Tag: COVID-19

The COVID-19 Pandemic: 2023

crimson

I’ve been talking a lot about change and adaptability of late. My posts have had an edge of depression and of hopelessness. Perhaps. I suppose it depends on who reads it and their own interpretations. I just know that some out there have reached out to me to ask how I am doing. I am surviving. I am getting by. But it has certainly be challenging.

I decided to re-read my very first post, made back in May of 2020. Near the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Just so we are clear, the pandemic is still ongoing. It has not ended. It has not concluded. It is still ongoing. So I might consider this an update of the present state of things. After about three and a half years, what has changed? How good a job did I do at predicting the future?

Turns out my words from back then are still very much applicable. In my own opinion, what I saw at the beginning is still very much what has and is still happening today. The pandemic is still not really about a disease. It is about a change. It is about exposing the world in ways that ought to have helped progress humanity forward. Unfortunately, I was also correct about there only being a few who seem to have taken the hint and tried to do something about it. Because it seems like the majority of people have simply dug deeper holes in the sand to stick their heads into.

As I said back then, the problems and issues in the world are not new. Scarcity of resources is not new. The critical need of reducing and reusing is even more apparent now than it was at the beginning. In fact, it seems like the problems are actually getting worse. There are less and less people doing stuff, and more and more people demanding stuff. Less people generating those products and offering those services, and more people wanting and needing to purchase those products that do not exist, and begging for those services that there is no one to provide.

As a basic example, healthcare in Canada. There is a shortage of doctors. Again, this is not new. There was a shortage of doctors since before 2020. But now, with all that has happened, that shortage has become worse. Burn out and inequity has taken its toll, and there is less interest in working in that field. Why subject yourself to the torture and abuse? It just isn’t worth it. Especially if you are concerned with your own mental health and well being.

Speaking of mental health, it has come to light that perhaps I should be assessed properly and officially for autism. My mother used to tell everyone I had Asperger syndrome when I was a child. The description fit, and still does: high-functioning, intelligent, socially awkward, clumsy. I was, and still am, all of these things. But over time, I also learned other tricks to conceal any perceived weaknesses I might have. Camouflaging is a term used to describe it. How, through years of observation of others, I learned to present myself as normal, to reduce the troubles I frequently had, especially socially.

My partner has started calling me neurodivergent. It is clear I do not think or feel as others do. I am not normal with regard to thinking and feeling. I certainly do not present the same as others. This has been an ongoing complaint in my relationships. I do not get excited about the same things most get excited about, and even when I do get excited, I don’t present the way most do. I am suppressed, or muted. Perhaps that is in part due to the drugs I was on about 15 years ago to deal with a bipolar diagnosis.

This is a bit of a tangent from where I started, but I assure you it is relevant. Like with so many other things, this part of who I am has been exposed and has become harder and harder to ignore. The pandemic has revealed this aspect of me, and I am having to face it and deal with it now, when for so many years before I was able to pretend it did not exist.

In my youth, the very idea I might have such conditions was abhorrent. It would suggest I was somehow lesser. And in my attempts to present as normal, such diagnoses would clearly influence the ways people would look at me. As much as I could, I had to BE normal, lest others would treat me with disdain. For me, that was a rocky road. It took a lot to get to where I am today.

But I am still that same little boy at heart too. I still have the same challenges I did in my youth. I still lock up with deception and lying. I still shy from social interactions. I still wear a mask all the time. Sure, I’ve developed an incredibly large toolbox of coping mechanisms and formalized presentation schemes to hide in plain sight. But what remains beneath has always been there. Continues to be there. And my partner, in that she is the closest person to me, has been in the privileged (and perhaps captive) position to see what others do not.

Like I say about the rest of the world, I too cannot ignore what has always been there. I cannot simply pretend these things do not exist and do as I did before 2020. The world has changed. I have changed. My masks are not working like they used to. I am having a harder and harder time of hiding in plain sight.

And so, I ought to take my own advice. I ought to be more adaptable and flexible. I ought to change with the times. I ought to accept myself as I am and find a way to reconcile that.

To be clear, I’m not looking for a hand out. I’m not looking for beneficial treatment. I’ve never wanted these things. However, I do find myself in need of assistance more and more as well. Facing challenges I do not know how to face. Overcoming hurdles I am unable to overcome. In part because the world has become so much more difficult to navigate. Because I cannot ignore that which was always there.

As much as when I wrote it over three years ago, I still believe the pandemic is not about a virus. The lasting effects of the pandemic are not about infections or diseases. What is important, what I believe people ought to be paying attention to, is the fact that all the weaknesses in our world, in our societies, in our cultures, are much easier to see now. Those problems we’ve tried to ignore and dismiss can no longer be ignored or dismissed.

The world is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. In part because people continue to dig those deeper holes, trying ever harder to pretend the problems don’t exist. Trying very hard to simply continue doing the same error-ridden things they were doing before 2020. Pining for the times of yore. Because it is those things that are causing the very problems we have to face. The times of yore are the source of our problems today. The solutions our forebears came to came with a price, and we in these future generations are expected to pay that price. Whether we like it or not.

COVID-19

crimson

The pandemic is not over. I have had a very direct reminder of this fact; I tested positive for COVID-19. It is not pleasant. In my case, fatigue and chills have been the most severe. I did not need to go to the hospital. My partner is ever patient and caring to attend to me. We think perhaps she was infected previously…

At a time when virtually all restrictions are being lifted in my part of the world. Where those around me are behaving as though there is nothing happening. No pandemic at least. Trying desperately to return to “normal.” For them, I think “normal” means back to the way things were.

But not just prepandemic times; not just back to 2019. I think they are referring to some imagined glory days that supposedly existed in some indeterminate history, when men were men and woman were good wives. A time when wealthy, privileged, white men ruled over everything, and everyone else did as they were told.

