site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   3615 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 7, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Avian flu has started jumping to humans.

Hypothetically, if it starts transmitting from human to human easily, causing a pandemic which would be a lot more deadly than covid, how would you invest in order to profit, if you were to survive? What would be your "no use for money if I'm dead, but if I survive I'll multiply my savings" strat?

I think based on the COVID response, go with online services— instacart, Grubhub, online streaming, Zoom type online services, basically anything that replicates an in-person service at home. I would anticipate at least an attempt at a lockdown if the flu is bad enough.

I have noticed that Bitcoin goes up in times of uncertainty, and then goes down when things get calmer. But the first rule of Bitcoin is not to buy it when it's back in the news, and it's been reaching highs. So probably don't buy Bitcoin now.

Might not be quite as true anymore. I think a significant reason why it went up lately, and why it might not plummet as much anymore, is because a lot of ETFs bought into it. And more are set to buy in over the next couple of years. It might be "here to stay" in a bigger way than before.

But it is something I've observed as well. People want gold and the biggest crypto when a crisis happens.

In the initial phase there will be huge wealth-destruction as industry, logistics and so on get hammered. You want to be shorting travel, energy and such or at least in cash, ready to buy low. Then you need to follow the moneyprinting and fiscal support wave.

How much more deadly would it be than COVID?

No one knows yet, but 30-50% death rate has been mooted.

Heard the same claim about covid at the end of 2019. Fool me once...

So the Black Death, which was a catastrophe but didn’t cause civilizational collapse.

For the record, I don’t believe this report without much better evidence.

Even 30% is major unpredictable transformation of society level, I think investment advice is hard in that scenario.

Yes, there wouldn't be a recognizable civilization left. Guess those without land where they can be self sufficient are screwed in that case.

Apparently it primarily affects children and young people. Older people above 50 are very rarely killed (just like Spanish flu). I think in that case civilization would probably survive since that leaves the people who are primarily in charge and can maintain things for a couple more decades. Obviously losing so many young people would radically transform many social dynamics. I think total collapse likely needs in excess of 80-90% mortality rate.

The problem is that medium ground where things can change in unpredictable ways but it isn’t the end of the world.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats