The Downfall of Sam Harris

His latest excuses for advocating vaccine mandates

What has happened to Sam Harris? I used to enjoy watching his debates with other scientists but since Trump and Covid, it is a struggle to listen to him anymore.

But I have listened to him again, on his latest appearance on the ‘Impact Theory’ podcast.

In this latest episode, Sam Harris says that in retrospect it seems true that it was wrong to force people to get the mRNA vaccines. However, he says if you change a few of the variables, your ethical and political intuitions would totally change. These include:

• Sterilising vaccines - Make it a much more obviously effective vaccine, that really does block transmission. Furthermore, it’s truly safe with not even one documented case of vaccine injury;

• Dial up the deadliness of the pathogen - Make it a much more dangerous virus, e.g. airborne Ebola with a 75% mortality rate, that incubates for a month so you don’t know you have it - a virus that is preferentially killing kids rather than old people.

Harris says, with these new variables, you deciding not to get vaccinated is putting his kids at risk. He asks, do you get to make that choice? Because he doesn’t think so.

“Literally, the cops come in and vaccinate you”

Sam thinks all of us would agree to his suggestions if the variables above changed. And with a truly safe vaccine “you would have to be completely crazy to be worried about being vaccinated”.

It’s a no brainer, Harris says, we just don’t tolerate a diversity of opinions because the stakes are too high.

Sam says he has these opinions because he is worried about a world where the truth is really clear but yet our media environment is so crazy we can’t talk about it.

He then conflates issues and talks about QAnon and that the US had a President that messaged QAnon favourably. He says a hard core of about 3 million people believe the world is being run by child-raping cannibals. Harris says if that is possible in our current system, you have to imagine what that would do when the stakes are truly high - when it’s part of the machinery of some decision making.

Where I hold the line with the first amendment is, yes, you should be able to be as wrong as you want to be but we don’t have to algorithmically boost those errors.

Throughout the pandemic, Harris' opinions have stirred significant controversy, often appearing detached from ground realities. Here, he crafts an extreme hypothetical scenario seemingly just to rationalise his past responses.

A notable illustration of Harris' flawed reasoning is his proposition that even in a hypothetical situation where a vaccine offers 100% protection to his children, he would still be wary of the unvaccinated. This viewpoint is not only contradictory but also creates unnecessary divisions.

Drawing upon the hypothetical of a highly infectious disease like airborne Ebola, it's evident that the sheer devastation would drive people to seek vaccinations without the need for any mandates. If you see 75% of your friends and family dying, you don’t need the cops to come in and tie you down, you’ll probably give anything a shot.

Harris' apparent conviction that he and a select inner circle hold exclusive access to the truth is particularly troubling. This belief, manifested in his support for measures like forced vaccinations, implies a dangerous assumption: that he and his associates alone possess the wisdom to decide at what fatality rate individuals should relinquish their personal freedoms.

Moreover, Harris' inability to recognise and learn from his past mistakes during the pandemic is concerning. No one expects infallibility, but the unwillingness to admit past errors raises questions about his capacity for introspection and humility. These oversights not only tarnish his reputation but also make it difficult for the public to trust his subsequent pronouncements.

Furthermore, the refusal of Harris and like-minded individuals to consider alternative perspectives or non-mainstream sources is a testament to their closed-mindedness. Such an insular approach paints them as self-appointed gatekeepers of "true" information, especially when they appear to endorse or benefit from the algorithmic suppression of differing viewpoints. This strategy not only stifles discourse but also erodes public trust.

This is why technocracies are such a bad idea. Allowing governments to pick their favourite scientists to tell us the truth has always, and will always, lead to bad things.

Lastly, the inclination of many intellectuals, including Harris, towards what many perceive as dystopian overreach is alarming. It underscores the delicate balance of our societal structure. Even a minor disturbance can embolden those who, under the guise of intellectual superiority, might aim to dictate terms to the larger populace.

The whole episode can be watched below. The comments I refer to above are made at 1:44:45.