they didn't fully understand the repercussions of what they were doing. I am NOT saying that we're going to create a super-flu, but I am saying that we don't understand the immune system well enough to try to completely replace the natural process when there isn't a pressing need for it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Encouraging vaccinations for low-risk groups in minimally dangerous flu outbreaks encourages more dependency on medical technology and less on staying healthy. To use your words, this is 'very dangerous and risky for the future of humanity.' >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm done with this discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Nepene** [+2] (a day later) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >I have repeatedly indicated that this position is a position I hold for flu immunizations. Please do not engage in strawman arguments to draw other diseases into the conversation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't actually draw other diseases into the conversation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://pediatrics.about.com/od/kidsandtheflu/a/deaths-from-flu.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, your general argument, we should let people be infected with minor diseases to train the immune system includes other illnesses. Still, the Flu isn't a minor disease, and can easily cause deaths. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >No, I am not. If you think that I am, then you are clearly not reading what I am writing. You are picking out the little bits that you disagree with and rearranging my arguments in your own mind so that you can believe me to be wrong. I noticed that you did not comment on the study I linked. Facts are painful, no? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your actual arguments are generally weak, and there's a lot of overlap between your beliefs and anti vac ones, like the belief in natural immunity being superior, healthy immune systems being invulnerable to diseases, exposing people to dangerous diseases to promote resistance. Even on their own, ignoring the anti vac connection, those are poor beliefs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The article you linked said there were only small benefits, mostly based on an analysis of working days lost, among low risk populations. They didn't do a cost benefit analysis or anything, so it was of limited use. I never claimed there were large benefits to mass vaccination for flu among healthy adults- I was contesting your claim that it would lead to a weaker immune system through it not being exercised. The study stated something different from what you said and I didn't really care enough to get into it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You've avoided citing any evidence for your actual core claims though. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >For most strains of the flu, a healthy adult between 16-60 or so will be irritated, but not have their life threatened. This is proven repeatedly in flu research. Most strains of the flu are a minor inconvenience to healthy individuals between 16 and 60. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.healthline.com/health/flu-complications#Complications3 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The flu virus can infect lots of stuff. It can by random chance infect the brain say. It's not a minor disease, it's a serious one which can have serious effects. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >The more different encounters the immune system has, the stronger it becomes overall, unless a disease or infection is encountered that directly attacks the immune system. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You make up a lot of stuff about the immune system. I doubt you'll change your view, but to any readers- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The immune system develops specific counters. It develops, say, a counter to a particular molecule on some flu viruses. The next year that counter won't work. The immune system won't be any more effective or strong against a new flu virus without that molecule. The immune system isn't a pokemon. It doesn't evolve into stronger forms, it doesn't gain exp, it doesn't gain EVs. Your immune system as a general matter gets weaker as you age. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >The immune system is designed to encounter and react. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Creationism is a lie. The immune system is evolved, not designed. As such, it varies immensely in effectiveness from person to person. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >That's what the appendix is for. It samples the digestive tract for things to introduce to the immune system. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_%28anatomy%29 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We're not sure of the purpose of the appendix. A top theory is that it serves as a reservoir for good bacteria after dysentery, but we're not sure. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The rest of your post ignores your earlier claims in favor of your new claims about the immune system being some mysterious thing we don't understand (we do) stuff about flu vaccines not being necessary for everyone (I agree) and again ignores the article claiming there are no benefits to universal flu vaccines and a vague claim that it will encourage risky behaviour based on no evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bye then. > **u/Uncaffeinated** [+18] (an hour later) > > I suspect you far underestimate the challenges involved with electromagnetic space launches. > > There are numerous corporations and even people with billions of dollars to spare. If this was an obvious sure thing, it would have already been done. > > I guess this is a bit like Chesterton's Fence. There's always a reason why things haven't been done and it is almost never "everybody in the world is an idiot." >> **u/darkflagrance** [+9] (4 hours later) >> >> Still, one of the reasons things might not get done is "It's being done, but the process takes awhile and you might not be aware of it". >> **u/MugaSofer** [+8] (12 hours later) >> >> It's probably *worth the expense* but not *profitable*, because of existential risk. I'd have to side with OP on that one. >> >> (It's true of regular space launches anyway, though, so I'm not sure why we'd single out those.) >> **u/Farmerbob1** [+3] *Level 1 author* (14 hours later) >> >> We already have maglev trains, supercolliders, and electromagnetic weapons are going through some of the last hurdles before being placed on advanced warships. Certainly, there will be engineering obstacles, but most of those engineering obstacles can be resolved by a fusion of the technologies used for the three of these successful implementations of electromagnetic propulsion. >> >> Launch to orbit doesn't need as much mass as a train, or the velocity of a particle in a supercollider. We also don't need to limit ourselves to the extremely short acceleration window of the weapon. We certainly don't want to use this to launch people, or extremely large masses, at least to begin with. >> >> On the money side of things, I believe you will find that people and corporations with 'billions to spare' very rarely put those billions towards a single speculative venture. >> >> Speculation investments in the millions is not uncommon. Venture capital in the tens of millions for a single project happens every now and then. I can't think of any speculative ventures funded to the tune of 100+ million but I wouldn't doubt they exist. (Saturn, Global Crossing, American Superconductor may have started with this range of venture capital) Billions though? That sort of money rarely moves into a single project unless it's a pretty solid prospect, run by proven industry leaders. >> >> The problem is that there aren't any proven space industry leaders, because there is no space industry. Partly because we do not have reasonably inexpensive launching systems. >> >> An individual with a massive amount of money who might consider exposing themselves financially to such a huge degree would have to contend with levels of risk that are difficult to comprehend. What if they put three billion dollars into the system, and then have the government shut down the launch site because someone recently discovered a rare, endangered bird nesting habitat nearby? What if there is an accident which doesn't critically damage the project, but does raise the insurance rates to insane levels? >> >> The first electromagnetic launch-to-space project will almost certainly be government-built, because it's just too damn risky for individuals or companies to touch - at least until there is one to prove the concept. >>> **u/Uncaffeinated** [+3] (17 hours later) >>> >>> We do have a space industry - See Virgin Galactic and SpaceX. Plus the old guard of government contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. >>> >>> The way you describe it, the real problem is getting from 0 to billions before you even start. The normal solution to this is to create some sort of proof of concept or work on a smaller system or at least do something to demonstrate that your team knows what its doing and that the concept is feasible. Then you'll be rolling in VC, or just get acquired by a big company. >>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+1] *Level 1 author* (23 hours later) >>>> >>>> The 'space industry' we have now is really just an orbital delivery industry. We aren't making anything in space, other than in the occasional experiment. The current space program is a combination of R&D projects, government satellites, and extensions of ground-based telecom industries. >>>> >>>> When we start manufacturing things in space, for more than just R&D, then I'll agree we have a space industry. >>> **u/None** [+3] (a day later) >>> >>> Have you considered how fast you would have to be going to reach orbit, without extra rockets? With rockets? Have you considered the amount of acceleration required to get up to the speed required? >>> >>> LEO