Post by pirate_sephiroth

Posted: 12/31/2010 11:12 PM

Post subject: What You've Been Missing

Quote

pirate_sephiroth

Active player (309)

Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil

Episode 1: Exposing the noble lie What You've Been Missing was created to fill the massive gap created by corporate media, between itself and reality. A virtual variety show with a point, WYBM helps you learn how to outgrow the status quo; through a systematic process of critical thinking supplemented with comedy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbCKLr_vHhY

"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself. It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success." - Onkar Ghate

Bisqwit wrote:

Drama, too long, didn't read, lol.

Posted: 1/1/2011 8:13 AM

Quote

Warp

Banned User, Former player

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

I didn't get it. Granted, I only watched Pt. 1/10, but if the program cannot clearly get its main point across in the first 15 minutes, it fails to give me any incentive to watch 2 hours of it.

Posted: 1/1/2011 9:36 AM
(Edited: 1/1/2011 10:25 AM)

Quote

andymac

Experienced player (618)

Joined: 11/30/2008
Posts: 650
Location: a little city in the middle of nowhere

I don't know about you guys, but I thought this video was about Marxist theory. Seriously, it highlights virtually every major flaw with capitalism compared to socialism. Poorer people displaced out of new developing parts of a city and then complaining about the lack of opportunity to get rich? In a socialist society, you would get a job and housing best suited to you. The valedictorian talking about the fact that capitalistic motivations reduce choices and convert people into robotic libraries or whatever? again, fixed with socialism. Depopulisation and equality? Yoko Ono certainly believes that if everyone were given equal treatment, then there would be no overpopulation issues. again, in socialism, everyone would get the exact same food, housing ect. Okay, maybe it is and maybe it isn't about Marxist theory, I don't exactly know much on the subject, but this is my critical view on this video, and isn't that what this video is trying to promote? critical thinking? Or is it propaganda like the very stuff that they're trying to put down. it's hypocritical. Secondly, this video contains a lot of false information. Secretive goverments? Yeah, does freedom of information ring any bells? In reality, people love reading about secretive governments or conspiracies, it makes great news. In my opinion, the idea of a secretive government is one perpetuated by the media rather than suppressed by it. If anything, the communist countries are the ones which censor you more anyway (North Korea anyone?) and isn't that the idealistic form of government that this video is trying to promote? Anyone can study philosophy or mathematics or science, and it isn't prohibited. Anyone who has studied high school English should be able to spot any techniques used by media to present themes, values or intentions: there are no secrets about the construction of various media. However, this video assumes that nobody has critical thinking ability, or the ability to understand the construction of corporate media. The people who made this video have obviously never heard of the introspective illusion, or they would never have said half the things they did. All in all, even though I only watched the first part, I think it's complete BS

Measure once. Cut twice.

Posted: 1/1/2011 10:19 AM

Quote

L-Spiro

Joined: 4/18/2007
Posts: 88
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Just to point out. “That woman” in the John Lennon clip was Yoko Ono, John Lennon’s wife. L. Spiro

Posted: 1/1/2011 4:39 PM

Quote

Neophos

Joined: 9/30/2007
Posts: 103

andymac wrote:

However, this video assumes that nobody has critical thinking ability, or the ability to understand the construction of corporate media. The people who made this video have obviously never heard of the introspective illusion, or they would never have said half the things they did.

Wouldn't the speech from the student say otherwise? According to that speech, ALL thinking is critical thinking by nature. What's with the structure of the show? It's just one guy making "witty" comments while showing Youtube-clips for two hours?

Posted: 1/1/2011 7:30 PM

Quote

OmnipotentEntity

He/Him

Player (36)

Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624

@andymac, one thing that really bothers me is when people conflate socialism with fascism. The two are not congruent. In fact, some of the most notorious dictatorships were capitalist. The only difference between a fascist communist and a fascist capitalist is the route they took to power.

Build a man a fire, warm him for a day, Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.

