#2that

@dichotomiker

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

I have not heard any reliable source that says that that number in overstated. (I have heard some say that it is understated and some say that it is overstated, but without supporting data.

google translation:
Ich habe keine verlässliche Quelle gehört, die besagt, dass diese Zahl übertrieben ist. (Ich habe einige sagen hören, dass es untertrieben und andere sagen, dass es übertrieben ist, aber ohne unterstützende Daten.

#2that

@Patricia_andrea

The question of whether the universe is “open” or “closed” is of great interest. Current observations seem to indicate that the metric expansion of space is accelerating, i.e., the expansion is speeding up, so all the matter in the universe will never be able to come together in a big crunch. However, that view can always change as more observations are made.

My thoughts on a big crunch, if it was possible, is that it would only involve matter coming together, not the whole universe. Even if all the matter came together in a giant singularity, the metric of space around it would continue to expand, because the expansion of the universe is not just all the clumps of matter moving away from each other in space, but it is the metric of space itself that is expanding.

Just like when a galaxy forms by matter coming together via gravity, that does not mean that the metric of space is contracting. It means that all those stars and other matter are moving through space to come together as a galaxy. The metric of the space that that matter is moving through, is still expanding. It’s just that gravity, the curvature of spacetime around the matter is causing matter to move together faster than the metric expansion is expanding.

So I don’t think the universe itself will collapse, but maybe all of the matter in it could (if future observations indicate that that is possible.) Although I could be completely misinterpreting those theories.

#2that x2

@johnabs @freemo

>”...how do we define harm?...”
>”...can you say I’ve truly harmed someone by ending their life while they’re unconscious?”

Regan goes into great detail about this in his writings. Certainly causing pain is harm. The forbearance of the continuation of an individual’s life and future experiences can also be considered harm in most cases. Preventing someone from even coming into existence (contraception/early abortion) is an interesting case which Regan also addresses. I think that nearly anytime someone is born, that event itself forebears the existence of some others who will not come into existence simply as a result of that individual being born. (Think multiverses, counterfactuals, butterfly effect – each potential multiverse has a different mix of individuals in it.)

>”...If I can kill a bug, or a cow, etc, why does killing a person matter?”

Regan wrote an entire book about this question and goes into excruciating detail about it (about 700 pages, if I remember – it’s been a few decades since I’ve read his stuff), and the conclusion is that it is wrong to harm someone even if they are not human.

>”...intrinsic value...”
>”...how does this apply across species (or does it at all)?”

Regan uses the criteria of whether an individual experiences a subjective life or not (among many other criterion). He calls it “subject-of-a-life”. I think intrinsic value can be derived from that.

>”[In] what cases is it reasonable to cause harm to human/non-human entities?...”

A lot folks have written on that one. Self-defense is the obvious example. This also brings up the question of whether the action prevents net harm for the individual or for everyone (Mills, Utilitarianism).

>”...why are any of these actions morally objectionable in such a universe?”
>”...transcendent meaning…”

Shermer presents a coherent counter-nihilism argument in his book, as do many other authors. Ironically, Regan just skips over the question and basically says, “If life has no meaning and someone only cares about themselves, they’re not going to be reading this book anyway, or even considering the question.” (paraphrased)

Fortunately, many of these questions, like nihilism and existentialism, don’t need to be resolved to come up with a law addressing abortion. Approaches via objectivism or materialism often end up with similar answers as those from religion because the same human brains that invented, developed, or selected a religion are the same ones who consider materialism. So I think a consensus, or at least a substantial majority can be reached on the question either way.

(#2that means that I used the word “that” two times consecutively somewhere in the toot.)

@johnabs @freemo
- - -
The problem of using humanness as a determinant for the acquisition of rights is that it is arbitrary and limited. The reason why it is wrong to violate someone’s rights is not because they are a biological entity with a particular sequence of DNA. It’s wrong because that individual can be harmed by the violation.

There are, or could be, individuals who may not be human (or may not even be biologically based) who may be capable of being harmed and who’s rights should be respected, for example, an AI who becomes sentient, or people in the future who have modified their DNA beyond the human species, or possibly sentient life who are not from Earth and not human. (Not to say that sentience is necessarily a determining attribute for assessing the existence of the potentiality of harm.)

For the same reason, just because something has the chemicals cytosine, guanine, adenine, thymine bound together in a particular sequence does not mean that that macromolecule(s) could experience moral harm. So whether or not something or someone does or doesn’t have a human sequence of DNA doesn’t automatically include or excuse an obligation of respecting a right not to be harmed.

If you’d like to learn more about this, I suggest reading works by Tom Regan, who has written volumes on who is, or who becomes, a moral patient; and Michael Shermer’s “The Moral Arc”, which develops a coherent, reasoned, and science-based framework for why we should respect rights at all, and how to determine who or what those rights-respecting obligations should be extended to. (Remember that irrespective of each of our own religious beliefs, the law needs to be based on rational that doesn’t favor one religion over another, and is based on reasoned, evidence-based arguments.)

#2that

@bonifartius

I noticed that, too.

It's ironic because I use it more often here on qoto because it seems that that is the norm here.

"F*ck" seems like a reasonable compromise.

@lupyuen

#2that

@freemo @icedquinn

In mid-2020, Fauci said 20,000 cases a day was bad and unacceptable. We're at about 200,000 cases a day now.

We just had every major news network clear the decks and spend virtually every minute of air time to cover the deaths of 20 people who were shot in Texas. But hundreds of people dying every day gets no coverage. More people died from COVID-19 during the time that that shooting was taking place than died from the shooting itself.

And what about the more than one million people who died needlessly? When will there be accountability for that? Don't their greiving family members count?

#2that

@lucifargundam @Acer

Okay. I tried looking at it from a distance thinking that that is what is was, but it didn't work.

I just now displayed it in mono font and now it is clear.

#2that