is 7.8km/s, so to reach it you'd need to accelerate something quite a bit faster than that to account for speed lost to increased gravitational potential and, the bigger factor I think, air resistance. I don't think it's easy and I have a lot of questions about whether it's sensible or feasible to even have something moving that fast near the surface of the Earth where the air is densest. >>> >>> That's ignoring getting the electricity to the area, which presumably can't be too near a city since it'll be heated by the fast moving spaceships. Did you know that one of the constraints for determining where to build a something as mundane as data center is whether there is enough electricity available? >>> >>> These are all things you have to worry about before event getting to the complicated issue that would be the electromagnetic acceleration. I don't think this is very easy and even for something as "simple" as building a normal rocket took SpaceX multiple attempts. >>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+1] *Level 1 author* (a day later) >>>> >>>> Yes, I have thought about propulsion technologies a little bit :) >>>> >>>> The concept of a electromagnetic launcher to deliver materials to Lagrange points has been around since the 1970's, and all the fiddling about burning up in atmosphere has already been answered by people far more qualified than me. [Here's a link] (http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/1980-massdriver.htm) >>>> >>>> As a spoiler, the answer is that there would be very little ablation, because the launched object is moving directly away from Earth instead of a long path through atmosphere like all rockets attempting orbital insertion. The object is also moving so quickly that it spends almost no time in the most dense atmosphere. By the time the outer surface heats up, it's already most of the way out of atmosphere. I would also like to note that superconductor technology has come a long way since the 1970's. There are industrial applications for very large superconductors these days, they aren't all in labs. That's not to say it won't be frighteningly expensive. >>>> >>>> Quench guns store electric charge in their coils. That means the electrical grid need not provide the power immediately, or even rapidly. Were you aware that most nuclear plants are located at a fair distance from cities, because people don't want them in their back yard? Quite a few dams and coal plants are far from population centers as well. In fact I'd guess that most power plants are quite some distance from large population centers. If for no other reason, to reduce property costs and taxes on the land. Finally, there are very extensive power grids across most of the industrialized world. We move power around to where it is needed. Putting this facility near an intersection of grids so it won't be anywhere near civilization, and will have access to power from multiple large power grids would seem like a good idea. >>>> >>>> All those things you believe we need to worry before getting into the engineering have already been worried about, and either determined to not be a problem, or solutions have been found. >>>> >>>> That's not to say there aren't engineering obstacles. It would be a very large project. It would be frighteningly expensive. It would allow us to start developing space. >>>>> **u/None** [+1] (a day later) >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the answers :D > **u/Roxolan** [+14] *Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager* (3 hours later) > > Atomic batteries. There's a lot you can do with a battery that effectively *never runs out of charge*. Provided that everyone can be relied on to take all necessary precautions when handling radioactive components. > > [Alas.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_accidents) > > As is, it's only safe to use in spacecrafts, unmanned Siberian lighthouses and the like. >> **u/retsotrembla** [+10] (7 hours later) >> >> > unmanned Siberian lighthouses >> >> Not even those. Idiots [still steal the batteries](http://www.nrpa.no/dav/40851f744b.pdf). >> **u/Empiricist_or_not** [+8] *Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm* (15 hours later) >> >> The problem is the general public does not understand Radiation and Radioactives. It takes a lot of effort to train Radiation workers and a lot to keep them trained. That and to understate, people are afraid of what they don't understand. Thermal batteries require respect as do all things with activity levels not measured in negative exponents of micromicroCuries/ml, but they aren't a problem if they are respected and sealed and have adequate shielding. So I wouldn't want them in a car. >> >> On the flip side if the population was understood radiation it'd mean a much higher level of understanding of basic physics. >>> **u/Roxolan** [+6] *Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager* (16 hours later) >>> >>> That's definitely part of it. >>> >>> The other part is all the times where a container of radioactive material has little protection and no labels. A lot of the stories in the two links above are about innocents (or criminals, but that's not the point) unknowingly dismantling a radioactive device for scrap metal. I have no illusion that all of them would've heeded warning signs if they had been any, but it would have helped. >> **u/Uncaffeinated** [+7] (17 hours later) >> >> Assuming you're talking about the designs used in space craft, they do run out of charge, it's just an exponential curve rather than a sudden stop. >> >> For instance, by the time New Horizons reaches the Kuiper Belt, it will have so little power left that it can only operate a single antenna. >> >> Plus, the characteristics that make them good for spacecraft aren't the same as the characteristics needed in a say a car. There's many good reasons not to use them beyond safety concerns. >> **u/None** [+1] (5 days later) >> >> People would use the components in dirty bombs, which is totally rational behaviour. >>> **u/Roxolan** [+2] *Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager* (5 days later) >>> >>> "Two-boxing Newcomb"-rational. Would achieve one objective in the hypothetical world in which society didn't see the trick coming; effectively makes a valuable technology (and all similarly abusable technologies) illegal. >>>> **u/None** [+2] (5 days later) >>>> >>>> But you can't assume that all actors value the existence of the technology. I think quite a lot of people would probably be ok extorting people with a dirty bomb even if it mean the world would lose a major energy source. >>>>> **u/Roxolan** [+1] *Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager* (5 days later) >>>>> >>>>> Right, but the point is, they don't get to do the extortion either; the technology is just never made available. > **u/Anakiri** [+20] (an hour later) > > Alcohol prohibition. Society-at-large has proven, to my satisfaction, that it cannot handle easily available recreational alcohol. In addition to the tens of thousands of people killed every year by drunk drivers, it's hard to know how many people are hurt by the effects of addiction, which cannot be predicted in advance and often prevents its own treatment. There are some cases where alcohol can't hurt anyone (drinking in your own home if you are known to not be addicted, and such), but the current ease of access to alcohol is doing considerably more harm than good. > > Unfortunately, most paths from a drinking society to a prohibitionist society are worse, what with *the mafia*. Luckily, self-driving cars will solve most of the lethal part of the problem. >> **u/alexanderwales** [+28] *Time flies like an arrow* (an hour later) >> >> This was the first thing that came to my mind. >> >> During Prohibition, as part of an effort to stop people from drinking industrial alcohol, it was denatured and methyl alcohol was added, making it toxic. They thought that people would change their behavior, because if a rational person knows that there's poison in the alcohol then they'll stop drinking it. The end result was that the United States government killed ten thousand of its own citizens. >> >> (Though there were other problems with this plan.) >>> **u/Uncaffeinated** [+5] (17 hours later) >>> >>> I heard once that during WW2, Russian soldiers would often drinking the transmission fluid out of their tanks because it contained alcohol. >> **u/Solonarv** [+5] *Chaos Legion* (3 hours later) >> >> But would that even be necessary with a rational population? >>> **u/Salivanth** [+6] (6 hours later) >>> >>> Perfectly rational, i.e, "rational" in the economics sense? No. >>> >>> Rational on the level of /r/rational or LessWrong? Possibly. >>> >>> Plenty of us do suboptimal things. I doubt many of us are drink drivers, but I'm sure at least a few of us are addicted to something, and continue to consume said thing, despite having a rational preference not to. Essentially, we want X, but we don't want to want X. Mine is caffeine. >>>> **u/elevul** [+2] *Cyoria Observer* (a day later) >>>> >>>> Why? Caffeine is a performance enhancer, and as such it has a strong positive effect on your life, for a fairly minimal cost (since it's so cheap and widely available). >>>> >>>> So why would it be a rational choice to stop using it? >>>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+6] *Level 1 author* (a day later) >>>>> >>>>> Addiction is different from using it for a specific purpose every now and again. If you have to have that coffee in the morning or you're incapable of functioning before noon, it's a problem. >>>>> >>>>> There are a vast number of legitimate uses for many drugs. A shot of alcohol a day, helps keep arteries clear. If you couldn't sleep the night before, and you have to drive, a 5-hour energy B12 drink will work wonders. If you need a pick-me-up for a presentation after an exhausting morning, something with caffeine in it might be just the thing. Cocaine, from what I have read, is actually extremely beneficial to the thought processes for a few minutes if taken in moderation, though one must plan for the downtime afterwards. The leaf of the plant is chewed by