Posted: 1/1/2011 8:24 PM

Quote

Dada

Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands

You know the reason why it's usually pointless to post videos like this is because most people will invariably reply like andymac did. The entire thing is dismissed as "yeah, but [insert differing social/economic philosophy] is much worse" and the point is lost completely. Not that andymac's reply is inherently ignorant or uninformed, but it does show you how hard it is for us to be critical of the core concepts that underpin Western society. Fact is, there is a major problem with our philosophy and its leads are not that deep below the surface. The dismantling of the regulatory systems around financial markets that has been going on for decades, which happened not because it's good for us but because it's financially attractive to the elite that controls those markets, is just one quick example. Similar things happen in all areas where very large companies are in charge. Like BP not investing a dime in safety measures and then paying only a minor fraction of the massive financial ramifications when things went wrong in the Gulf of Mexico. Or Shell building extremely dirty factories and refineries in the Niger Delta and ditching all of their waste directly into the once potable water supply. All of these things have in common that they're fully legal in spite of being awful for us, because the rich that run these companies have virtually unlimited access to the responsible politicians and the media. Now I don't know if anything this video says is true. I honestly don't really care, nor did I even finish watching all of part 1 (because it's boring). They could be wild eyed conspiracy theorists for all I know. But the point I'm trying to make is that it's a massive cop-out to just say "Well, North Korea is a lot worse, so therefore these guys are wrong". edit: instead of watching this junk you guys should try Democracy Now which is a daily independent news show. Freely downloadable, no ads. Their guests are people who actually know their science rather than the political hacks that you see on mainstream news programs. A must-see for those who want to truly be informed.

Posted: 1/1/2011 8:47 PM

Quote

moozooh

Senior Moderator

Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5771
Location: Away

I feel compelled to add to Dada's words about North Korea et al., that the apparent lack of flawless realizations doesn't make the idea inherently flawed by itself.

Warp wrote:

Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.

Posted: 1/1/2011 10:46 PM

Quote

pirate_sephiroth

Active player (309)

Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil

Ideologies. Opinions. Beliefs. Cultures. Independent news. HERP. DERP. You're always so unpredictable. I wonder if someday people will wake up and see reality as it is... ...or are they gonna spend what's left of their so "precious, unique and irreplaceable existence" (lulz) believing they're rational creatures.

"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself. It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success." - Onkar Ghate

Bisqwit wrote:

Drama, too long, didn't read, lol.

Posted: 1/2/2011 12:21 AM

Quote

andymac

Experienced player (618)

Joined: 11/30/2008
Posts: 650
Location: a little city in the middle of nowhere

Yeah, I knew from the start my post was flawed. Admittedly I tried to use a satirical tone, but it obviously didn't work. Personally I know the advantages/disadvantages of capitalism to socialism in Marxist theory. Personally I think socialism can work well if done right, as shown in the video. (people get jobs based on passion instead of capitilistic motivation, equality, shared resources ect. are all good things), However because there are so many negative connotations with communism, it's just so easy to insert a smart alec comparison to North Korea or something. Personally, whether or not this video does or doesn't support Marxism is irrelevant. The main point I was trying to send across was that yes, we do have problems with our system, yes we can change it, but yes, everyone does know those two truths. People aren't stupid but if you think that, or imagine that people are somehow less critical and more biased than you are, you are subject to the introspective illusion. There are no secrets with capitalism. If you didn't think that large corporations acted purely (or almost purely) for financial gain then you are sadly mistaken, but pretty much everyone knows this. In fact media in popular culture have perpetuated this claim as well (for example Jame's Cameron's Avatar, or the International) not to mention the numerous other forms of media. http://www.xkcd.com/610/ Secondly, the video says that it promotes critical thinking and then tries to force feed us it's own ideologies. Of course we're going to be resistant to that sort of thing. Noone likes to feel that someone is trying to force feed them an opinion, but then again, isn't this what the video is trying to promote? We can't mindlessly accept the truths presented in the video: that defeats the point. If we are to agree with the video, then we have to do it conditionally. "Okay, so I can agree that capitalism is flawed, but I can also see that socialism has flaws too. I can agree that people should be more curious, but I don't agree that no-one can think at all". In a way, I guess this video did enhance my curiosity slightly, but not in the way they wanted. Also, I just want to say, it's one thing to have a viewpoint on these subjects, but it's another to actually do something about it. Go to a protest. Start a petition. Exercise your freedom to do something, let your voice be heard, but don't let crappy internet videos influence your opinions. Make some for yourself dammit! Is my post critical enough for you? Do you believe with everything I just said? If you answered "no" to any of those questions then you can critically think.

Measure once. Cut twice.

Posted: 1/2/2011 12:58 AM

Quote

Dada

Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands

andymac wrote:

Personally, whether or not this video does or doesn't support Marxism is irrelevant. The main point I was trying to send across was that yes, we do have problems with our system, yes we can change it, but yes, everyone does know those two truths.

