Do it, Sandy! I’d Do It For You!
There is a common misconception going around. The funny thing is, in the time of human life on our planet, this is probably the rule and not the exception. Wrong answers vastly outnumber right answers. The thing about the Darwinian process, though, is that right answers direct us toward survival, and wrong answers tend to snuff us out. So, it is pretty important to get the right answer as the number and severity of the challenges mount. One of Humanity’s major challenges today is a highly contagious disease. Right from the start, the problem is two-pronged. It is both potentially deadly, and it is highly contagious.
The contagion is the most troubling aspect of this problem because it limits our strengths and exacerbates our weaknesses. Our strengths include working together, as the invention of civilization intended. Our relevant weakness is the mere act of being together is part of the problem with contagion, and irritates what we dislike and mistrust about each other, encouraging a more self-centered focus. The self-centered aspect has at least two parts. First, it encourages the belief that success or failure falls primarily to ourselves. Secondly, it distracts our problem solving focus from objective fact based reasoning over to subjective emotions.
Civilization brings with it all sorts of problems. It has not been an easy process. And, the way we live within civilization makes some of these answers subjective rather than objectively true. For example, do we live better by living longer with more vulnerabilities to nature, and relying upon one another, or do we live better more as a part of nature, and not so reliant upon one another? That is a philosophical choice for which we are too far down the road of civilization to answer objectively. By now, with 7 billion people on this planet, and a global economy where we come in contact with one another to such a great degree, cooperation is necessary.
Complicating that, some of our notions of personhood, and fairness, and justice place emphasis on learning not to exploit one another for efficiency sake, and respecting one other for the sake of peace. This is a recent, not yet perfected part of our evolution. In a slightly different context, Benjamin Franklin once said, “we must hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” In this comment, Franklin was alluding to the discomfort that came with cooperating within a group that did not always want to be a group, but had greater chances for survival having the cooperation with discomfort rather than more comfort and less cooperation. Working to defeat a pandemic has similar trade-off aspects.
Today in the New York Times there is an article titled the “Swiss Cheese Model of Pandemic Defense.” The graphic from the page is included, and will hopefully print in a useful, understandable way. Simply put, it shows how the strategy involves individual responsibility and group responsibility. I’m not just blowing smoke when I say that there are actions that we take for the greater good. Some things we do help others more immediately, and we hope for reciprocity. This is civilization when it is functioning properly. We will have to count on some people that we really do not like to function in such a way that benefit us first, and then we will benefit them. Goodness knows we have our problems with one another. That is not going to change anytime soon. But, for a short period of time, we can sprint toward one goal in a coordinated way. This relay race can be won in a few months or slightly more. That does not mean that any of you/us are not aggrieved.
And to wrap up this already too long post about cooperation, I submit one of my favorite scenes showing cooperation and sacrifice in an otherwise average film. The film is “Flight of the Intruder”. I love the title for all of its possible meanings. Escape of an intruder, alluding to a group of people and an outsider. The film itself involves the use of the A-6 Intruder, a fighter/bomber from the Vietnam era. This last scene is about one pilot shot down and wounded. He calls in an air strike to his own location, which would kill him, because he is wounded and surrounded by the enemy. The dialogue is a bit over the top with machismo, but this is part of what is so good about it. As the injured pilot calls in the air strike, the other pilots, with whom he is not particularly friendly, say they prefer to rescue him rather than bomb the area and kill him with the enemy. The other pilots try to talk him out of it repeatedly. The wounded pilot (Willem Defoe) insists by saying, “Lay it on me, man. I’m popping smoke (location marker). Do it, Sandy. Do it now. I’d do it for you.”
The poignant and funny part of that last line is that these two men did not like one another. The injured pilot was a bit of a loner with a bad reputation. But he says, “I’d do it for you” meaning, I’d kill you.” It is both mercy and a sort of callous gallows humor.
That’s civilization for ya. I’d do it for you.
“…Lay it in on me, man.
I’m popping smoke.
Virgil!
Virgil!
Do it, Sandy.
Do it now.
I’d do it for you…”—-Flight of the Intruder
Ron Powell
12/08/2020 @ 3:14 am
Movie morality works well in the movies…
I’m glad to see that you’ve come to realize that.civilization is much more about cooperation than it is about trust.
koshersalaami
12/08/2020 @ 10:46 am
That conclusion would lead you to get vaccinated.
Bitey
12/08/2020 @ 6:49 am
I rarely see evidence that you read carefully. Rather than focus on what I see, focus on seeing.
Ron Powell
12/08/2020 @ 10:54 am
“Rather than focus on what I see, focus on seeing.”
That’s a good idea.
You should try it some time.
One of purposes of reading carefully is to see things from the author’s perspective or point of view…
koshersalaami
12/08/2020 @ 4:25 pm
Ron,
If you wanted to say you hesitate to get vaccinated because you don’t think they can test safely this fast, and you think the risk of the vaccine outweighs the risk of catching this, which given our age and gender I would not, I might think you had a point or at least a rationale with some validity.
As to drawing racial lessons from this, the main thing you’d need to make that work is some sort of mechanism by which anyone is separating vaccinations going to Black people from vaccinations going to White people, and perhaps from Native Americans. Without that mechanism there’s no way to experiment on the Black population, nor is there a way to target the Black population.
Bitey
12/08/2020 @ 11:37 am
Ron, we were literally discussing the concept of vaccination. You have literally been vaccinated numerous times since the middle of the 20th century sometime. Each vaccination literally never validated your absurd allusion to the syphilis testing at Tuskegee. Furthermore, you literally benefit from the fact that vaccination is done on a wide scale, beyond yourself. This is not about point of view, Ron. Life expectancy for humans literally tripled during the 20th century due in part to vaccination. You are literally wrong, Ron.
Alan Milner
12/08/2020 @ 4:28 pm
I just made this article an editor’s pick, because I liked it.
Ron Powell
12/08/2020 @ 9:09 pm
“During the 20th century, the difference in life expectancy between black and white men in the United States did not decline.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health_in_the_United_States#Life_expectancy
I never said that I wouldn’t get the vaccination.
I wouldn’t discourage anyone from doing so.
All the vaccines I’ve received went through the required ethical protocols…
This vaccine has not…
I eat a mask.
I wash my hands.
I maintain social distancing…
That’s cooperation that I can be comfortable with.
Not so much with a vaccine developed by cutting corners in order to cut through the regulatory red tape…
Bitey
12/08/2020 @ 9:46 pm
Wow, Ron. That comment is full of the easiest weak premises to crush, I’m stunned that you would offer them.
1. Your assertion about differences between white life expectancies and Black represents averages. Those averages are compiled by taking the totals and dividing among the individuals in the set. In this case the set is determined by race. Several of the factors that are involved in the compilation of those lengths of life among the individuals are sociological, not biological. As such, they consist of things like; type of employment, type of diet, type of housing, the existence of and extent of health care insurance, etc. With those, and the many other multiples, would you say, on paper, your compiled factors more closely resemble a white man or a Black man? I can answer that for you. That socio-economic profile more closely resembles an upper middle class white man than the socio-economic profile of the average Black man. Your premise assumes a biological connection, and makes no attempt to discern the difference. That is just for starters.
Protocols: the various vaccines went through all of the protocols, they just went through them in parallel rather than in series…wherever possible. This has sped up a process, under these emergency circumstances, that might be bogged down in unnecessary bureaucratic red tape. And your uniform suspicion for anything that has as much as a single white person pass in its vicinity, condemns the former process as much as it condemns the latter one.
And though you did not explicitly say that you would not get the vaccine, you did characterize what you think as a reasoned approach based upon what are premises that can’t be logically supported, against a trust in something like government broadly, the FDA more narrowly, and science as a “Warp Speed” something or other, which makes implications that also can’t be supported. “Warp Speed”, in fact, is so unsupportable that it has zero to do with how the vaccines were made, which is your main concern. The vaccines that are starting to be distributed were not used with American protocols or in American labs. They are from Germany and U.K. Your entire suspicion is not supportable, yet it is voiced publicly, and those who do not accept it are disparaged as being something akin to Trump supporters. That amounts to discouraging others from using, Ron. You know it does.
And finally, “regulatory red tape.” I covered that one, but I will restate, the red tape that you seem suddenly to have confidence in goes unevaluated. What red tape exactly? How did that alter the development of the vaccines? You skip entirely over that part of your analysis, and it is the most significant question. It is a massive generalization that presumes that the countless professionals involved in the development are conspiring to do bad work. You should apply as much scrutiny to your argument. That is the bad work.
koshersalaami
12/08/2020 @ 10:34 pm
In case there is ambiguity about Ron’s position on this:
“Given the history and who and what Trump is, I hope you don’t mind if I choose to let white folks go first…
“Despite the fact that I’m in the COVID19 high risk cohort, I can wait…
“Anyone who wishes to do so may get their COVID shot ahead of me.
“I’ll get my shot after a while…”
Ron said he’d get the vaccine but not early. Given the development of the vaccines and also who they’ll be distributed to, I don’t see how to get race to work as a variable in this equation. There would have to be strict racial regulation of distribution for race to logically have a role in this decision.
Bitey,
Parallel rather than series is the best explanation I’ve read yet.
Bitey
12/08/2020 @ 11:18 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/11/17/covid-vaccines-what-you-need-to-know/?arc404=true
How were the vaccines made so fast?
Historically, vaccines have taken years to develop. Before these, the mumps vaccine — which took four years to develop — was the fastest to be approved for use in humans. Developing messenger RNA vaccines like the Pfizer and Moderna candidates has been fast because scientists were able to start their work before there was a known case of the novel coronavirus in this country, using the viral genome shared online as a template. Making messenger RNA vaccines does not require time-consuming steps, such as growing ingredients in chicken eggs.
Ron Powell
12/08/2020 @ 11:45 pm
Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine promising, but many questions remain
Pfizer’s vaccine is a new type of technology that’s never been used in mass human vaccination.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine-promising-many-questions-remain-n1247102