indigenous people for energy. Coca-Cola was originally a warm syrup drink made from Coca, and served to railroad workers and other hard laborers. Opium and morphine are excellent painkillers. Marijuana for appetite enhancement for chemo patients and for glaucoma. The list goes on and on. >>>>> >>>>> It would be irrational to stop using these chemicals completely, without formulating replacements. It is also irrational to become dependent on them without clear reason. Most of them are harmful over time, with a great deal of use. >>>>> **u/Salivanth** [+2] (a day later) >>>>> >>>>> You may be right, that it's rational to use caffeine under certain circumstances. With that said, there's a difference between using something as a performance enhancer and being addicted to it, and I personally fall under the latter category. Whenever I stop using it for a day or two, I get headaches and nausea. I also have a lot of trouble moderating myself when it comes to caffeine. >>>>> >>>>> I drink soda as my caffeinated beverage of choice (Have never liked coffee. Apparently it's an acquired taste, and I quite deliberately have never acquired it) and I find it much easier to buy and drink no soda than to buy some soda, and drink it a little at a time. >>>>> >>>>> I'm genuinely asking this question, because I don't know the answer. Would caffeine be more effective as a performance enhancer if used sparingly, rather than used multiple times each day for no other reason than habit/addiction/preventing withdrawal? >>>>> >>>>> If caffeine does indeed provide a reasonably effective 'always on' performance boost even consumed several times each day, it might indeed be rational for me to keep using it after all. I'm not sure how I would feel about that. >> **u/Uncaffeinated** [+3] (17 hours later) >> >> We do have some policies that seem promising, like a minimum price on alcohol to discourage binge drinking, which is by far the most dangerous. Good luck getting that widely implemented though. >> **u/elevul** [+5] *Cyoria Observer* (a day later) >> >> Well, in Europe alcohol is not as demonized as in USA, and since adolescents have the chance to start using it young they already know how to use it responsibly by the time they get a car. >> >> A friend of mine recently went to USA, and her stories about the limitations to drinking that people under 21 years old have are quite ... horrible. >>> **u/Bowbreaker** [+4] *Solitary Locust* (a day later) >>> >>> And some of the limitations on people above 21 are quite ...laughable. I mean, paper bags? Really? >>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+1] *Level 1 author* (a day later) >>> >>> This falls into the category of education. I believe that most of us agree that in most cases education works better then demonization. Unfortunately, a lot of irrational people feel the opposite. >> **u/IWantUsToMerge** [+5] (an hour later) >> >> >Laws to suppress tend to strengthen what they would prohibit. This is the fine point on which all the legal professions of history have based their job security. >> >> ~Bene Gesserit Coda >>> **u/MugaSofer** [+6] (11 hours later) >>> >>> That's not really borne out by statistics, though. >>> >>> Rather, I suspect they're thinking of (or misinterpreting) the Evaporative Cooling it causes. >>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+8] *Level 1 author* (12 hours later) >>>> >>>> I can't think of any case where prohibited drugs of any type have been successfully eradicated through legislation. Some drugs have fallen into disfavor and disuse due to other drugs being introduced that are easier to hide/transport. >>>> >>>> The Taliban, in Afghanistan, managed to eradicate poppy farming, if I remember right. I do not think most rational people would want a government as oppressive as the Taliban was, even if it were not a fundamentalist religious state. My understanding was that there was a warning, then the loss of a body part, and a third incidence of farming poppy meant death. I may be mistaken on particulars. >>>> >>>> Global terrorism is funded in part by the illegal drug trade, and is more potent than ever. There are quite a few second and third world governments that are in perpetual low-level civil wars with criminal cartels that fund themselves via selling drugs to first world nations that have made the drugs illegal. >>>> >>>> I believe there is a fairly clear indication that making drugs illegal gives rise to powerful organizations which actively seek to preserve both the illegality of drugs, and their ability to market them. >>>>> **u/MugaSofer** [+6] (19 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> I've never heard of a government that successfully eradicated murder, either. That's not how laws work. >>>>> >>>>> That said, you're right that making things illegal can have some heavy costs. >>>>> **u/None** [+2] (16 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> [deleted] >>>>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+1] *Level 1 author* (23 hours later) >>>>>> >>>>>> ISIS is one example of a very powerful terror organization, and Al Qaeda is not gone. Those types of organizations are fueled by hate, and there hasn't been any effective campaign to defuse that hate. I'm not saying I have a solution myself. I'm not even saying there is a solution that involves non-Islamic people. >>>>>> >>>>>> Until I start seeing a LOT of mainstream Islamic religious leaders denouncing violence to their followers as well as to the rest of the world, I know there is no possibility of reform. >>>>>> >>>>>> When I start seeing fatwas being declared against terrorist leaders, I'll know that Islam is taking cleaning up it's own house seriously. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I do expect worse than 9/11 eventually, if we don't stop feeding money into the international terror networks through the black market. No, I'm not going to discuss details about how what sorts of events might happen. >>>>>>> **u/None** [+2] (a day later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > fatwas being declared against terrorist leaders >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There's actually plenty of those, but their publicity and propaganda campaigns aren't backed by Saudi and Iranian oil wealth. >>>>>>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+1] *Level 1 author* (a day later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is interesting, and hopeful. I was unaware of it. I hope that the larger Islamic community starts to enforce the fatwas. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hearing the speeches of some Islamic faith leaders when they visit the west, and then hearing what they say to their followers when they return to their home countries has a severely detrimental impact on my assessment of the likelihood that mainstream Islam is willing to confront their fringe elements. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Still, large changes rarely come quickly. >>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+3] (a day later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > Hearing the speeches of some Islamic faith leaders when they visit the west, and then hearing what they say to their followers when they return to their home countries has a severely detrimental impact on my assessment of the likelihood that mainstream Islam is willing to confront their fringe elements. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I agree with this statement, but it has to be noted where the statement applies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Mainstream Islam" should really be split into several geographical regions. After all, the world's largest Muslim populations are in Indonesia and India, where they cause *some*, but *limited* trouble to non-Muslim populations. The trouble they cause is more comparable to "ethnic minorities everywhere in the Third World" than to the unique nastiness of *Middle Eastern* Islam right now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Geopolitical Islam *in the Middle East* right now, and among transplanted *Middle Eastern* populations in other countries, is a nasty blend of nasty stuff that basically adds up to religious fascism and a desire to make war on nearby non-Muslim populations, *powered by the oil wealth of oligarchs who spread this religious fascism for their own reasons*, even when the fascist interpretations of Islam are actually entirely modern fundamentalist movements that would normally be opposed by conservative forces within Islam (in the same way that conservative forces within Christianity split down the middle in WW2, with many opposing Hitler). >>>> **u/IWantUsToMerge** [+1] (13 hours later) >>>> >>>> I think by "strengthen" they don't mean "amplify", I think they mean it makes the worst cases worse and the value of the prohibited increase. >>>>> **u/MugaSofer** [+1] (19 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> That's like saying that Goldfinger nuking half the gold in the world would "strengthen" gold-owners - technically true, but only of the *surviving* gold owners. It certainly doesn't make it *easier* for people to get gold. >>>>>> **u/IWantUsToMerge** [+1] (22 hours later) >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. That's what it's saying. >>>>>>> **u/MugaSofer** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the goal *is* to reduce the amount of people using drugs/gold. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You'd see the same effect if the product you're suppressing became little-used and obscure through *any* mechanism; so noticing that the price has gone up and concluding the project was a failure is a tad self-defeating. >> **u/leplen** [+3] (17 hours later) >> >> Assuming that people drinking alcohol are accurately expressing their economic preferences, eliminating the alcohol industry to save 10,000 lives puts your estimated value of those 10,000 lives somewhere in the ballpark of 20 million dollars/life. >> >> Many, many people like drinking alcohol. There's nothing irrational about that. Eliminating a 200 billion dollar industry because of 10,000 fatalities doesn't make any economic sense. >>> **u/Uncaffeinated** [+4] (17 hours later) >>> >>> > Assuming that people are accurately expressing their economic preferences >>> >>> Well there's your problem. >>> >>> As for the cost of the alchohol industry, it's not a binary decision. There's a lot of things you can do to reduce the negative effects without completely eliminating it. >>>> **u/leplen** [+3] (20 hours later) >>>> >>>> >>Assuming that people are accurately expressing their economic preferences >>>> >>>> >Well there's your problem. >>>> >>>> The idea that underlies the entire principle of economic exchange? >>>>> **u/Uncaffeinated** [+2] (20 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> Anyone can use a model. The hard part is understanding where your model breaks down. >>>>> >>>>> There's a big difference between Econ 101 and economics in the real world. >>>>> **u/MugaSofer** [+1] (a day later) >>>>> >>>>> No, the idea that underpins the entire principle of economic exchange is "people will do stuff for money". They can be as irrational about *what* they do as they like, as long as that constant holds true. (See lotteries, for example.) >>>>>> **u/leplen** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>> >>>>>> Economic exchange can easily exist in non-monetary systems. It can't exist if people are consistently worse off after exchanging of goods. >>>>>>> **u/MugaSofer** [+2] (a day later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But it can. Again, see Lottery tickets. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, the system as a whole would probably be abandoned if trades were usually bad, but specific goods can easily be supported solely by irrational behaviour. >>>>>>>> **u/leplen** [+1] (2 days later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is an interesting argument. I sort of suspect that gambling is a net positive in utility because it is entertaining even if it is a net loss from a monetary perspective. For a person who works a repetitive low-skill job, winning $200 bucks on a scratch off ticket may give them a win to brag about that they wouldn't have otherwise. I know I spend a bunch of time and money competing in things for essentially this reason. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Obviously lotto tickets are a loss from a pure monetary perspective, but I'm not sure if money=utility in this situation. >>>>>>> **u/MugaSofer** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But it can. Again, see Lottery tickets. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, the system as a whole would probably be abandoned if trades were usually bad, but specific goods can easily be supported solely by irrational behaviour. >>> **u/electrace** [+5] (22 hours later) >>> >>> >Assuming that people drinking alcohol are accurately expressing their economic preferences, eliminating the alcohol industry to save 10,000 lives puts your estimated value of those 10,000 lives somewhere in the ballpark of 20 million dollars/life. >>> >>> No, because you didn't take into account the opportunity cost. >>> >>> The decision isn't "spend the 200 billion in the alcohol industry, or burn the money." It's spend the 200 billion in the alcohol industry, or spend it somewhere else (or save it). >>> >>> Standard economic theory (assuming rational actors) would suggest that, whatever consumers choose to spend money on instead, it would bring *less* utility than spending it on alcohol, but not zero utility. >>> >>> Not assuming perfectly rational actors (or imperfect information), you could in fact increase utility. >>> **u/Anakiri** [+1] (18 hours later) >>> >>> I don't think you can calculate costs by looking at money flowing through the industry that way, since a large portion of the value is preserved either way. The cost is only in the new wealth that the exchange would otherwise generate. >>> >>> Say I buy a bottle of wine, accurately expressing my economic preferences. (A huge assumption that I do not generally accept.) If the wine were $50, I would be indifferent on whether I buy it or not - but it's $40, so it's a good deal for me. Now, to factor in the human cost. If I buy it, I have $50 worth of wine. If I don't buy it, I have $40 worth of cash, plus one millilife saved. This means I value that millilife at $10, not $40, no? >>> >>> A rational business will set its price close to that equilibrium point for as many customers as possible, so the estimated value of those 10,000 lives approaches zero. >>> >>> Unless you mean I should care about failing to incentivize the further production of wine, in which case... Yeah, I kind of don't care about industries in the abstract. >>>> **u/leplen** [+2] (20 hours later) >>>> >>>> >I don't think you can calculate costs by looking at money flowing through the industry that way, since a large portion of the value is preserved either way. The cost is only in the new wealth that the exchange would otherwise generate. >>>> >>>> Sure, but meaningful data on the indifference price for purchases of goods don't exist. The actual money spent on goods and services is at least a somewhat reasonable proxy. Most/many buyers of alcohol are relatively insensitive to price, which is why bars and microbreweries can make a living. The limits on alcohol consumption for most consumers are biochemical, not financial. This suggests that alcohol is typically priced well below any sort of indifference price point. >>>> >>>> >Say I buy a bottle of wine, accurately expressing my economic preferences. >>>> > (A huge assumption that I do not generally accept.) >>>> >>>> If, ceteris paribus, you do not believe this to more true than untrue, your answer should have been "abolishing market capitalism altogether, since people don't know what's good for themselves." >>>> >>>> >A rational business will set its price close to that equilibrium point for as many customers as possible, so the estimated value of those 10,000 lives approaches zero. >>>> >>>> A rational alcohol monopoly maybe. The price of alcohol is much much lower than most people are willing to pay, in part because of competition. By your logic, trade and economic activity in general would be basically not worth it, since the expected value of each exchange would be close to zero. >>>> >>>> What would you estimate to total social good of the alcohol industry at? Not the net social good, which you obviously believe is negative, but if we ignore the costs of the industry, what's your estimate for the total positive utility generated by the production and consumption of alcoholic beverages? >>>>> **u/Bowbreaker** [+2] *Solitary Locust* (a day later) >>>>> >>>>> > If, ceteris paribus, you do not believe this to more true than untrue, your answer should have been "abolishing market capitalism altogether, since people don't know what's good for themselves." >>>>> >>>>> Many people *don't* know what is good for themselves. Problem is that often neither does the government or any other organization. And those also have their own agendas which sometimes don't align with their citizen/members. >>>>> >>>>> Extremes like fully embracing or completely abolishing any one economic system is pretty much never the best answer in human societies. >>>>> >>>>> So to conclude, believing that alcohol buyers usually accurately expressing their economic preferences is more untrue than true does not necessarily mean believing that market capitalism should be abolished altogether. >>>>> **u/electrace** [+1] (a day later) >>>>> >>>>> >The actual money spent on goods and services is at least a somewhat reasonable proxy. >>>>> >>>>> Only in noncompetitive industries, which alcohol is not. >>>>> >>>>> >The limits on alcohol consumption for most consumers are biochemical, not financial. >>>>> >>>>> The limit being biochemcial probably applies only to each visit. I'd say the chief factor is "amount of social occasions attended that, culturally, involve alcohol consumption." >>>>> >>>>> >This suggests that alcohol is typically priced well below any sort of indifference price point. >>>>> >>>>> Without specifying a consumer and a quantity consumed, this... doesn't really make sense. Even if you did specify it, it would need empirical evidence. >>>>> >>>>> >If, ceteris paribus, you do not believe this to more true than untrue, your answer should have been "abolishing market capitalism altogether, since people don't know what's good for themselves." >>>>> >>>>> This is clearly a strawman. >>>>> >>>>> >The price of alcohol is much much lower than most people are willing to pay >>>>> >>>>> Again, this doesn't make much sense. >>>>>> **u/leplen** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>The actual money spent on goods and services is at least a somewhat reasonable proxy. >>>>>> >>>>>> >Only in noncompetitive industries, which alcohol is not. >>>>>> >>>>>> What measure would you suggest for estimating the positive utility generated by the alcohol industry? My estimate was certainly a convenience estimate, since i knew that data on the size of the industry existed and was easily available. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>The price of alcohol is much much lower than most people are willing to pay >>>>>> >>>>>> >Again, this doesn't make much sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> Saying, "this makes no sense" over and over again is not an argument. According to the published research I was able to find quickly, the price elasticity for the demand of alcohol is somewhere around -0.50 [[1]](http://www.tcd.ie/Economics/msceps/courses/understanding%20markets/8.%20Gallet%202007%20Alcohol%20elasticities%20meta%20analysis.pdf)[[2]](http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2012/07/price-elasticity-of-alcohol-demand.html). Doubling the price results in a 1/4 reduction in the quantity consumed, and most of that reduction is, predictably, due to behavior modification of light/occasional drinkers. This suggests that the price of alcohol is lower than most consumers are willing to pay. >>>>>>> **u/electrace** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >What measure would you suggest for estimating the positive utility generated by the alcohol industry? My estimate was certainly a convenience estimate, since i knew that data on the size of the industry existed and was easily available. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm confused by this. First of all, now you're asking for an estimation of positive utility, while in the quote you were talking about indifference pricing. They are completely separate concepts. Secondly, do you not see the contradiction between using the money spent as a proxy for the indifference price as seen here, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >Sure, but meaningful data on the indifference price for purchases of goods don't exist. The actual money spent on goods and services is at least a somewhat reasonable proxy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While also claiming the following, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >The price of alcohol is much much lower than most people are willing to pay, in part because of competition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the price of alcohol is much much lower than most people are willing to pay, than it is certainly not a good proxy for the indifference price. >>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > According to the published research I was able to find quickly, the price elasticity for the demand of alcohol is somewhere around -0.50 [1] [2] . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can't access your first link. As for your second link, part of it is talking about minimum pricing laws, and the other part is talking about current alcohol prices, both of which are specifying a price. Neither specify the consumer, and are instead using aggregate data, which I have methodological issues with in this case, but I can make my peace with it. >>>> **u/electrace** [+1] (a day later) >>>> >>>> >If I buy it, I have $50 worth of wine. If I don't buy it, I have $40 worth of cash, plus one millilife saved. This means I value that millilife at $10, not $40, no? >>>> >>>> Technically, no. >>>> >>>> It would depend on what you would have otherwise bought with the $40. If you buy a book that you value at $49, then the millilife is only worth a dollar. >>>> >>>> Ten dollars would be the absolute maximum that it could be worth (because a rational actor would never buy something for 39 dollars for 40 dollars). >> **u/FuguofAnotherWorld** [+1] *Roll the Dice on Fate* (2 days later) >> >> > Alcohol prohibition. Society-at-large has proven, to my satisfaction, that it cannot handle easily available recreational alcohol. >> >> Could you expand on this? Because you clearly feel it is a slam dunk case but it is not something I find myself able to agree with. Taking into account that as a rock climber my mindset involves accepting a certain level of fun vs risk of death utility calculation where it becomes a worthwhile deal. >> **u/eaglejarl** [+1] (3 days later) >> >> > Alcohol prohibition. >> >> We [tried that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) and it didn't work very well. I can't really say that the results were irrational, either -- one group of people wanted no alcohol available to anyone, but many people still wanted alcohol so you suddenly had an illegal market. >> >> I wouldn't say that wanting alcohol is irrational either. Drinking to excess is, but wanting to go to a bar to socialize and have a couple beers over the course of an evening is perfectly reasonable. > **u/IWantUsToMerge** [+6] (56 minutes later) > > Your example doesn't seem to fit the class. It's not that it's irrational to implement, it's that we just can't. If you could flick a switch and have it implemented that would be a rational thing to do (or not, depending on how you feel about a divided humanity entrenching its division by taking to the stars before it even attempts to reconcile, and turning its back on that prospect forever). >> **u/Farmerbob1** [+1] *Level 1 author* (an hour later) >> >> Eh, electromagnetic acceleration to escape velocity is possible, but it would be very expensive to implement on a large scale. Hence the comments about investment. If it were easy and cheap, it would be rational to implement, because the public wouldn't balk at the expense. > **u/thecommexokid** [+10] (58 minutes later) > > In what sense can potential actions be called rational if it wouldn't be rational to perform them? >> **u/Farmerbob1** [+4] *Level 1 author* (an hour later) >> >> If implementing rational ideas is impossible due to societal rejection, then trying to force them to be implemented is irrational, because it would simply be a waste of resources with no useful return. >>> **u/iamthelol1** [+1] (2 hours later) >>> >>> So... rational to be irrational? >>>> **u/Empiricist_or_not** [+10] *Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm* (5 hours later) >>>> >>>> It's rational to account for the predictable actions of irrational actors. >>> **u/thecommexokid** [+1] (5 hours later) >>> >>> This is exactly my point. If an idea's implementation "is impossible due to societal rejection," then why would you call it a rational idea? >>>> **u/Transfuturist** [+12] *Carthago delenda est.* (5 hours later) >>>> >>>> If you truly want to be so pedantic, "ideas that would be rational to implement in a scientifically-literate society." >>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+4] *Level 1 author* (10 hours later) >>>> >>>> Rationality does not necessarily equate to plausibility. >>>> >>>> If I want to build a shortest-path road from point A to point C through point B, but point B is owned by someone who refuses to allow it, then I will be forced to either abandon the idea, or modify it to be less efficient, going around point B. >>>> >>>> Does that make it any less rational to want to build the road so it is as short as possible, generating immediate and long-term savings/efficiency during the building and commuter usage phases of the road's existence? >>>> >>>> I would say no. Rational is rational. It is rational to build the road as efficiently as possible. >>>> >>>> It is ALSO rational to account for the land owner of B, and build the road around them, if the need is great enough. >>>> >>>> But not all cases have rational alternatives. What I'm talking about here are scenarios where partial implementation or modified implementation are really not worth doing, or are even harmful. Public irrationality simply breaks them completely. >>>> >>>> The best examples I've seen here are related to substance abuse. As far as I am aware, there has never been an attempt to stop substance abuse through legal actions in a free society where it has been successful. Whenever substance abuse is made illegal, it feeds the criminal element, eventually creating a greater net harm to society. >>>> >>>> Does that mean it is rational to stop trying to enforce drug use with laws, and start dealing with it by education and treatment? >>>> >>>> Yes. But the irrational public won't let us do that either! The criminal element is more than happy to keep illegal substances illegal, and irrational teetotalers think that somehow what has never worked in the history of mankind can be successfully managed by their elected officials, if they just try a little harder, and pass stricter laws. > **u/TimTravel** [+7] (3 hours later) > > Do you mean "ideas that would be rational if everyone did them but if only a small group of people do them it would not"? > > If human nature were significantly different, communism would far outperform capitalism because society wouldn't have to waste ~~money~~ time/resources on incentives, but I feel like this isn't what you're looking for. >> **u/None** [+7] (a day later) >> >> > If human nature were significantly different, communism would far outperform capitalism because society wouldn't have to waste money time/resources on incentives >> >> I'm a socialist and this isn't remotely true. People's understanding of why different economic systems work has been very heavily warped by propaganda. [Here, read this propaganda article!](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/) >> >> >The point is this: If a deterministic story about free markets generating optimal prices, leading to maximum output was no longer viable, then the failure of planned economies could hardly be attributed to the absence of those features. As Communist systems were collapsing in Eastern Europe, economists who had lost faith in the neoclassical narrative began to argue that an alternative explanation was needed. The most prominent theorist in this group was Joseph Stiglitz, who had become famous for his work on the economics of information. His arguments dovetailed with those of other dissenters from the neoclassical approach, like the eminent Hungarian scholar of planned economies, János Kornai, and evolutionary economists like Peter Murrell. >> > >> >They all pointed to a number of characteristics, largely ignored by the neoclassical school, that better accounted for the ability of market economies to avoid the problems plaguing centrally planned systems. The aspects they emphasized were disparate, but they all tended to arise from a single, rather simple fact:in market systems firms are autonomous. >> > >> >That means that within the limits of the law, a firm may enter a market; choose its products and production methods; interact with other firms and individuals; and must close down if it cannot get by on its own resources. As a textbook on central planning put it, in market systems the presumption is “that an activity may be undertaken unless it is expressly prohibited,” whereas in planned systems “the prevailing presumption in most areas of economic life is that an activity may not be undertaken unless permission has been obtained from the appropriate authority.” The neoclassical fixation with ensuring that firms exercised this autonomy in a laissez-faire environment — that restrictions on voluntary exchange be minimized or eliminated — was essentially beside the point. >> > >> >Thus, free entry and multiple autonomous sources of capital mean that anyone with novel production ideas can seek resources to implement their ideas and don’t face a single veto point within a planning apparatus. As a result, they