Yeah, I sort of got that you weren't dismissing the whole thing outright. It's just that the discussion is too often put within a rather narrow frame, and that bothered me. Not that your post was wrong or anything, that's beside the point like you say.

andymac wrote:

If you didn't think that large corporations acted purely (or almost purely) for financial gain then you are sadly mistaken, but pretty much everyone knows this. In fact media in popular culture have perpetuated this claim as well (for example Jame's Cameron's Avatar, or the International) not to mention the numerous other forms of media.

Actually, things like Avatar bother me because that's still just a dumb movie about sexy blue space cats and the whole EVIL CORPORATION thing kind of gets reduced to a hilariously awful Hollywood thing. To me this has nothing to do with being aware of how evil corporations can be in real life because there is no attempt to connect with reality whatsoever. Just imagine Joe Common talking about the inherent meaning behind Avatar: "Hey dude, did you see Avatar? And how the evil corporation tried to steal the blue space cat natives' resources? And then how they tried to kill them but failed, and a hero(who was actually part of the evil corporation itself) saved the day? Man those guys were evil!" I still don't think Joe Common knows anything about how the waste from an unregulated coal mine in Africa can make drinking water so toxic that your skin literally starts peeling off if you swim in it for too long. Or even that realities like this, in all shapes and sizes, exist and are funded by us every day. I really think people don't really know and despite James Cameron's best intentions to educate people by using sexy blue space cats, it's still just a movie with no real substance and it doesn't really change anything, nor indicate that this is something people are aware of.

andymac wrote:

Noone likes to feel that someone is trying to force feed them an opinion, but then again, isn't this what the video is trying to promote?

I thought the video was just trying to show that things aren't always what they appear to be and that it's healthy to question the status quo and look at alternatives that are usually dismissed as being "dangerous". But I don't know, maybe I should have just watched the whole thing. You're right that you shouldn't let crappy internet videos influence you too much though. There's too much attention for stupid Youtube videos and not enough on actual quality journalism.

Posted: 1/2/2011 1:24 AM

Quote

andymac

Experienced player (618)

Joined: 11/30/2008
Posts: 650
Location: a little city in the middle of nowhere

Hmm maybe you're right. Joe average would see pop culture's representations of corporations to be like you said: "hilariously auful Hollywood thing". But then I watch this and I think that the youtube clip portrays a similar representation. The video doesn't really provide examples of any irresponsible corporate behaviour, but it does portray corporations as an omnipotent, evil entity who displaces people because it's easier and who destroy any individuality. My point was that even though the media's representations are not necassarily accurate, no-one can say that they are suppressing that sort of information.

Measure once. Cut twice.

Posted: 1/2/2011 1:53 AM

Quote

Dada

Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands

andymac wrote:

My point was that even though the media's representations are not necassarily accurate, no-one can say that they are suppressing that sort of information.

Well, suppressing is the wrong word, I think. Ignoring is more like it. In the US it's particularly bad because the mentality is to show you "both sides" of the issue (as if there are only two). Things that fall outside of that narrative are usually considered hopelessly ideological and impractical, or crazy, or even dangerous. As such, facts that aren't being pushed by the two main parties, which may well be important to understanding the issue, can be ignored for fear of appearing "biased", or simply too far removed from people's typical understanding.

Posted: 1/2/2011 4:48 AM

Quote

pirate_sephiroth

Active player (309)

Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil

Andymac wrote:

Secondly, the video says that it promotes critical thinking and then tries to force feed us it's own ideologies. Of course we're going to be resistant to that sort of thing.

I don't remember hearing the guy say "believe me! I never lie". The ideas presented in the video are simply the tip of the iceberg. It's just to show how ignorant people are. If you disagree with something, fine. Just don't do it only because the idea is not congruent with your view of the world. The message I see on the video is: you're human and subject to influence. And you'll always be. Critical thinking is definitely not as easy as you think. We live in a very complex world. In order to keep our sanity, our brain develops certain patterns of behaviour, certain shortcuts. Once we're taught how to deal with something, we accept it as true and tend do it automatically for the rest of our life. Since we don't have to think about it, we can spend that precious time in other activities. And of course, that technique can be and is being used against you.

"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself. It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success." - Onkar Ghate

Bisqwit wrote:

Drama, too long, didn't read, lol.

Posted: 1/2/2011 5:46 AM

Quote

rhebus

Joined: 2/19/2010
Posts: 248

pirate_sephiroth wrote:

If you disagree with something, fine. Just don't do it only because the idea is not congruent with your view of the world.

That's not at all what andymac was doing. You're basically accusing andymac of being dogmatic, when nothing could be further from the truth. Andymac's arguments are not predicated on a world-view. They don't only make sense within one particular world-view context. If you think andymac is rejecting the video's claims entirely because of his view of the world, why do you think this? My problem with this video is exactly what has been stated already - it claims to be about critical thinking, when it's really just making unlikely sociological claims. (This is what a video about critical thinking really looks like.) One particular claim it makes, in the first minute, is that there is a "ruling class", and that this ruling class deliberately, actively and systematically keeps us uninformed. First, there is no single unified "ruling class". There are lots of ruling bands, who have competing objectives and viewpoints. So to attribute one deliberate act to a disparate and uncooperative group is unlikely at best. The claim basically says that all rulers are trying to keep us uninformed all of the time; this kind of generalization is moronic. Furthermore, there is the undisputable fact that I am far more informed than I would be without the intervention of the rulers of my country. They have put in place a state-funded education system open to all. Given my parents inability to afford private education, this education system taught me all sorts of stuff I would never have learned without it. Important stuff like reading, writing, adding up. I therefore put it to you that the evidence suggests that, in my country at least, the "ruling classes" are keeping the masses informed. I therefore do not accept the proposition "there is a ruling class, and it is systematically and deliberately keeping me uninformed".

Posted: 1/2/2011 6:23 AM

Quote

pirate_sephiroth

Active player (309)

Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil

There is a ruling "class". You didn't present any evidence. You just don't accept it because the idea goes against your estabilished opinions. It does not make sense for you. School == education. You learn specific knowledge, so you can be an obedient member of society. And not much beyond that. quoting something I read, "Education is slavery. Education enchains the mind and makes it a resource for class power. " I"ll paste this again: REASON IS EASILY OVERRULED BY IMAGINATION You're not controlling your life until you understand that basic concept.

"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself. It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success." - Onkar Ghate

Bisqwit wrote:

Drama, too long, didn't read, lol.

Posted: 1/2/2011 6:40 AM

Quote

andymac

Experienced player (618)

Joined: 11/30/2008
Posts: 650
Location: a little city in the middle of nowhere

Well, suppressing is the wrong word, I think. Ignoring is more like it. In the US it's particularly bad because the mentality is to show you "both sides" of the issue (as if there are only two).

I have no real evidence to support what I'm about to say, but my feeling is that this is the mentality in a lot of places, not just the US. The video that Rhebus provided showed the example of theists vs evolution, which is the example I would have used. Sometimes when I'm bored I look for random forums who hoplessly continue this debate, which would indicate that the "two sides" mentality is an international phenomena, since it occurs on international forums. Pirate, I'm not sure I fully understand your views; when you say reason is easily overruled by imagination, does that mean reason is the negative value because it means noone has imagination or choice? or do you mean that imagination is the negative value because it means that people will lack the ability to critical think? or is it something else. I thought that was a little ambiguous.

Measure once. Cut twice.

Posted: 1/2/2011 6:54 AM

Quote

rhebus

Joined: 2/19/2010
Posts: 248

pirate_sephiroth wrote:

There is a ruling "class". You didn't present any evidence.

You didn't see any evidence, but it was there. I stated my case - that there is no unified ruling class. I presented evidence of disunion to refute that such a ruling class exists. (For me, "ruling class" implies a single, unified entity.)

You just don't accept it because the idea goes against your estabilished opinions. It does not make sense for you.

What makes you think that I am not accepting it purely because it goes against my established opinions? What makes you think you even know what my established opinions are? This tactic of claiming people don't accept something for personal reasons is not a rational argument. It's an example of ad hominem: you are not attacking my argument but my character.

REASON IS EASILY OVERRULED BY IMAGINATION

Quite the self-demonstrating post here. You imagine that the ruling classes are carefully keeping us in check, but you don't provide enough evidence that they do.

Posted: 1/2/2011 8:00 AM

Quote

pirate_sephiroth

Active player (309)

Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil

ok here's evidence for you

"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself. It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success." - Onkar Ghate

Bisqwit wrote:

Drama, too long, didn't read, lol.