I see glimpses of this mentality in the likes of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. People who are unhappy with how things are in the world and wish them to be more hospitable to their own desires. To be able to play golf all day or ride horses. Not having to worry about where their next meal will come from, or whether they will have access to doctors should they be infected with some rampant disease. To be carefree and unaccountable to their own actions.

At least, this is what it looks like to me. From my vantage point, I can see very little. While I do believe there is something horrible happening in Ukraine presently, I cannot deny the possibility that it is all simply orchestrated for my benefit. The possibility exists, though the possibility seems incredibly remote.

I watch the world from my home. I watch the world through my television, both the broadcast shows and those streamed online. My television is my computer monitor. All that I see could be fabricated, as if I were Truman Burbank himself. The only things I can really be confident about are my partner and this room.

And this illness. I can have confidence that I feel like absolute crap.

The pandemic is not over. I’ve heard there may be a new variant on the horizon. Another disease trying to wipe us out. Perhaps it is time to stop being afraid and take our chances.

A World of Illusions

crimson

I started another post a week ago. It was about simulation, as it relates to the topic of simulacra. I hope to finish it at some point and continue that discussion. However, I may need to readdress the topic of simulacra at the same time, as I think my interpretation may still be problematic. That all said, personal life reared its ugly head, and that is why I’m only getting back to writing now.

As I get older, and hopefully wiser, I understand many things that I did not understand in my youth. I see things I could not see before. Those concerns I had as a child have not gone away. Instead, I can recognize them more, seeing the fine edges; the sharp edges.

We are still amid a global pandemic. To be clear, it may be well beyond a year, but the pandemic is still going strong. The COVID-19 virus is still running rampant through most populations. So why doesn’t it feel like it anymore? At least, it doesn’t to me. You see, where I live, cases are down pretty low. In my community, if anyone happens to be infected right now, they are not spreading it.

The local university students have been particularly problematic in this regard. There are restrictions and rules governing people’s behaviors and actions. For example, there are not supposed to be groups of more than 50 people congregating outside. So when those students hold gatherings in excess of 8000 people, there are concerns. They didn’t do this just once either. They held similar outdoor gathers over the course of two consecutive weekends. As the pandemic is ongoing, this should worry me, shouldn’t it?

I am concerned, because a group of people are voluntarily breaking this rule. A rule in place to protect the community from a virus. However, now that these parties have concluded, there has not been a significant increase in cases. The fear that large groups will “cause” an outbreak seem unfounded. Breaking the rule seems to have had no serious consequences.

It is possible we are all simply lucky. If there is no one infected among the 8000, then of course there will be no transmission. But then why the rule? The rule is in place “just in case.” If there were people infected, then the probability of infecting others goes up dramatically if people are congregating in these large groups. The rule is not in place to prevent a certain event, only a possible one.

It gets better. The reason many of these rules were implemented at the outset of the pandemic declaration were to give time for our various health care systems to prepare. That is, it takes time to train medical workers and care givers, to create beds and equipment, to make space for the grievously ill. The rules were in place not to prevent the spread of disease entirely, only to slow it. It has been over a year; have the appropriate preparations been made?

In my part of the world, the short answer is no. No preparations have been made. The health care system is firing on the same four cylinders it was at the beginning. Some new equipment has found its way into their hands, but that equipment is by and large disposable. No new staff. No new beds. No new space. What happened?

In truth, I don’t know. I’ve been trying to get by like so many others, primarily focused on myself and my family. My area of expertise is not medical, and neither is my partner’s. We do our part, following the rules and not requiring the health care system to attend to us. But we don’t contribute to that system directly either.

It seems to me that the current rules I am asked to exist under were created with the intention of buying time for society to prepare. However, the time to prepare has passed. Those decision makers appear to have confused rules to delay for rules to protect. That is, these current rules were not intended to prevent the spread of disease, only slow it down. But it seems like decision makers seem to think that the rules will prevent disease. The rules are no longer serving the purpose they were intended to serve.

Are we, as a society, expected to remain at home indefinitely? The decision makers will suggest this is not the case. Of course no one is being expected to remain at home indefinitely. In fact, we need people to get back to work (as the supply chain crisis is making clear). However, I am receiving conflicting information in this regard. Don’t congregate in large groups, for fear of spreading a disease, but do congregate in groups at work (as is necessary) to maintain the continuance of our consumerist society. So which is it?

There is no straight or simple answer here. This is a pandemic, and the truth is there is no cure. We cannot stop the disease. COVID-19 (and its various variants) will continue to be a part of our world indefinitely. I imagine these viruses will continue to exist in some form even when I am much, much older than now. Probably even beyond my expiry date.

What seems important now is not to perpetuate false hopes and insincere mandates. Not to become seduced by rule worship, where we all simply follow rules blindly for the sake of those same rules. The rules ought to be rules for a reason. If there is a rule commanding me to remain at home, there ought to be a logical and sound reason for me to remain at home. Not simply “stay home because the rules says so.” Something like “stay home because it will protect others from infection.” However, if that happens to be the reason to follow the rule, and no one in my community is infected, then the rule is serving no actual purpose.

The last point I wish to make here is with regard to the vaccinations and lethality. That is, do the vaccines serve their purpose? Are people who are vaccinated actually protected from being infected. The short answer is no. There are many people who have been fully vaccinated who have ended up in the hospital with serious, life threatening conditions. Having said that, the number of vaccinated people who end up in hospital is much, much less than the number of unvaccinated people. So vaccination does seem to provide some protection, and so yes, people ought to get vaccinated for that reason.

But what about lethality? That is, does being vaccinated reduce the probability of fatality? Evidence seems to suggest so. Those who are vaccinated are dying less than those who are not vaccinated. I know how statistics work, so I am well aware of the various ways this can be delineated. Yes, if you look at the proportion of total deaths, and then look at how many were vaccinated people and how many were not, you will see that the number of vaccinated people dying has certainly increased since the beginning of the pandemic. But that only makes sense because there were NO vaccinated people at the beginning of the pandemic, and now there are tons of vaccinated people. It only stands to reason that the number of vaccinated people dying will increase as there is an increase in the number of people vaccinated.