stand a much greater chance of obtaining the resources to test out their ideas. This probably leads to more of the waste inherent in failed experiments — but also far greater scope for improved products and processes, and a constantly higher rate of technological improvement and productivity growth. >> >> In fact, the *original* Communist argument *in favor of* central planning was: "Look, the largest capitalist firms all operate on an *internal* basis of centralized, hierarchical planning, so clearly *the very success of capitalism* shows that central planning is the most efficient, effective way to do things!" >> >> Then the liberal-capitalist rebuttal to this was, "No, because only markets can generate optimal allocative efficiency." >> >> But the actual truth was, "Certain kinds of markets - namely markets with an egalitarian wealth distribution, easy entry/exit of firms, low economic rents, and low levels of moral hazard - enable many good and bad experiments to be tried in parallel, with the good receiving additional investment and revenue as it grows and the bad being cleaned up by bankruptcy." This has a major implication for our current era of neoliberal authoritarian capitalism, in which increasing portions of social life are subjected to markets, but the *genuinely positive* features of capitalism are being *reversed*: capitalizing new firms outside the tech and FIRE sectors is increasingly difficult, bankruptcy is getting harder while debts are more stringently enforced, investment capital is getting concentrated into small cliques of de facto planners, economic rents are rising, and moral hazard is rampant. >> >> So to the list of things that Just Don't Work In an Irrational Society, we should add, "capitalism", because people kept trying to worship it as a god rather than understand what made it tick. >> **u/Farmerbob1** [+3] *Level 1 author* (10 hours later) >> >> Yes, though if the number of people who didn't do them were modest, but vocal and disruptive, they could still cause a rational system to fail. >> >> I do not think we would even recognize humans who could accept true communism. Completely rational communism without dissent between the gifted and the non-gifted would basically make us a Borg analog. >> >> We have to account for irrationality whenever we determine what is possible. Some rational ideas simply don't work because humanity cannot be rational enough to properly implement them. Communism is one of those things. >> >> Banning addictive drugs that have the potential to harm others is another. We've tried alcohol, and failed miserably. We're struggling with tobacco. The war on drugs is a laughingstock that only feeds money to international crime and terror networks. >> >> My idea about electromagnetic launch to orbit is, honestly, one of the poorer ideas in the thread. >>> **u/None** [+2] (a day later) >>> >>> > I do not think we would even recognize humans who could accept true communism. >>> >>> Iain Banks' *Culture* series shows humans with True Communism. They're pretty recognizably human. >>> >>> > Some rational ideas simply don't work because humanity cannot be rational enough to properly implement them. Communism is one of those things. >>> >>> See my [above comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/3mi7ln/rational_ideas_that_are_not_rational_to_implement/cvg94mu). >>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+2] *Level 1 author* (a day later) >>>> >>>> Eh, the *Culture* series is also fictional, like Animal Farm, just less pigs. Flippancy aside, an author cannot portray an entire civilization in a book, so they portray what they want the reader to walk away with. It's also possible that the series is simply an endorsement of Communism, but that's not what I seem to be hearing from people who talk about it. >>>> >>>> I have not read any of the *Culture* series, which is something I keep meaning to rectify, so I cannot comment further on specifics. >>>>> **u/None** [+2] (a day later) >>>>> >>>>> >It's also possible that the series is simply an endorsement of Communism, but that's not what I seem to be hearing from people who talk about it. >>>>> >>>>> A while ago I posted some of Banks' own notes on the series to this subreddit. He, *the author*, labelled it as "anarchy without, communism within", or "anarcho-communism", and noted that it's a planned economy. >>>>> >>>>> Sure, it's fiction, but to say that a "truly communist" society is *unimaginable* is still too strong a statement, *given that there's fiction about truly communist societies*. >>>>>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+1] *Level 1 author* (a day later) >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not believe I used the word unimaginable at any point. Imagination is quite powerful, and can lead us to lots of irrational places. What we see in the *Culture* is a fictional display, not a real world display. We see the operation of the government through the author's rose-colored glasses, using scenes and actions that suit the plot, structure, and theme of the story. >>>>>> >>>>>> We've seen communism attempted in quite a few different countries. All of them failed to produce a state that I would volunteer to live in. Of them all, China is probably the most successful, and they are no longer truly communist, having accepted elements of capitalism. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not think that any government can function properly if it is governing humans. However, some governments are more resistant to irrationality than others. Systems of checks and balances and electoral responsibility are awful handy. Democratic republics seem to be close to the most well-suited, though some socialist states admittedly do a fair job. >>>>>>> **u/nicholaslaux** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The biggest difference with the Culture and current human-tests is that in the Culture, the planning is done by centralized posthuman AIs, and thus "personal preferences" can actually be accounted for. Bear in mind also that the Culture is a post-scarcity and as such, has very little true "need" for work to be done, so all work that is done is desired work. Anything that nobody would want to do, a sub-sapient AI can be created to happily do it instead. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (So basically, you get to magic away the core problems and are left with a version of a Utopia.) > **u/None** [+6] (8 hours later) > > [deleted] >> **u/None** [+7] (a day later) >> >> Whenever someone criticizes "Democracy", it's worth asking *how democratic actually is* the real-life system being used as evidence for the critique. A major problem with using the United States, for instance, as evidence to critique democracy, is that increasingly many available studies show that the United States is just not that democratic in the first place: only the top 10% by income/wealth measurably influence the government. >> >> >But people aren't rational, and now we've got Trump v. Clinton in a battle that will be decided primarily by old people in a minority of states. >> >> This is another superbly *bad* example, in that while Trump is a populist with broad support among his party, he's getting that support by using his wealth to spite the oligarchs of his own party. While Clinton is an appointed politician-princess, and Clinton is pretty clearly more rational than Trump, *Clinton's party is spending its effort to ignore everyone who's not Clinton*. This means that, for all of us who are more left-wing than Hillary Clinton - and this includes, say, the Barack Obama of 2007 who ran against her in the Democratic primaries - the *correct and rational choice* is one that the established system is too oligarchical to put before the public. >> >> So if you really think that, "People are irrational, and that's why we've got shitty candidates like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump", you're ignoring the fact that a real, operative democracy might actually result in Bernie Sanders facing Ted Cruz or something. >> >> TL;DR: If you've got a system that's 70% oligarchy and 30% democracy, then your prior for blame for the faults of that system must be allocated 70% to oligarchy and 30% to democracy *until you see evidence that more oligarchy would have helped, and that means actually-existing oligarchy rather than philosopher kings or FAI.* >>> **u/None** [+2] (a day later) >>> >>> [deleted] >>>> **u/None** [+6] (a day later) >>>> >>>> > Thus, democracy, even at the best of times, has intractable flaws due to irrational populations. >>>> >>>> You mean like in Switzerland? Because that's more what people would point to for a close-to-ideal implementation of Democracy. >>>> >>>> It could just be that *Americans* suck. Or perhaps that they've been spoiled as an educated, politically active citizenry by a thoroughly corporatized media, decades of repression of grassroots politics, and hundreds of years of party-machine politics. >>>>> **u/None** [+1] (a day later) >>>>> >>>>> [deleted] >>>>>> **u/IllusoryIntelligence** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>> >>>>>> Arguably no small part of it is a 'first past the post' thing. [CGP Grey](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638) has a pretty great sequence on how to fix that. >>>>>> The problem there being that those currently in power are sufficiently rational as to recognise that a more truly democratic system is to their own immediate detriment. > **u/Nighzmarquls** [+2] (20 hours later) > > I had an example of this kind of idea while in the car. > > A kudos system you were able to use for incentivizing good driving of fellow drivers on the road by upvoting them when you saw them doing something safety conscious. > > My friends immediately pointed out this probably would just encourage a lot more crazy stunts for the 'likes'. > **u/citizensearth** [+2] (a day later) > > Much larger investment in social science - because at the moment political motivations corrupt its usefulness in providing neutral information to resolve contentious social and political issues.(internally its slanted to left, right opposes it externally, neither are serious enough about factual investigation) > **u/None** [+2] (a day later) > > Moderator's warning: this thread contains people being arrogant, smug bags of dicks. Names will not be named, but seriously: if the problem with your gloriously "rational" idea is that *other people are too irrational for it*, then your arrogance may actually be the problem. > > Take, for instance, the popular image of immortalist-transhumanists... >> **u/eaglejarl** [+1] (3 days later) >> >> > Take, for instance, the popular image of immortalist-transhumanists... >> >> Can you expand on what you mean by "the popular image"? My understanding of immortalist-transhumanists is "we think it would be awesome if people didn't get old or die" but I think that's not what you mean. >> >> (Also, upvote for the warning.) > **u/IWantUsToMerge** [+3] (54 minutes later) > > ~All ideas promoted by the freedom-loving right, that're opposed by the compassionate left. > > A person should be held accountable for their own health and family expenses, unfortunately people are not rational enough to save for emergencies, or to hold off from having children they can't afford. > > Ubiquity of guns should lead to a more polite society, unfortunately (I'm not american so I never looked into this, but IIRC ) > > Idk I'm not that ensconsed in the american political binary, but I've noticed a general trend here. Others can probably think of others. >> **u/Uncaffeinated** [+11] (an hour later) >> >> If something fails because it doesn't take into account the limited capabilities of humans, can it really be called rational? >> >> It's easy to imagine policies that would work in a utopia. The hard part is coming up with policies that work in real life. >> >> Also, you might want to research the antebellum American south. From what I've heard, guns were ubiquitous (they still are but they used to be, too) and it was common for people to challenge each other to duels for any perceived slight. It would be interesting to see how "polite" that society was. >>> **u/Farmerbob1** [+3] *Level 1 author* (an hour later) >>> >>> Measured in the metrics of that time? Extremely polite. Because dueling was accepted. You didn't mouth off to someone else aggressively unless you **really** meant it. Today, people troll each other all the time, and I find that horribly rude. >>> >>> President Andrew Jackson was elected despite having won a duel which he walked away from with a bullet lodged inside him. We'd probably find that moderately horrifying, but it clearly was acceptable to the US population in large part. >>> >>> The times change. If I have my facts straight, the last fistfight in the US Senate was between Senator Strom Thurmond and Senator Ralph Yarborough in 1964. >>> **u/IWantUsToMerge** [+2] (9 hours later) >>> >>> >From what I've heard, guns were ubiquitous (they still are but they used to be, too) and it was common for people to challenge each other to duels for any perceived slight. >>> >>> You say that as though it naturally follows that good men would settle their differences in mortal combat just because they carry mortal weapons. I suppose I can see why that might be, they carry these things around, they must attribute them some use, dueling is as good a use as any. But I wonder if you could erect a more stable culture. A culture where the gun is like the sikh kirpan, a symbol of adulthood, never to be used in anger(do not agree to a fight until both you and your opponent have disarmed), only in self defense, standing as a symbol of the adult's willingness to shed blood to defend the lives of their people. In peace times, the gun's purpose is to go unused, and in this sense it may also serve as a symbol of tact, and self-restraint. >>>> **u/Uncaffeinated** [+1] (17 hours later) >>>> >>>> I'm not saying that the first implies the second. In fact, it's obviously false because guns are still ridiculously common but duels died out in the 19th century. >>>> >>>> I suppose the closest modern equivalent are gang wars but that's obviously very different. >>>> **u/Bowbreaker** [+1] *Solitary Locust* (a day later) >>>> >>>> As long as we speak of the obtainable kin of human rationality then rational=/=emotionless. Even someone who understands, ascribes to and utilizes rationality properly could still get angry or scared enough to draw his gun and use it in an improper fashion. >>> **u/None** [+2] (a day later) >>> >>> > If something fails because it doesn't take into account the limited capabilities of humans, can it really be called rational? >>> >>> No. "Unbounded" rationality results in paradox theorems. You either have a finite amount of capability, or you have a finite number of levels of completed infinity. >> **u/Transfuturist** [+6] *Carthago delenda est.* (5 hours later) >> >> "All ideas promoted by the positive-sum left that are opposed by the zero- and negative-sum right." >> >> While it would be nice if people in general were capable of being held accountable for their own actions, they aren't. The government's job is to take economic surplus and use it to compensate for the population's inability to make good decisions. >>> **u/None** [+1] (8 hours later) >>> >>> [deleted] >>>> **u/Transfuturist** [+2] *Carthago delenda est.* (22 hours later) >>>> >>>> Do you mean why do I believe that this is a major part of the government's function today? Or why I believe it should be? Either way, I'm not really looking forward to writing about politics. >>>>> **u/None** [+1] (a day later) >>>>> >>>>> [deleted] >>>>>> **u/None** [+3] (a day later) >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, partly because the economics definition of "rationality" is presupposing a magic, unreal understanding of psychology and cognitive science, and partly because it's imposing normative preconceptions onto its model of human values, and partly because collective effort is often cheaper, in terms of total effort expended, than summed-up individual efforts. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's the difference between a train system and a freeway system. The latter has "more freedom" and "more individualism", but actually requires *more* money and effort to be poured into it to work. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can value "freedom" and "individualism" in the sense that Anglo-world right-wingers use those words, but you have to be willing to put numbers on those values and trade them off against other values, like "Saving money" and "commute time" and "convenience". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> **u/None** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [deleted] >>>>>>>> **u/None** [+2] (a day later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Technically, to take a *really* high-level view, it's *everyone's* job to maximize everyone's utility. There are certain roles where the government is particularly effective at doing so, *more* than if we spread out the same roles across the whole population. Thus, the government should take on those roles, and not others. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >/u/Transfuturist[1] 's claim that it's the government's job to make up for people's poor decisions is novel to me, and I'm trying to understand it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think /u/Transfuturist would say that it's part of the state's job to make up for *systemic* poor decision-making. Take the statement, "people are *predictably* irrational", and then take the *predictions*, and have the government operate to counteract those *predictable* irrationalities. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So for example, your losses on stock are not predictable (by the government, certainly), nor is any financial hardship due to having studied a *uniquely* unprofitable subject in school. However, there are many large, systemic factors where the "irrationality" (often actually decision-making according to misaligned or malign incentives, or even incentives created by deliberate moral wickedness (as with systemic racism, for instance)) is large-scale, statistically detectable, and predictable, and *in those cases*, it's beneficial for the state to step in and correct the problem by providing a countervailing bias. >>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [deleted] >>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+2] (a day later) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thing is, I wouldn't call it that, "Walk-backy" a qualification. There's a *lot* of systemically, predictably bad stuff to be handled before we even *arrive* to the point of the state sending you a letter saying, "Nah your college major sucks and put down the cookies." >>>>>>>>> **u/Transfuturist** [+1] *Carthago delenda est.* (a day later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, I actually think governments should be attempting to reach post-scarcity eutopia, and that actually includes pretty much every bad consequence ever. But the system you describe makes sense to prioritize pre-scarcity concerns, although I might add that where losses on stock or financial hardship from a bad degree threatens one's life, well-being, etc, the government should still prioritize their security over the derivative of growth. As a country's economic surplus increases, more resources are available to improve the minimum quality of life, and I'd argue that that's where more focus should go. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, this is all strictly theoretical. No one is arguing that governments are all shit, I think. >>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >Well, I actually think governments should be attempting to reach post-scarcity eutopia, and that actually includes pretty much every bad consequence ever. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For sufficiently well-thought-out values of "bad" and "eutopia", sure. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >But the system you describe makes sense to prioritize pre-scarcity concerns, although I might add that where losses on stock or financial hardship from a bad degree threatens one's life, well-being, etc, the government should still prioritize their security over the derivative of growth. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think that depends what you mean by "their security". The security of individuals' life and health, yes. The security of anyone's economic wealth, no -- that's the way to moral hazard. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >As a country's economic surplus increases, more resources are available to improve the minimum quality of life, and I'd argue that that's where more focus should go. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yay this! >>>>>>>>> **u/Sagebrysh** [+1] *Rank 7 Pragmatist* (a day later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The [tragedy of the commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) is what I think you might be getting at here. This is a situation where everyone acting with rational self interest inadvertently screws themselves over because they can't step back to see the bigger picture. Its the government's job to see the bigger picture and make sure that a tragedy of the commons isn't the end result. >>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's one case. >>>>>> **u/Transfuturist** [+1] *Carthago delenda est.* (a day later) >>>>>> >>>>>> The latter is a normative claim, so it's not actually something that that question applies to. I could make an argument that it is based in terminal values that we hold in common, but I'm not interested in that discussion, nor am I certain that we hold common values sufficient to make a successful argument. I honestly shouldn't have commented, since I wasn't interested in discussing it. >>>>>>> **u/None** [+1] (a day later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [deleted] >>>>>>>> **u/Transfuturist** [+1] *Carthago delenda est.* (a day later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm a moral anti-realist at the moment. I believe normative arguments are arguments for effective courses of action for individuals making goal- and value-based decisions. I also believe human goal/value systems are mutable, so emotional persuasion can be effective elements of normative rhetoric. When I say "governments should do something," I mean that I believe it would benefit most everyone participating in that plan. >>>>>>>> **u/Bowbreaker** [+1] *Solitary Locust* (a day later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is simple. If you put value in the lives *and* quality of life of imperfect human beings then you are in favor of not submitting said humans to extreme punishments for mistakes in risk-assessment. Being homeless because in the past you had the "stupid" decision to choose a larger food palette over all the right insurances is an example of unfair punishment in many people's eyes. The answer to that is to force essential insurances on everyone while pushing down its cost by decreasing the profit per capita of the insurance providers. Or in other words, government based healthcare. >> **u/Schuano** [+4] (16 hours later) >> >> The problem with expecting people to be rational about health is that it by nature makes people irrational. Take 10 people who all believe in total self support and personal accountability for health expenses. Let's say they don't have much money. >> >> Let's say they all get injured. Some percentage of them are going to seek care that they can't afford once confronted with the pain and risk of permanent disability. >> >> Or to weaken their rational resolve even more, let's say it's their child or parent that gets injured. It's one thing to make a principled stand on your own health but are you really going to tell your 5 year old daughter that she gets to die of leukemia because Obamacare destroys freedom? >> >> Of course not. >> >> Sick people will always seek care, whether or not they can afford it. After all, it's the rational thing for them to do. >> >> Society and government has to structure itself to provide that care at minimum cost to the rest of the society. >> >> This can be through a single payer insurance system like Taiwan or Canada, it can be through a completely free system like the NHS. It can be through Singapore's system which forces people to save 8~10% of their income and put it into an account that can only be used for health expenses. >> >> But in all cases, the government has to force rationality. >>> **u/None** [+6] (a day later) >>> >>> >This can be through a single payer insurance system like Taiwan or Canada, it can be through a completely free system like the NHS. It can be through Singapore's system which forces people to save 8~10% of their income and put it into an account that can only be used for health expenses. >>> >>> It helps that these socialized systems are *actually cheaper*, on a per-capita basis, than "Now everyone just save for expected expenses and let your permanently disabling injuries permanently disable you when they happen if you don't have the money!" >> **u/None** [+4] (a day later) >> >> > A person should be held accountable for their own health and family expenses, unfortunately people are not rational enough to save for emergencies, or to hold off from having children they can't afford. >> >> Huh? I mean, you do know that insurance is *the* mechanism designed to handle costly but improbable events, right? "Accountability" isn't *magic*: it doesn't take the basic stochasticity out of the world that *forces* our decision-making to deal with uncertainty in the first place. >> >> >Ubiquity of guns should lead to a more polite society, unfortunately >> >> The word *should* is doing a mysterious lot of work there. >> **u/Bowbreaker** [+2] *Solitary Locust* (a day later) >> >> > A person should be held accountable for their own health and family expenses, unfortunately people are not rational enough to save for emergencies, or to hold off from having children they can't afford. >> >> This system would not account for incapable people and unpredictable dangers. > **u/narfanator** [+1] (12 hours later) > > Anarchy (as a political / governmental method, not as a state of chaos), legalized psychedelics, and in-general civilizational optimization. > > Anarchy (my personal agency is never forced to follow another's) falls apart if you have even a small subset of the people not trying to make that rule true for everyone, but everyone having maximum agency makes a lot of sense. > > Legalized psychedelices because I really don't think people can handle a $0.10* thing you can get a the corner store that *will* change your life. * Economies of scale, lack of price increase due to black market. > > In-general civilizational optimizations because people get attached to things like weird windy streets, or grid layouts, or are otherwise unable to process that group optimization can lead to better individual optimization than individual optimization can. See, as an amazing example, "Braess' paradox" >> **u/eaglejarl** [+1] (23 hours later) >> >> > Anarchy (as a political / governmental method, not as a state of chaos), legalized psychedelics, and in-general civilizational optimization. >> >> I've never read much on anarchy as an actual societal system. My first question would be "how do sewers get built and maintained?" Is the idea that people will simply volunteer to do that since it helps everyone? >>> **u/puesyomero** [+1] *The Culture* (a day later) >>> >>> [here](http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=1) is a complete webcomic with one such society in the asteroid belt and a mixed system on mars in the near future. It is a bit campy and certainly an author tract, but I enjoyed it quite a bit. >>> >>> in a real example I've read that in some places instead of a governing body providing services private citizens manage utilities like businesses. so you could theoretically pay someone for sewers, [firemen](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3p6quCz-Y0), and security, but not pay to maintain roads you don't use, parks, or schools if you don't have kids. It is quite easy to abuse one such system though. >>>> **u/eaglejarl** [+1] (a day later) >>>> >>>> What's the difference between an anarchy and a libertarian state? For me, "everything is a private business" pattern-matches better to libertarianism. >>>>> **u/puesyomero** [+1] *The Culture* (a day later) >>>>> >>>>> they overlap. anarchy is absolutely no government, libertarians think the government is there to serve as referee, to settle disputes, provide for a national defense, and to establish order in society. Not much more. >> **u/Farmerbob1** [+1] *Level 1 author* (12 hours later) >> >> I agree with anarchy, because anarchy as a political system can really only work if people are fully rational, because even a few irrational individuals can cause an immense amount of disruption in an anarchic system. >> >> Legalized drugs being irrational, I do not agree with. Making them illegal has never worked, and will never work in anything short of a police state (It's frequently failed in police states too.) All you gain from making the drugs illegal is a higher price which just makes people who are addicted poorer (addiction by free introduction to drugs is common practice.) Stigmatizing addicted persons as criminals makes it more difficult for them to make the decision to seek treatment for addiction. Prison time for drug users costs more than treatment. Criminal organizations form and coalesce into their own underground government and black market, frequently engaging in wars and expanding their criminal activity beyond the drug trade. The educational system has a very difficult time educating children about which drugs are highly dangerous, and which are only moderately so. (Alcohol and marijuana are far less problematic than crack and meth.) >> >> Braess' paradox is fascinating! Atlanta needs to experiment with closing some streets, I think. Other than that, I believe you are referring to things like standardizing building codes, educational standards, vehicle safety requirements, in larger and larger blocks until there are uniform standards? If I am understanding right, how does this impact innovation? If everything is required to be the same, it's going to take a lot more effort to generate change. ---