Posted: 1/2/2011 9:38 PM

Quote

OmnipotentEntity

He/Him

Player (36)

Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624

I'm watching it right now, so my thoughts in sort of a freeform brain dump. I'm going to state that I know in advance that I probably agree with the sentiment of the video. First thoughts, I doubt the core reason for the ongoing subjugation of the poor by the wealthy has *everything* to do with ignorance. I would argue that, while ignorance is important, at least as important is the, probably genetic, social behaviors that make it difficult to disobey authority and even more difficult to act independently against authority when it's happening to someone else. Second thought, the bit with the TV was dumb. I don't really think that critical thinking was removed from education, considering that is exactly where I learned to think critically. But I'll suspend my disbelief for now. It seems a bit alarmist. The investment banker looks like a douche, but the interview looks to be highly edited. I'd like to see an uncut version of it. Just because I agree with the sentiment that rich investment bankers don't really understand or give a shit about the poor doesn't mean it's actually true. And I would be deeply upset if (as I suspect) this interview is a chop job. J Random Black Guy makes a good point. The only possible route to anything remotely resembling success for an inner city child is to entertain the white man. Primarily through Basketball and Rap. Interesting statistic, you know that we incarcerate our 20-25 year old black men at a rate about 6 times that of the rest of the population? It's shit like this America. This guy is sounding more and more like a rare, endangered super-douche. Researching his name on the internet to ensure that he isn't some sort of plant. A bit of research shows that this interview was probably pulled directly from "The One Percent" This link shows that at least he puts on a show of being philanthropic:

http://www.bridgingnetwork.org/members.html wrote:

Karl Muth is an heir and entrepreneur as well as a philanthropist, traveler and commentator. He has traveled to dozens of countries on five continents and been featured in a wide range of media including the Wall Street Journal, The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Journal, and the Oprah Winfrey Show. He also appeared in the movie The One Percent, a film by Jamie Johnson, director of Born Rich. Karl was an early proponent of Resource Generation and a board member of the Self Education Foundation. He also co-founded Channel G, an organization that uses media to encourage participation in -- and the democratization of -- philanthropy. Native to Chicago, he is a graduate of The John Marshall Law School and an MBA candidate at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business.

But I was unable to find any reviews at all for this "charity" So at this point he seems like a normal, douchey rich person with pretenses but no substance of charity. Which is probably more work to pretend to be than I'm willing to give this youtube video credit for. Continuing. I'm still disturbed by the assertion that compulsory education necessarily means brainwashing. With one breath the video argues that we're incompetent for the challenges that face us, and with the other it argues that education is the problem, not the solution, to this. I doubt very much that there's a conspiracy in the American education system to make is suck as much as possible. Rather, I think it's simply underfunded. I will admit that No Child Left Behind was an awesome way to deny the most needy of students federal funding though. Bravo Bush Administration. Good point of on population, but unchecked growth also leads to problems. Exponential growth vs finite resources is a big problem that we're experiencing right now. For instance, let's take something like coal. There's a finite amount of coal in the world, and let's say we use 7% more coal this year than last year. And we've used up only 25% of the coal reserves on the entire planet. (The real numbers are actually higher than this, I just picked them for ease of calculation.) 7% growth leads to a doubling period of about 10 years. Which means that 10 years from now we'll have used another 25% of the remaining coal reserves (in those 10 years, in other words, we'll have used as much coal as the rest of the entirety of human history.) And then in another 10 years we'll have used the rest of the coal, on the entire planet. 20 years and everything is gone. If we somehow discovered 3 new planets with coal stores the same as planet earth, it would only last us 20 years. 10 years for 1 planet, 10 for the other 2. Population is the same way. I don't know of a moral way to solve this issue though. But simply ignoring it is not an option. Depopulation isn't a problem except in the Western world, and a bigger problem is overpopulation. John Lennon is kinda dumb. I'm going to stop here, because it seems really conspiracy based and it's making me feel dirty. This being said, I believe that there is class warfare going on in this country. But I really doubt that it's as much of a conspiracy as this program is making it out to be. People are really bad at keeping secrets, and a secret of this magnitude would have gotten out a long time ago because it involves so many people. I'm going to call this not plausible. "Climate Change" a myth perpetuated by the wealthy? "Overpopulation" a myth? To keep us distracted? This is exactly the sort of thing that makes it difficult for me to argue about things like this and be taken seriously.

Build a man a fire, warm him for a day, Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.

