Think not as a specie, think as an individual

Post Reply New Topic

In the movie Interstellar, the science professor says we must think as a specie.

I disagree, as the COVID-vaccine situation so clearly shows why we should definitely not think as a specie, but rather as individuals:

Say you have X percent risk of catching COVID-19 infection.
You reduce this risk by getting a vaccine, from either AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson (same technology).

But the risk of blood clottings as a direct result of the vaccine with this technology is Y percent.

Now, with the "think-as-a-specie"-philosophy, you might say the overall chances of survival is much better with getting the jab.

I'm using X and Y percent instead of actual figures/numbers, because I don't want this discussion getting hijacked by nitpickers discussing percentages. They are not important, the actual numbers are totally irrelevant to what I'm saying here:

If you're one of the unlucky people who will get blood clottings as a result of vaccine, but happens to stay safe from COVID-19 infection anyway, your chances of survival is much better without vaccine, than with it. In-fact, your chances are 100 % survival of the epidemic, compared to getting the jab which will dramatically reduce your chances of survival, if you're one of the unlucky people getting blood clottings as a side-effect of the vaccine.

This proves the "think-as-an-individual" is much better in this case.

Of course, you can't predict whether you'll get blood clottings as a result of the vaccine, or catch or stay safe from COVID-19 infection. But that's because of lack of information/ignorance, the actual REAL future is real nonetheless, with or without your knowledge.

What I'm saying is that you cannot use statistics to determine your life. Statistics are useless for the individuals. If you get blood clottings from the vaccine, you can't use the statistics saying "but the risk was very low..." - for anything at all!

A) Your post has nothing to do with the issues that the professor in that movie was talking about.
He wasnt talking about "living your life by statistics".

B)Your post backfires, and proves the exact opposite of what it sets out to prove- that stats are meaningless.

Its true that if you get a vaccine (For any disease) you're more likely to die of the vaccine itself than you are to die of the disease that the vaccine seeks to prevent, but....that is only IF...everyone else in society also gets the vaccine.

If EVERYONE refused the vaccine, and no one got one, then the said disease would run rampant, and everyone, including you would likely get the disease, and your chance of dying of the disease would be ramped up to hundreds fold times the rather rare chance that you die of the vaccine itself.

Ergo it shows that you have to consider statistics.

Statistics would apply to large groups of individuals. Probability might work better for an individual. I want to reduce my personal probability of getting sick, of dying, etc.

I think you misunderstand my post. What I'm talking about is the scenario of everyone else but a single individual getting a vaccine.

Being selfish - and being the only selfish person on the entire planet, that is - increases your chances for survival.

I'm turning the argument of statistics and probability of upside down, and prove either extreme is equally valid as an argument.

In case get blood clottings as a result of trying to reduce your overall risk of getting infection, what can you then use probability for - at all?

"The risk of serious side effects was very low" - is useless, if you're amongst the few individuals who just happened to get those serious side effects. In that case, for those individuals (isolated cases), the risk became a certainty.

You can think of it this way:

The chances that you win a $10 Billion lottery is very, very low. But you play the lottery once in a lifetime, and you win.

According to statistics and probabilities, this decision of yours was very foolish, as you could've lost $5 for nothing.

But the reality is, you won. So what counts as foolish - theory or reality?

Statistics and probabilities are only useful if you're re-born in a multiverse. Yes, I'm invoking quantum mechanics where I probably shouldn't but please hear me out:

If the universe is a single deterministic entity only happening once, statistics have no place in the world. At all.

If the universe is part of a multiverse, and your consciousness is somehow "re-born" into an alternative reality (with roughly the same features, body etc.) you can use probabilities, and trying to increase chances and lowering risks.

That will make sense, as what you've lost in this world will be given in the next and over the course of an infinite amount of time, you'll win more than you lose. (edit: But some infinities are larger than others, and in larger infinities, you'll win exactly the same amount as you lose).

But we have - to my current knowledge - no evidence for a multiverse let alone re-birth of consciousness into alternative realities.

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 09 Apr 2021, 3:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Well, this seems like a - somewhat convoluted - attempt at explaining the concepts of ecological fallacies, Bayesian statistics, the Tragedy of the Commons and Schrödinger's Cat... at the same time.

There have been maybe 200-300 cases of blood clotting out of about 20-30 million vaccinations given.

That means, say, that 24,999,700 people who are administered the vaccine won't get blood clots from the vaccine, and 300 will get blood clots, assuming 25 million people were given the vaccine.

I am one who thinks 300 people getting blood clots out of 25 million people is 300 people too many.....but the odds are stacked in any individual person's favor-----except maybe a person who is very much prone to blood clots.

No.
You fail to understand your own post.

A "selfish individual" avoids a fate (a fate about as unlikely as winning a million in the lottery)by deciding to not get a vaccine because everyone else gets a vaccine. And the fact that everyone else gets a vaccine makes the world so extremely safe that one individual has the luxury to make that selfish decision- the luxury of risking catching the disease being less likely than the extremely unlikelyhood of getting blood clots. The actions of everyone else ensure that he has that luxury.

Further - you're dragging "selfishness" into it. I thought that you were talking about "individualism" and not selfishness (supposedly not the same thing).

Further- why did the other millions of folks in society choose to get the vaccine? Not because they are not "selfish", but precisely because they ARE selfish. They dont wanna die of the disease. So they get the vaccine to avoid getting sick, in order to avoid dying. They may be thinking in a more communal ( or species way), but its still "selfish". Enlightened self interest some would say. But they are still being "selfish". But exhibiting selfishness in a different way than your individual who does not get the vaccine. Just like folk bet on different horses at a horse race, or folks invest in different companies in the stock market. Betting on different actions to maximize self interest. Not primarily to be idealistic about society.

Probability is what you're justified in believing based on what you know,not what's actually true. That a low probability event can happen doesn't mean probability should be ignored. If there being a non-zero chance of harm means you shouldn't do something than you its impossible for us to act rationally. You need food and water to survive but there is always a non-zero chance that you will choke to death when you eat or drink.

Yep....there’s always a chance you’ll choke on your food and die.

Would you eschew food for that reason?

Is the basis of the original question: As long as other people aren't selfish mightn't it be in my best interest to be the one selfish person on the planet?

What prevents everyone else from following the same logic and concluding that they should be selfish?

This is only true because we have unknowables: We don't know who will die from serious side effects from the vaccines.

The same applies to the lottery:
I don't play the lottery because I do not know that I will win. I expect that I might lose.

But if I had the 100 % certainty of the future - that is whether I will die from the vaccines or the disease respectively, depending on my choice of action, as well as whether I will win in the lottery, this changes the situation.

The big factor here is lack of knowledge of the future. That is why we must rely on statistics and probabilities, but they are not the optimal way for making decisions. You need complete knowledge and certainty, in order to make a good decision.

Statistics and probabilies are only aproximations. They are not the whole story.

Well...duhhhhhhhh!! !! !!

Obviously.

But since none of us are psychic we cant know the future with certainty so thats why we play the odds.