They could change out of that cycle now that it's actually scarce... but most of these chip manufacturers are too big to be flexible like that.

I'm not sure but I strongly assume yes.

The MAIN reason for this skepticism is that if it was just possible to introduce RNA such that we could have a net positive benefit against coronavirus, a virus that has existed for almost as long as mammals have, we'd have naturally evolved this ability.

The reason we haven't is because it will introduce more problems than it solves down the line.

It could very well be that with a limited understanding of human immune system, we have stumbled upon a solution to a problem that has affected us for millions of years. So, I think some people should try it. But forcing it on the masses is a terrible idea.

Traditionally, vaccines have been tried out in the poorest countries first... because it's easy to do if all you have to do for masses to show up is bribe the leaders and give hungry people free food. If things go wrong, "they died of hunger" and nobody cares.

This time around, it may be a bit tricky to do that, so it has to be tried out closer to home. The problem is people are not willing to be guinea pigs. Many would rather wait and see: https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/who-wants-be-guinea-pig-h...

So, I think this is just an effort to manufacture consent. "The rich people are willing to pay a lot for it. Are you sure you don't want it?"

I think there is a better way to do it than to give it to doctors and other frontline workers. They're too valuable. The people who are going to get it should be randomly drafted to get it... over and over again until we reach critical mass. Eventually, we should leave out enough people unvaccinated and hence long term effects can be less catastrophic.

But, overall, I think we're better off eating other things.

Confident and wrong people are the ones who will try their ideas out and get it right eventually. Those who are not confident will keep passive learning and planning and get stuck in self-doubt, and hate others for succeeding by just doing things "wrongly".

I think there's a meta DK effect in light of DK effect: those who learn about DK effect and think that it is favorable to them are the ones to whom it doesn't apply favorably to.

Unlike many other toxins plants put in their seeds to protect them, gluten doesn't seem to have been made just for defense. They just came up with a protein to feed their embryos... and turns out it was also toxic to herbivores. Of course, herbivores which co-evolved with these plants evolved ways to digest gluten... but when humans adopted it, we ran into problems.

The good thing is most of these problems can be avoided by not eating what plants don't want us to eat.

I remember VERY SIMILAR stories that started circulating in the news when Chromebooks started to take off.

So, ideally, companies should follow laws of governments they operate in.

But we have seen over and over through history that companies bring their values and disrupt the local culture.

Also, overwhelming amount of people have blind trust on vaccines, thanks to the PR efforts undertaken in the last decades to sell flu shots.

So, many more people will take it than not. Meanwhile, rich people, can either wait and see or lie about taking it.

In all the linked threads, sort comments by "controversial" for obvious reasons.

It's not ethical concerns. It's competition concerns veiled as ethical ones.

Oh, it has been demonstrated to me over and over again. Unfortunately, you may be too much in it to see it. I am in the position to observe from the outside.

>The existence of other ways of controlling population doesn't mean that those other ways are the only way.

Read this part of your comment again, but slowly.

>Not all food chains are controlled by bottom-up trophic cascade.

And where did I imply that it is?

>some are controlled by apex predators and removing apex predators changes the ecosystem, sometimes in ways that result in collapse.

Not really. The very same ecosystem can adapt to changes in predator population or extermination of predator population altogether.

>You're shifting your explanation. Earlier you said that humans could replace apex predators. When I pointed out the problems with that, now you say it can be controlled with bottom up trophic cascade. Is it possible you just don't understand this issue as well as you think?

Or maybe I understand it thoroughly, much more than your limited religious beliefs allow for. The ecosystem can be regulated with or without apex predators. If we remove apex predators, it will still be regulated automatically. We can choose to hunt if we so desire, and it will work differently but it will still work and work well.

>In the real world, the ecosystems are interdependent on other ecosystems and no barriers can be drawn except by choice.

Ever heard of terrariums? Sure, ecosystems may be related because they're open systems. But they don't have to be.

>That doesn't impact on the well-established thesis

What is interesting is that all these "well established" theses only go so far as to comply with Christianity, never further.

>if humans hadn't been destroying species at an astonishing rate over the last 50 years we'd likely also not have COVID-19

I know, right? The children of Adam and Eve continue to disrupt the harmony of Gods creation, so many thousand years later. When will we learn?

Except coronaviruses have been infecting mammals almost as long as mammals have been around.