Posted: 1/3/2011 8:10 AM

Quote

Warp

Banned User, Former player

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

OmnipotentEntity wrote:

"Climate Change" a myth perpetuated by the wealthy?

I have always wondered why so many people oppose so strongly the very idea of global warming and climate change. They propose that it's just a big hoax, a conspiracy, we are being lied to... I just can't understand why the vehement opposition. Even if it really was a big hoax (which it isn't, obviously, but let's just assume it was), for what purpose would that hoax have been fabricated? What great and selfish evil are these hoaxers after? "Hey, we shouldn't pollute our environment" doesn't sound like such an evil goal. And why would the wealthy promote such a hoax? Less pollution means less consumerism, which means less money going from the poor to the wealthy. If anything, it would be the interest of the wealthy to expose the hoax, so that people would keep consuming more and more. Wouldn't promoting the hoax be detrimental for them? Heck, if this global warming thing would be a big hoax, I would be all for it.

Posted: 1/3/2011 9:17 AM

Quote

moozooh

Senior Moderator

Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5771
Location: Away

Oh, you're underestimating human greed. A good deal of global campaigns contain inherent backdoors to federal budgets (or are designed precisely for this purpose), as in "we need this large sum of money to do something that doesn't cost as much, develop something that isn't more effective than existing solutions, or use something we were going to use anyway". Sometimes stuff like that is done right under your nose. Remember the so-called bird flu pandemic media was up in flames about a few years back? Here's a Wikipedia quote:

On September 29, 2005, David Nabarro, the newly appointed Senior United Nations System Coordinator for Avian and Human Influenza, warned the world that an outbreak of avian influenza could kill anywhere between 5 million and 150 million people. […] H5N1 has evolved into a flu virus strain that infects more species than any previously known flu virus strain, is deadlier than any previously known flu virus strain, and continues to evolve becoming both more widespread and more deadly causing Robert G. Webster, a leading expert on avian flu, to publish an article titled "The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population" in American Scientist. He called for adequate resources to fight what he sees as a major world threat to possibly billions of lives. Since the article was written, the world community has spent billions of dollars fighting this threat with limited success.

Death toll? 302 people worldwide as of 2010 (remember, that's over 7 years of its existence, not even a season). Which is… about as much as an average flu would take. Without causing such an uproar either. But you have all kinds of experts appointed to the fields created specifically for them. Mind-boggling stuff. At the same time as the media was infected with bird flu panic, a company here in Moscow started manufacturing a new anti-flu medicine called Arbidol, which was placed an above-average price point and widely and aggressively marketed in Russia (and, I take it, China as well) as the ultimate flu prevention and treatment drug. As you can see, nothing openly illegal has been going on, but a clever manipulation of facts, selective awareness, and a business plan designed strategically around the unfolding hysteria can make you billions upon billions on the spot. Make somebody afraid and offer them an easy solution that makes you profit. After it's over you can boast how effective your solution was and keep getting profit. It's but one case of effective distraction p_s was talking about.

Warp wrote:

Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.

Posted: 1/3/2011 11:47 AM

Quote

rhebus

Joined: 2/19/2010
Posts: 248

Do you really think anyone, expert or not, can be certain in advance which diseases will mutate into global pandemics killing millions and which will not? Nobody knows which diseases will mutate into virulent strains. We only know that there are some which could. That's why no expert said bird flu would kill millions, only that it had potential to. Let me pose a simplified model to you. If disease X has a five in six chance of killing only 150 people, but a one in six chance of killing 150 million people, what would you do? Would you spend no money, risking 2% of the world's population to a dice roll, safe that it will "probably be fine"? Would you spend money trying to save lives, knowing that there was a 5 in 6 chance the money would be wasted since the disease wouldn't spread anyway? Personally, I would spend the money. The expectation for the number of deaths is 25 million, even though the most likely outcome is 150 deaths. Disease control is full of hard questions. There are no easy answers.

Posted: 1/3/2011 11:55 AM
(Edited: 1/3/2011 11:57 AM)

Quote

pirate_sephiroth

Active player (309)

Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil

Haven't you learned yet... when a figure of authority says something, the fact does not need to be true. It only needs to be plausible. The more important the person is, the less plausible he/she needs to be. (that person has never lied to you before.. why would that be the case now?)

"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself. It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success." - Onkar Ghate

Bisqwit wrote:

Drama, too long, didn't read, lol.