So what am I saying then? What I am saying is that OF the number of people who are vaccinated, the percentage of them that die is less than OF the number of unvaccinated people, the percentage of them that die. In other words, if you are vaccinated, the probability of you dying as a result of COVID-19 is much less than if you are unvaccinated. Meaning, remaining unvaccinated increases your risk of dying as a result of infection. Conversely, being vaccinated decreases your risk of dying as a result of infection. There is also evidence to suggest that being vaccinated may reduce the probability of becoming infected, but that evidence is less clear.

What I am getting at here is that, purely from an egoist perspective, it is in my own interest to be vaccinated, as it reduces the probability of me dying as a result of infection, if I happen to get infected. Furthermore, if I follow the current rules, I am also less likely to become infected, as I am staying at home and not interacting with other people. In other words, if I remain a hermit who has been vaccinated, I will have a very, very small risk of dying.

Unfortunately, this is where the egoist argument ends, because if we all are egoists, nothing will get done. That is, if I remain at home, I am not producing any products or providing any services. I am not working. All those lovely luxuries I take for granted have to come from somewhere. My running water. My electricity. My food. It is through the efforts of people that all these things happen. So some people will have to go to work and not remain at home being hermits. Some people will have to throw themselves into the line of fire.

In our modern world, it is often suggested that equality ought to be considered very important. That is, everyone ought to be treated equally. This is what is meant by Human Rights: if you are human, then you are entitled to these rights. If we all are entitled to these same rights, then in that way we are expected to be equal. For example, no one ought to be forced to throw themselves into the line of fire. If one voluntarily does so, that is their choice and we can commend them and thank them for doing so. But no one ought to be forced to do so…

So this ends up being about freedom. That people ought to be allowed the freedom to choose for themselves if they want to sacrifice themselves for the good of society. In North American societies, where consumerism and capitalism are greatly valued, where egoism is commonplace, who do we expect to sacrifice themselves? And, over time, if all those who sacrifice themselves eventually die off as a result of infection, all that will remain will be the egoists who remain at home, slowly dying as a result of lack of food.

As I see it, this is one ridiculously messy situation. The problem, it seems to me, is that our currently established culture and value system is of concern. The rules of society are the problem. Not just the rules themselves, but how those rules are established. Even how the decision makers are decided upon. The decision makers are the egoists. The “common people” are being forced to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the egoists. The wealthy and powerful remain at home (because they can) and ask those who cannot stay at home (the common people) to sacrifice themselves in order to perpetuate a society that is in slow decline and ruin.

The problem is class. The problem is wealth. The problem is… Me… I am the problem. For I see all of this. I worry about all of this. I have a skillset that employs me such that it does not require me to embed myself within the masses of people out in society. Don’t get me wrong, I am far from wealthy. And I am not a decision maker. But I have sufficient wealth to be able to get by safely.

I am down a rather deep rabbit hole presently. I often feel like there is no point to any of this. This world where we are all like hamsters on the big wheel, running very very fast and getting nowhere. But it isn’t like the hamster wheel, because we are not actually going nowhere, we seem to be going backward.

Everything we do simply makes the situation worse. Every problem we solve generates several more problems that need to be solved (and sometimes these new problems are much, much worse than the original problem). No one really benefits, though there is a minority out there that are certainly more comfortable than the rest of us.

I was once told a story about robots, constructed to perform mining operations on other planets. The robots mine ores and other materials, and then use those materials to create more mining robots. It is a practice of efficiency, where the population of mining robots grows, allowing them to mine materials faster over time. This all sounds lovely, but the question I would pose is “why?” Eventually, the robots will be so plentiful and the planets to mine so few, until there are no planets left. Then what? It is a pointless venture. And what do we do with all the robots at the end?

I was taught in philosophy that I ought to present an alternative before I criticize something. If I think the current system is bad (for whatever reason), I ought to offer an alternative system to be used in its place. The truth is, I have several. However, each of these alternatives is considered outrageous and unreasonable. For example, one of my alternatives during this pandemic is that the health care system ought to prioritize people who are vaccinated over those who are not. In fact, I would suggest that the health care system turn aware the unvaccinated entirely.

This requires some further explanation. It has been over a year since the pandemic began. It has been over six months since vaccines have been made available to the populations (at least in my part of the world). Those who support the existing system have had ample opportunity to get themselves vaccinated. Most of them have in fact been vaccinated at this point. The majority of those who remain unvaccinated have done so by their own choice. This entire situation is an expression of people’s freedom.

It is the health care system that has made vaccination possible. It is the health care system that has urged the populations to get vaccinated, in order to alleviate the preventable stress on the health care system itself. Getting vaccinated amounts to supporting or “buying into” the health care system. In other words, those who choose to get vaccinated are choosing to support the health care system. Conversely, those who choose not to get vaccinated are choosing not to support the health care system. If someone isn’t supporting the health care system, then why is the health care system supporting them?

The health care system is like insurance. Not everyone who purchases insurance ends up using insurance. It is a way for a group of people to work together toward assisting individuals. If everyone “buys into” insurance, then those few who need to use insurance coverage will have much more resources available to support their need. In the case of health care, if everyone “buys into” health care, those few individuals who need support can receive much better, and more expensive, support. This all works ONLY if most people who are supporting the system do not need to receive from that system. If everyone who buys in also needs support, then the system breaks down and each individual would be better off supporting themselves (generally, there still may be good reason to support such a system in order to equalize the support for those who are able to buy in less than others).

