i don’t know if you have that much choice over living satisfied or unsatisfied. I think my life satisfaction might probably increase without my covid fear. But everyone is different.
Nacruno96
Karma: 2
The death is part of life thing seems to me to be a wise thing to say. But I don’t agree. Death is the ultimate enemy. I would rather lose my sight permanently and for eternity than to die. But that is me. Concerning the quality over quantity thing I would say that it’s a question of circumstance. If you have a happy life. You want to increase the quantity if you have a mixed life probably you would want to increase the quality. I myself think I might be an exception in the sense that I am not being affected hugely by the decrease of socializing. I didn’t socialize much before the covid situation.
i agree, but how would you calculate tolerable death risks? Where would you draw the line?
Okay at least I know what it is referring to so I don’t feel like a retard for not knowing the short form
Where do you have the number 0,005 % from ?
I knew this study of people thinking they are good drivers, which could mean everything, but not that they view themselves as cautious drivers. But I red your comment anyways
I will probably if you convince me
I started to do sports in my room. And concerning social interaction I talk to people on dating apps and relatives on the phone. However I probably talk less than 15 minutes to someone per day. Also probably I should have mentioned before a big motivation in life for me is to live excessively long. I am new to this community what is EA standing for?
What is your expected death risk if you catch it. I tried to determine mine but I ended up with a risk expectation somewhere between 0,4 and 0,001 percent. This estimation was influenced mainly by conflicting data and insecurity about how to account for absent risk factors
For a human being a view can be right, wrong or as a third option the energy you would need to put in deciding if something is right or wrong is high to the extent that that it would not make sense to go all the way trying to come up with an answer. This is exactly the case with establishing a V value. Unless you are all knowing, hence a god. Therefore given the means humans have, what they are doing is not quite that irrational. You can not be rational beyond your means. You can not say a human is irrational because he doesn’t fly away if he sees a lion. Because there are limits. And every being can just be rational or irrational within his limits. Irrationality within your limits would be to go into a forest without a gun, for example.
I have a bit of the same reaction to that. You can know all the stuff mentioned here and I will read it again but if you don’t have the instinct to ask yourself this simple question it will not matter.
Why do we not become a political party and build a rational world government. Or a less wrong world government ?
Hold on. The part about humans being irrational is a bit problematic in my view. I agree they are sometimes irrational but I think your assumptions are too strong. First of all by engaging in all those things to maximize V you would need to put extremely much energy and you are not even sure you would succeed. Besides maximizing V is not just maximizing something but also minimizing pain to some extent your model of the hyper rational person would not be a human. Because pain would not exist for him. A normal person would be totally bored in pain by perusing what you describe in that extreme way, while living with the risk that nothing he does end up benefiting him. I think a rational actual human would put far more emphasis on avoiding pain. And would try to achieve what you describe in a less painful way. And it would be far from certain if he would succeed. Besides you are assuming endless intelligence too. But humans have limited intelligence and therefore they only can be rational within the limits of their intelligence.
I am not sure if this would solve the issue for you, but I try to make passive income towards not being dependent on work, so that I have the freedom to do what I want. But I am really not sure this would solve it because I think you pointed out that even wealth can be a limitation. It depends how much time you spend to maintain in it and how successful you are with it
I actually agree with many of your ideas and I think the things you are doing and your approach will show results and work, but there is one huge problem that is making me never go so far to actually change my behavior which makes me end up behaving as I am. I just don’t feel comfortable if I act. Before long I will end up having no respect for the girl I am dating and if she shows interest in me I would know she does not like me but the image I present her. Also implicitly you end up showing more regard for a stranger you don’t know than for yourself, because you basically end up fighting for someones affection instead of giving someone the choice to like you or not like you. I tested your strategy for myself, but I wasn’t happy with it. And often the underlying problem to I think the top 10% of the smartest men in society ending up with no partner is not about things they do wrong it’s about the distribution disparity of smart men to smart women. There are far more smart men than women. As there are far more stupid men than stupid women. there are 5 times or 4 times as many men with iq >140 and with iq >120 there is still a big sex difference. So I think that is the real problem. Which is why I prefer hookers as long I am not really dating someone who is about as smart as I am. By the way I never have taken an iq test so I am not sure how smart that would be.
I think the amount of effort would would be too high for a masks that would end up being unpractical. It would not filter aerosols reliably and breathing comfort would also be undermined. Also those masks aren’t designed to be used as much as we do know. That’s my theory. But you might be right that it would make sense to do that.
I think you overestimate two things at least. First there is still doubt about if the amount of entering virus is that predicting of the outcome. And I think you overestimate your control on how much you are able to control the amount of Virus entering your body. And I am not sure if being exposed to low quantities of virus will have any health benefit on you.
I agree with everything mentioned in this post. However one could give examples of placed in which the things you mentioned wouldn’t necessarily apply. I do think you could if you see human society as a unity give objective values of a tree or a commodity. Of course the objective value would then never remain the same, because conditions would change, and also it would still have nothing to do with the inherent value. Which is as you pointed out not existing. Also there is a darker dimension to all you mentioned. What would be the value of a human being. so I think one could really expand your intuition in other areas and come up with interesting conclusions. Another area your logic would not apply would be the stock market if both investors have the same long term goal every trade would necessarily lead to one loosing and one winning expect if the one selling is buying something with a higher return in that time frame and then a third person would loose
Wait what the hell are we talking about. For what do we have airbags in cars? Or is there another reason For a helmet?