This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So is that the only thing that you want to punish with medieval torture, or is there anything else? I'm thinking of tobacco executives as an immediate candidate for someone who under any principled law you are proposing should go right after the lab leak overseers into the torture pit. Considering the tribal valence of it, how are you planning to argue against the other tribe enacting medieval torture on you or your champions, once they are in power?
More pragmatically, you probably aren't going to be successful at capturing scientists who oversaw a lab leak wherever they were in the world. If your country is the one that passes the law you want, all scientists who could imagine themselves committing an accident of this magnitude - which may be everyone who is good in this field - will move to Russia, China, or whatever other pick of adversary does not share in your bloodthirst and will not extradite, and then you can act surprised when COVID 2.0 turns out to have a mysterious affinity for people from your country. (I'm not a biochemist, but I don't know if, were I one, I would feel particular moral trepidations about doing horrible things to people who approve of subjecting me to a lifetime of medieval torture for an honest mistake, however dire the consequences.)
Why do you see tobacco as anything halfways comparable? Tobacco use is known to be harmful and the harm is something that people willingly exchange in return for a pleasant experience. In the case of a tobacco executive in the 60’s lying about the dangers of smoking, this is mitigated by the expectation that corporations lie in America. If a regulatory body were tasked with doing research on tobacco, and it knowingly declared tobacco free from danger in the face of overwhelming evidence, and this ruling was in effect for thousands of years, then yes I would see it as similar. But a reasonable person can find the studies and dispute the government consideration, whereas no one can opt out of getting COVID. So this is an essentially dissimilar metaphor in regards to risk and culpability.
If you’re saying that we should let mad scientists do mad research because otherwise they will do it in Russia, I disagree because of the risks of mad research, and would hope an international body is developed to oversee mad research.
You can't exactly opt out of passive smoking (certainly not in the '80s, unless you stayed home, which probably also would protect you against COVID), but fair enough about it being too dissimilar to work as a comparison. There's another analogy that has even more culture war juice in it, though, and which seems like an actual candidate for a way in which eroding the "no cruel and unusual punishment" norm would come around to bite the red tribe coalition. Global warming is something which a large majority of people actually believes has already or will cause millions of deaths, and a narrative has long taken root (the whole "Exxon internal memos produced accurate climate projections decades ago" thing) where its causation was not merely negligent but actively malicious. If "cause megadeaths by negligence or worse => lifelong torture" becomes the new norm, then I don't think that oil execs will make it for long, and a particularly triumphalist progressive coalition might be tempted to go for their Republican party enablers too.
It's a good opportunity to invoke that evergreen movie quote (the "law" in the US context, I guess, would be the 8th Amendment):
It's easy to prove that covid caused millions of deaths. Go ahead and prove that climate change has done the same. Plus all the oil scientists, coal workers, car owners etc are in the billions themselves. They have massively diluted responsibility, at worse they may each deserve a speck in the eye for the equivalent of decades of medieval torture of covid guy.
IS it? There are many causes of so-called Covid deaths; very few people die of Covid alone. You need pulmonary co-morbidities like smoking; like decreased immune function; like the social pathology of Western medical praxis at keeping Grandma around, medicated up to the gills, long past her sell-by date already. Africa hardly had any Covid deaths, because they don't do the last one.
Saying "Covid is responsible for millions of deaths" is like packing someone's port authority warehouse with ammonium nitrate for years and then putting all responsibility for the inevitable explosion on "The unseasonable heat that day was responsible for 7000 deaths".
The spark doesn't cause the inferno; the kindling does. A novel bat virus is only a spark.
African countries are piss-poor at tracking COVID deaths. Their death rates from disease are an order of magnitude higher than ours, so excess mortality statistics are going to be very noisy. Yes, a lot of the deaths were in people that were already vulnerable as hell from old age or diabetes or smoking or something. Let's call that 90 percent of 'em. We still have 10 percent of the dead that would have lived for at least a decade or so in the absence of COVID.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People very concerned about climate change will easily assert enormous costs due to climate change. I'm sure they could cook up scary death tolls if they needed to in order to justify punishing their enemies.