In our present situation, we have a large number of people supporting the health care system by getting vaccinated. We also have a significant number of people choosing not to support the health care system by not getting vaccinated. We also have a group of people who would like to get vaccinated but are unable (mostly small children at this point). What I suggest is that those who actively choose not to get vaccinated ought to be turned away by the very system they are not supporting. We don’t give insurance support to individuals who did not buy insurance, so why should this be any different?

The obvious controversy in this scenario is that it amounts to allowing thousands of people to simply die. (Also, the logistical nightmare in implementing such a process is likely untenable.) The value system we seem to have adopted is one suggesting that we do not allow humans to die. (I know people think we have adopted a system where all life is precious, but to them I suggest you start by investigating where your food comes from.) Thus, in order to implement this alternative solution, it would require a shifting in our current value system. We would have to reduce the prioritization of human life.

Is this a good solution? I’m sure many would think not. But I would point out that our current system, the manner in which we have already been running, thousands of people are already dying. Changing to this alternative system would likely not change the numbers of people dying (certainly not in the short term); it would really only change which people were dying. It would effectively reduce the lifespan of those who do not support the system.

Weaknesses in the Freedom Argument

crimson

Recently, I witnessed an Anti-Vaccine Protest. I have often observed at these protests recurring themes and recurring arguments that are meant to support their cause. It is often claimed that they are “Critical Thinkers” and that their logic and reason lead them to conclude that taking a vaccine is a bad idea. Further to this, they will often argue that it restricts their right to freedom if they are coerced or forced to get vaccinated. With the pandemic still going strong, there seem to be many such protests going on.

In this post, I will discuss what I will refer to as the “Freedom Argument,” the argument that suggests getting vaccinated (or being coerced or forced to get vaccinated) goes against their right to freedom. To begin, I will need to clarify what those presenting this argument mean by freedom.

On this website, I have spoken about freedom and free will at length. My understanding of freedom typically relates to an idea of unpredictability; something that is not a part of causal chains of events, like and uncaused cause perhaps. The Freedom Argument’s version of freedom is very different than my understanding.

Having listened to many discussions from protesters, it is my belief that what they mean by freedom is more akin to their perceived right to be able to act as they desire without being restricted in those acts. That is, if one wishes to eat ice cream, they ought to be able to eat ice cream, and that if anyone interferes with that desire, they are restricting the person’s freedom to eat ice cream. With this understanding, freedom would seem to be intimately related to egoism and hedonism, as it seems intimately tied with one’s desires.

In the first case of egoism, I am suggesting that an individual is acting in a self-interested manner. In the case of the Freedom Argument, one is intended to be free to act in self-interested ways. To prevent an individual from pursuing self-interested actions, one is restricting that individual’s freedom. The Freedom Argument will suggest that this is a bad thing.

In the second case of hedonism, I am suggesting that an individual is pursuing fulfillment of their desires, especially pleasure. In the case of the Freedom Argument, one is intended to be free to pursue their own desires and pleasures. To prevent an individual from pursuing their pleasures, one is restricting that individual’s freedom. Again, the Freedom Argument will suggest this is a bad thing.

There is often one additional caveat that is added to the Freedom Argument, though it may be unspoken in many cases. The idea that to pursue one’s desires and self-interest is considered acceptable (and even desirable) in all circumstances, so long as it does not infringe upon the freedom of others. That is, if my action affects only me and no one else (in any significant way), then I ought to be free to pursue that action without restriction. To put this another way, if my action will not cause any negative effects on those around me, there is no reason for others to restrict my action.

It is this last point that muddles up most of the argument, I think. To be self-interested and to pursue one’s desires within and of themselves seems unproblematic. It may even be argued that all people are already self-interested and pursuing their desires presently. There are complicated arguments that suggest helping others is simply a pathway to self-interestedness and that such actions may, in fact, lead to individual pleasure. However, in the pursuit of desire and pleasure, especially in our modern world, it is frequently incumbent to make others suffer.

I imagine the last statement I made will be met with a great deal of resistance. One might suggest that the act of eating ice cream, for example, causes no suffering to any one. However, I would raise the question of how one might gain the opportunity to eat ice cream. The ice cream must be generated by some means. Someone will have to milk a cow, or similar mammal, accumulate the dairy product, process it, reduce its temperature, mix in other ingredients, (these other ingredients will have their own story to tell regarding how they come about as well), stored, presented, sold, prepared, and numerous other activities. My point is that the process behind the generation of ice cream is quite long and complicated. There are many things one might consider along the path of that process, including the well-being of the cow (or other mammal), the people who partake of each step of the process, and the eventual process of acquisition. Are we so certain that no one in that entire process suffered so that one might enjoy ice cream?

In our modern consumerist world (at least the part of the world where I reside), it may be suggested that working toward the production of a product does not count as suffering. After all, the people partaking of the process of manufacture are provided compensation for their labours. While I might agree that some people may truly enjoy their work and receive arguably appropriate compensation for that work, I have often observed that this is not the case. That many people are not very happy with their employment situations, and that the conditions in which they work under are less than ideal. Furthermore, compensation is frequently much less than what those people deserve. This last point, I admit, is my opinion; there is no objective measure of valuation that one can rely upon to ensure that compensation for labour is fair.

My ice cream example does, I admit, seem a little taxed. If the cow is sustainably and ethically farmed, if the farmer and his family are happy, if everyone in every step of the process is not unduly taxed during the process, it seems unproblematic for one to eat ice cream in a manner that does not cause suffering. Can the same be said regarding all other aspects of our lives? Are our clothes all so easily manufactured? Or our homes? Or our smartphones?

It might seem I have gone off on a tangent here, but I assure you I have not. Those individuals who participate in the process that eventually results in the shoes you place on your feet are frequently unable to exercise their freedom in the manner I have outlined above. Their suffering is a result of poor working conditions as well and a severe lack of appropriate compensation. In some cases, they may even be forced to work, not having any other live options. Similar situations occur in most aspects of Western Society. There is a great disconnect between those who utilize products and services, and the sources of those same products and services. The greater the disconnect, the less likely one may feel the associations that exist between their actions and the consequences of their actions.

This all may seem quite preachy and contrived, so I will provide a much, much simpler example that I observed during the protest that I referred to at the outset of this article. During the protest, one of the protesters had a megaphone and decided to exercise his freedom by walking down the middle of a busy street. Through the megaphone, he indicated that he was exercising his freedom to walk upon the street, and that if anyone were to prevent him from doing so, they would be restricting his freedom. It was his way of presenting his evidence of his Freedom Argument.

Unfortunately, there resulted a long line up of cars behind him as he walked. Numerous vehicles, occupied by numerous individuals, who were simply trying to exercise their freedom to drive on the street. The protester’s actions, while possibly a manifestation of his own freedom, incurred the suffering of others. Was his freedom somehow more valuable or important than the freedom of the drivers on the street?

In our world, we often live within societies with laws and rules. Those laws and rules are, I think, intended to provide a vehicle for cooperation between people, as well as an opportunity to allow each participant in the rules to manifest a limited freedom. That is to say, it required quite a cooperative effort by many, many individuals to produce the street that the protester and drivers all were trying to use. No one person owns that street; it belongs to all those who helped build it, which included all the tax payers. With the street being essentially a shared resource, coming up with a set of rules to govern its use seems a fair way to ensure that all those who partook of its creation can all enjoy its use. (I will admit that the precise nature of the laws and rules may require some adjustment to ensure fairness across all individuals, but the idea of having laws and rules I do not think is in dispute).

The protester walking down the middle of the street infringes on the rules of the street’s use, namely the protester is “jaywalking.” By choosing to break the agreed upon rule governing the use of the street, the protester is suggesting that his freedom to walk down the street, in spite of the rules, is more important or more valuable than the freedom of those driving their vehicles on the street.

Ultimately the point I am trying to make is that the exercising of a freedom by one, often restricts the freedom of others, unless the freedom being exercised somehow does not affect others. In the case of a pandemic and vaccination, the purpose of vaccination is to collectively provide defensive measures to mitigate the spread of the virus. When individuals decide not to get vaccinated, they are not only affecting themselves, they are affecting everyone around them with their choice. Their decision to exercise their freedom and not get vaccinated actually restricts the freedom of others, including those who chose to get vaccinated.

The largest weakness of the Freedom Argument, in my opinion, is the lack of consideration of others. For me to be free, others must have their freedom restricted. A better argument might suggest that we are all not entirely free, but free in a limited capacity. I allow my freedom to be restricted in a small way, and you do as well, such that we both can share a similar level of freedom. A compromise of a sort. It seems to me to be better that we all share a limited freedom, than for some to hold onto an unrestricted freedom while many receive no freedom at all.

Reflections on the Pandemic

crimson

Progress has been made with the pandemic. Both progress by humans in attempts to defeat the virus, and by the virus in finding ways not to be defeated. Humans have generated several vaccines to combat the spread of the original virus, having been brought to the public with “unprecedented” speed. However, many mutations of the original strain have been identified as well, and those vaccines have been effective only partially in dealing with the mutations. The war rages on.

With all that has been going on, I have continued to be on lockdown. I’ve been cooped up at home for approximately 10 months now. That’s a long time to be told you need to stay at home. My wife and I have been suffering the effects of staying at home for so long, with depression and melancholy topping the list of side effects. It’s hard to know what to do in this situation. Should we continue to be the good citizens we have been, listening to the authority figures and remaining at home? Or should we revolt and return to how things were before the pandemic, going out and enjoying our lives again? This debate reminds me of the first post I made to this blog, and so I have read it again. Link here.

In that post, I presented my opinion regarding the pandemic. That what ought to be recognized was not a health crisis but a systemic crisis. That humans have been ignoring the significant problems and issues of society for a long time, and the pandemic has simply thrust those problems and issues into the spotlight. There were definitely sparks of promise out there over the past 10 months. Black Lives Matter protests. Hope for climate change issues with the clearing of waters in places like Venice, Italy. And even more recently, economic turmoil as hedge fund managers, having been manipulating the markets for years, have been highlighted by large numbers of Reddit users who have cooperated as amateur investors to beat those managers at their own game. It seems to me that it is clear as day what is going on; what has been going on for decades and even centuries. And others must have seen what I see too, as they have clearly taken action.

I hold onto hope that things will change. But there is a lot of evidence that things will not change as well. Particularly with regard to many countries’ approaches to the corona virus. Specifically, their banking on vaccines to solve the problem. It seems to me that many countries have simply spent their time focused on stop-gap or band-aid solutions for now—such as lockdowns, mask wearing, and social distancing—instead of working on long term systemic changes to attend to their populations—such as considering things like universal basic income, or even simply forcing the hyper wealthy to provide support to the world’s people in this time of great need. This last point is one I feel rather strongly about.

According to traditional capitalism, it is important to allow everyone their freedom to pursue their projects. Those who’s projects are good projects, and who are able to do a good job in pursuing those projects, will receive the benefits of their choices, amassing great wealth and power. Unfortunately, those who’s projects are not good projects, or who are unable to do a good job in pursuing good projects, will suffer. Technically, those who suffer are unfit for their world as such, and as per Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, will eventually die out, their genetics lost to time. This is the idea, at any rate. And during a pandemic, this formula still holds as true. Simply look at how much more wealth the hyper wealthy have amassed on the shoulders of the world’s people, who suffer and die as they are instructed to remain at home without the supports or resources to do so effectively.

I think upon what I learned about ancient Greek and Roman societies. Especially Roman. Where the name of the game was patron-client relations. It was fairly simple actually: those who were wealthy and powerful were the patrons, while those who were not as wealthy or powerful were the clients. The job of the clients was to do what the patrons wanted, often through labor. But the patrons also had a job too, to support their clients. No one was off the hook. It was the patrons who funded and organized the celebrations, set about the construction of buildings, and handled the politics and military. In other words, those who were wealthy spent their time not on the accumulation of more wealth (though increasing wealth did occur as a result of their actions), but instead spent their wealth on attracting followers and pleasing the people, their clients.