More options
Context Copy link
It's easy to prove that COVID-19 caused megadeaths, but it isn't easy to prove that it started from a lab leak. My out-of-posterior probability on "The COVID-19 pandemic began with a leak from the WIV" is 60%. People who I trust not to be enstupidated by the culture war and who have understood the evidence on both sides and updated on it use words consistent with posterior probabilities in the 10-49% range. "The COVID-19 pandemic began with a leak from the WIV of a pathogen deliberately engineered as part of a gain of function programme for which identifiable US persons can be blamed" is obviously even less likely because of conjunction.
Even if COVID-19 wasn't a lab leak, it could have been. That is sufficient to make gain-of-function research into pathogenic viruses a universal jurisdiction capital offence going forward, but it isn't enough to punish the people who did it when it was legal.
The call to start punishing people for the COVID-19 lab leak without confirming that it actually happened is a call to punish people based on any conspiracy or cock-up theory which is at least as plausible as the lab leak theory and ends with megadeaths. FWIW, my out-of-posterior probability on "Climate change will kill more than a million people in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2050" is 80% - we know that some non-zero amount of climate change is real, that Sub-Saharan Africa was too hot already, and that it doesn't take that much to cause a million deaths in the third world. My out-of-posterior probability on "Cigarette marketing during the period where tobacco company executives knew that smoking caused cancer but publically denied this caused increased cigarette consumption leading to over a million worldwide cancer deaths" is 95%.
Given the politics of all this, it will be the tobacco executives who are first against the wall if we adopt this policy. I suspect that at least one wholly innocent group (vaccine manufacturers, Monsanto employees, water flouridators etc.) will be targetted before the mob gets round to the COVID-19 lab leak theory.
More seriously, part of the purpose of trials and such-like is that they affect the deterrent message that the following punishment sends. If the De Santis administration gets the Supreme Court to ignore the Bills of Attainder clause and terror-tortures Fauci for funding gain of function research in Wuhan, the actual lesson learned is "Don't do anything which might upset a noisy minority of partisan voters enough that they call for your head" which cashes out as "Don't do anything at all" because partisan rage-machines are fairly unpredictable. Even if you do prove that Fauci-funded research engineered the virus which escaped from WIV, if he is the only person you terror-torture with e.g. tobacco industry executives skating then you are sending the same message.
To send the message "Don't do stuff that has an obvious risk of a megadeath cock-up", you need to make the risk of being terror-tortured depend more on the severity of the cock-up than the political valence of it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, that doesn’t work because oil actually has a lot of utility as well. Maybe we’ve killed millions as a result of oil but also saved billions. Who knows.
To date, has GoF produced any real utility?
Providing cushy high-status jobs for overproduced elites staves off nuclear civil war, is that good enough?
More options
Context Copy link
Gain of function experiments with Ebola (the virus BSL-4 was invented for) were instrumental in developing the Ebola vaccine.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think the parent poster was proposing weighing the utility of it against COVID deaths, but even so, you're up against people who are much more numerous and better at creating narratives than you are. I'm sure they'll find some way to argue that GoF research produced utility, whereas oil executives just conspired to keep demand higher and externality pricing lower than it needed to be. When you are fighting against someone who controls the narrative, laws and principles, that is, elements of the narrative that the narrative-writer can not change except at a great cost, are your only protection. Why would you propose to abolish them, unless you are working off of a mental model of reality in which you have more power than you actually do? Are temporarily embarrassed NYT editors the new temporarily embarrassed billionaires?
(And, personally, I think removing the Schelling fence around torture causes sufficient harm in itself that the first people I would want to see tortured for a lifetime if that's how we start doing things are those who proposed doing that. Think of that story of the Greek tyrant with the Brazen Bull.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link