In ancient Greece, when it wasn’t yet called Greece, warlords and generals didn’t simply command obedient and loyal troops. They had to persuade those soldiers to follow them through the offering of benefits. As one without wealth, I might only be able to offer my service and labour, but I still could decide who to offer those things to. If a particular warlord wasn’t offering much in the way of benefits, my loyalty would likely wane as I pursued other avenues toward my own benefits.

It could be argued that these things still exist today. A large company with no loyal customers will not be a large company for long. However, as has been demonstrated time and again over the past couple decades at least, when a large company is large enough, they can receive a “bail out” when they may be in trouble. The “bail out” is assembled through the use of taxpayer money, which ultimately means that the large company has acquired the funds from the people whether the people liked it or not. In other words, the people, who’s service and labour should be up to them to decide where and how it is utilized, has been stripped of their freedom to choose. The large company has simply usurped the wealth from those who have no wealth. Sounds much like some tales of the Sheriff of Knottingham.

I have ranted on long enough for today. I hope my point is clear. Not much has changed since my first post. The pandemic is still a problem and is still revealing the cracks in the systems of our societies. We still have the opportunity to address those issues, however challenging such changes may be. It is unclear to me whether changes are actually coming or not, but I still have hope. And I’m not banking on a vaccine to bail me out.

On a more personal note

crimsonLeave a comment

I know that my posts are generally pretty reflective, but this time, I’m really going to speak from the heart. You may already notice this post is occurring at a very unusual time. I even missed my last “scheduled” post. With the pandemic raging, and especially with the looming presidential election in the United States of America (USA), frankly, I’m exhausted and a bit depressed.

It’s really hard staying at home so much. It isn’t even just that I’m staying at home either. Most people seem to be. There isn’t as much socializing. There isn’t as much getting out and doing stuff. I leave the house and avoid people, like the plague. That saying holds substantially more meaning presently. “Like the plague” is precisely what it is. We are treating the pandemic “like the plague,” being all paranoid and critical of nearness. I was never that fond of simple handshaking. Other people’s grimy hands “infecting” my own. I often would seek out a nearby washroom to wash my hands after hand shakes if I could. But now, I miss that simple act. I miss contact.

I am very privileged and lucky. I have a partner and she takes really good care of me. I try my hardest not to be a burden on her, but sometimes I think she wishes I would be more of a burden. I support her projects; I want her to truly express her freedom; I want her to be able to demonstrate full personhood. However, I think she believes I am doing all of this at my own expense. I try to tell her I am not, but she doesn’t really believe me.

I am an Earth sign. I don’t really hold much weight in astrological stuff, but in this case it really does fit. I am slow and patient. As I get older, I get even slower and even more patient even. During this pandemic, I’ve been looking for a job, and while it is always disappointing when my calls are not returned, I am still very patient for the opportunities that eventually do come. I am not unhappy presently. Perhaps a bit melancholy, and possibly a little depressed, but I’m not unhappy. I’ve been unhappy in the past; this is definitely not that.

My life, like so many other people’s lives, has been turned on its head. I am treading in unfamiliar territory. And this experience has been more enlightening than I’d ever have expected. I stay at home most days, cleaning the house and tidying up. I do dishes. I do laundry (a little, I’m not trusted with the delicates yet). I even cook a little too, though I worry my meals will not be as well received as hers are. I am very much domestic now. And I’m starting to realize the primary issue with women’s lot.

To be clear, I am not regarded as a woman. I never lived a woman’s or a girl’s life. I am unfamiliar with all those details and experiences. But I feel like my present experience is giving me a taste of it. The stereotypical duties of the housewife. Spend your time at home doing all those duties at home. There is plenty to do. It is always surprising to me how much work there is to do around the house. There is just so much. So much to do that I am barely able to do the things I want/need to do. That is, as a man, I have often thought that certain tasks and activities were important. And, of course, when I have completed those tasks, I felt like my work was done, and I had earned a break to watch television or play a video game. But I am realizing how wrong I was.

The work is never done. Tasks are endless. You can clean some dishes, but there are more five minutes later. Clean the clothes, and there are more clothes already in need of washing. Vacuum, and collect some of the dust and debris, but miss so much more. It doesn’t matter what I do, I can never do enough. I can never complete a task. All I can do is abate the inevitable. But it is still more than that. Because all these sorts of tasks take me away from other tasks I often think are more important, like applying for jobs, or socializing with friends, or writing blog posts. Are these things really more important? I wonder sometimes. I wonder more and more these days.

I think on all this, and I realize something. This is slavery. This is an inability to express freedom; an inability to pursue one’s projects fully. I am performing all these duties at the expense of those duties I may want to perform. My choice is getting lost. At first, it made me angry and upset. But I realize now that it is simply another revealing of a truth. When my wife takes care of me, performing all these functions and so much more, so that I can sit on the couch and write a blog post like this, she is accepting her own slavery. She is giving up her own freedom in order to allow me mine.

It reminds me of something Aristotle wrote, which at the moment I cannot find. I believe it was part of his discussion in his Politics. He suggested that for philosophers to be able to do philosophy, others had to do the other work that needed to be done. That one needed to be free from the duties of every day life, like cooking and cleaning, in order to be able to contemplate and think on things. I believe this was part of his conclusions related to natural slavery; that some people are simply born or destined to be slaves, perhaps by their very genetics (though Aristotle was clearly not thinking about genetics at the time, as genetics is a very recent field of study). When I first read this, I immediately connected it with patriarchy.

I’ve only had the most minute taste of what it is like. I know I am still a man, and so I will never truly experience the life of a woman. In fact, I have a wife and my wife will always insist on taking care of me and attending to my needs. In fact, if I don’t let her, she actually takes insult to my reluctance. I’ve experienced this same situation in other settings too, where a guy I worked with insisted he had to pay for our lunches because he was older than the rest of us. Like some weird tradition I was not familiar with, he felt a duty to take care of us younger workers by buying our lunches all the time. If we discretely paid the bill ourselves, he would get incredibly upset, like we had punched him in the face or called him a bad name. In all these cases, the people seem to feel a duty to take care of me in some way, and if I deny them in this duty, they get very upset. I’ve since learned to accept it when people want to take care of me, at least somewhat. I care for them, and I don’t want to insult them or make them feel bad. I always feel I don’t deserve their appreciation, but my feelings regarding the situation are not important.

With all this background, I return to my own current experiences, trying to take care of my wife the way she always takes care of me. I don’t feel angry or upset or even sad about doing all this work. I feel the workload is unaccomplishable, but necessary. I say to myself, “it doesn’t have to be perfect; it just needs to be better than it was.” And I’ve become more understanding of the importance of the various duties and tasks I have. I’ve reevaluated. I’ve re-valued those tasks. Those I had thought were important are no longer as important as I remember, while others have become more so. My priorities have changed.

I am not unhappy. Quite the contrary. Okay, perhaps this is saying too much. If being unhappy is to not be in a state of happiness, then perhaps I am not happy. But I am also not the opposite of happy either. I am not upset or angry or sad. Maybe a little depressed, because the seemingly hopeless tasks can never be completed. Like Sisyphus, always pushing the boulder up the slope, only to watch it roll back down, over and over again. This is the life before me. This is the life that, I think, so many experience. The life of slavery.

I think that one is only upset about being a slave when one thinks they ought to have more freedom. And perhaps we all ought to have more freedom than we have. If democracy is the highest, best form of politics, and if the Americans are right to value freedom as much as they do, then perhaps slavery needs to be abolished more completely than it has (supposedly) been. Those aristocratic individuals who use their power to manipulate the world of those around them, in order to leverage their own projects and express their own freedom, ought to instead use their power to support the projects of those around them. Instead of using their power to support their own desires, perhaps they ought to use their power to support the desires of others. Perhaps the model many of us are familiar with, where the manager has subordinates below them, should instead be the subordinates with the manager below. Perhaps who is accountable to whom should be flipped. Perhaps the president of the USA ought to be accountable to his people, rather than his people being accountable to him.

Wearing Face Masks

crimsonLeave a comment

In North America, whether or not one should wear a face mask during the COVID-19 pandemic is a controversial topic. It is controversial because there is no consistent guidance that has been provided by the various authorities regarding what the answer is. Toward the beginning of the pandemic, it was suggested that people ought not wear face masks. More recently, it has been suggested that people ought to wear face masks. So which is it? And how do I know what the correct answer is?

When I traveled to Japan for a vacation, I observed that a portion of the population there were wearing face masks. This was years before COVID-19, so they were not wearing masks in order to “flatten the curve” or anything like that. Upon further investigation, what I learned was that people in Japan would wear a face mask when they themselves were ill. In other words, those who were sick would wear face masks in order to reduce the spread of their own infections to the other people around them. The mask was chosen to protect others, not to protect themselves. This line of reasoning is not the same as the line of reasoning being used in North America presently.

In North America, when the discussion of face masks arises, most are concerned with whether the face mask will protect themselves from others, not with whether they will be protecting others from themselves. This is tantamount to the difference between egoism and what I might refer to as empathism.

Egoism is what I would call the world view held by a person who is primarily concerned with their own interests, at least when confronted with the interests of others. An egoist will make decisions based on what is best for themself. In the case of wearing a face mask, the egoist will decide whether to don the mask based primarily on whether the mask will benefit themself. If the mask will not benefit themself, then they are likely to decide not to wear the mask.

In contrast, I would call empathism the world view held by a person who is primarily concerned with the interests of others, especially when confronted with their own interests. An empathist will make decisions based on what is best for those around themself, possibly even following decisions that are detrimental to themself. In the case of wearing a face mask, the empathist will decide whether to don the mask based primarily on whether the mask will benefit those around them. If wearing the mask will not benefit others, then they are likely to decide not to wear the mask.

It should be clear that no individual is strictly and entirely either an egoist or an empathist. Each person will behave differently depending on their unique circumstances, personal history, and a plethora of other factors. However, it may be argued that most people, if observed for a period of time, exhibit traits that lean toward one side or the other of this dichotomy. For example, Donald Trump, the current president of the United States of America (USA), seems to hold a world view leaning toward the end of egoism, as most of his decisions clearly suggest that his primary concern is his own well-being and benefit. This is not to suggest that Trump never makes decisions which are primarily concerned with the benefit to others, just that more often his decisions are self-motivated.

The question I need to consider here, when trying to decide whether wearing a face mask is something I ought to do, is how wearing a face mask benefits (or does not benefit) myself and others. This can be established rather quickly with a simple analysis. If I wear a face mask, it benefits myself in that I gain a small amount of filtering of the air around myself when I breath, though unless I am wearing a specially fitted and designed face mask, the amount of personal protection I receive from the mask is quite limited. Having been wearing a face mask, I also have observed that I receive less of the particles from the air, such as pollen (I have hay fever), so there is that benefit as well. Unfortunately, wearing a face mask is uncomfortable, restricts my breathing (this is especially noticeable when I exert myself), and makes me hot in this summer weather. Thus, for me, it seems like whether I should wear a face mask depends on the particular situation I find myself in. If I am outside my home, it provides some benefits. If I am at home, it does not.

I must now consider the effects on others. If I wear a face mask, it benefits others by preventing most of the larger particles that are ejected from my mouth to spray out into the air around me. Droplets are caught by the mask, and generally absorbed by the cloth material of my mask. This is particularly noticeable when I sneeze or cough. I no longer need to find a free hand to cough into, which may be challenging while carrying bags of groceries. Furthermore, if I happen to be ill, my infection will not spread so easily, for the very reasons I have just described. Like the people I observed in Japan, the mask seems to provide significant benefits to those around me. And if I happen to be ill, but I am not aware of my illness (perhaps I am asymptomatic), wearing the mask will again benefit those around me.

There are a few detriments to others when I wear a face mask. My face tends to be fairly concealed when I wear a mask, such that others may not be able to easily identify me. If my identification is important to others, the mask reduces their likelihood of accurately identifying me. It is also harder for others to hear what I am saying. If I am talking to someone who is hard of hearing, and especially if that someone has learned to read lips to communicate, my mask will pose significant problems to our interactions.

It seems that it is unclear whether wearing a face mask is of benefit to others, and may require careful consideration of the situation I find myself in again. Like for myself, it seems like I ought to wear the mask when I am outside my home, but I can relax my mask wearing when I am at home. After all, when I am outside my home, I am not generally engaged in a lot of conversations, and I am not doing anything that really requires others to identify me. Of course, other people may find their particular situations quite different than mine, and so their personal assessment may end up quite different.

I began this blog thinking that this discussion would clearly suggest that face mask wearing was the correct choice, especially if considering others and not just myself. I was outraged by Trump when he refused to wear a face mask when visiting a face mask factory in Phoenix, even though the facility’s guidelines insisted it was the correct action to take. His arguments against wearing a mask, it seems to me, expressed an egoist viewpoint, and what seemed to me was a blatant disregard for others. However, after the brief discussion I have just posed, perhaps I am being a bit hard on Trump.

In the end, I still do believe it is in the best interests of others that I wear a face mask, especially outside my home. And I do believe a world view closer to empathism is important in our world. However, perhaps it isn’t as clear that these views are the correct views. Certainly not as clear as I had hoped. I will have to return to this line of thought in a later post.

Black Lives Matter

crimsonLeave a comment

I wanted to continue with my discussion on time, but with all that is going on in the world, I thought I’d take a break to discuss another matter. As you are probably aware, events in the United States of America (USA) have escalated and the pandemic has been lowered in priority in that country. This has occurred in some other countries as well. And the short response I would like to offer up is: it’s about time.

Actually, that response is far from complete. It is too short a response to really reflect what my feelings are on this matter. And, it is a little misleading, as the revolution that I think is needed is still a ways off. Peaceful protest, I believe, will be insufficient to affect the sorts of long term changes that are required by the human race in this situation. Allow me to explain.

While the following will be an over simplified view of humanity, I think it captures a lot of what has led us to this point. When I look upon the world, I am struck by what I see. I find that there are those things that are similar or the same as I am familiar with, and those things that are different. For example, there are these other beings that wander the world as I do; these other beings are very similar to me in some ways, but very different in other ways. The more similar they are to me, the more comfortable I might feel; the more different, the more uncomfortable I might feel. When I am comfortable, I tend to relax and trust. When I am not comfortable, I tend to fill with anxiety and become protective of myself.

Perhaps my personal history is unusual or unique, but I find that the differences vastly outweigh the similarities most of the time. I focus on the differences far more than the similarities. Personally, I don’t find many other beings like myself. Now, I could choose to be hostile to all these different other beings. I could choose to lash out and harm these other beings. But I don’t. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that I was pretty well alone in the world—alone in that I cannot experience the world from the perspective of those other beings, and those other beings could not experience the world from my perspective—and so I would have to withhold my complete, blind trust from those who had not in some way given me a reason to trust them. I am paranoid. I am resistant. I feel compelled to ALWAYS assess knowledge and information for myself. This is a large part of the reason I was not cut out for military service; I am unable to blindly follow orders without first thinking about what is being asked of me, and assessing whether I ought to obey or resist the command.

For me, I exist in a world full of challenges and obstacles. Like the philosophical Existentialists, I desire to exercise my freedom to assign value in a world that I believe holds no intrinsic value. It is a lot of work assigning value to everything, but it is what I expect and I am comfortable in that situation now. But it also means that I am reserved in expressing my hostility and aggression as well. I am slow to make decisions, and I am slow to choose my actions. I’d rather take some time to “get to know” another being, before I pass judgement. I’m far from perfect at doing this, but I try my hardest.

Yes, my skin is on the lighter end of the spectrum. Furthermore, when others observe me, I am categorized in the masculine class of beings. And, as may be obvious by this blog, I think and understand in the language of English. This places me squarely in the category of the privileged. In my youth, I did not understand what this meant, but now I do. The world appears to me in a certain way. I understand the things I see in a certain way. I fear some things, and do not fear others. My privilege allows me to move through this world mostly unimpeded. My privilege allows me various advantages with things such as employment and commerce. My privilege is a large part of my world view. What I think is most important for me to always remember is that most of those beings around me do not share this world view.

In the USA, those beings with skin on the darker end of the spectrum than mine have become outraged because an authority figure—who happens to have skin on the lighter end of the spectrum—clearly and purposefully overstepped his authority in a situation that lead to the demise of another being—who happens to have skin on the darker end of the spectrum. The issue that is of concern is that the authority figure chose to behave in the fashion he did as a direct result of the world view that he holds, a world view that diminishes the status of those with skin on the darker end of the spectrum. In my personal opinion, those beings—who now hold frequent and vast peaceful protests in response to this incident—are more than justified in their actions. My largest fear is that the peaceful protesting is not sufficient to bring about the sort of change we appear to desire.

I admit, most of the conversations I usually have are not concerned about the colour of a being’s skin. My conversations more often are concerned with the configuration of the being’s physical body, and what categories those beings are assigned as a result of their configuration. I am more concerned with the issue of sex and gender than I am with the issue of “race,” especially as I think categorizing humans by “race” is completely ridiculous. It would be like deciding to categorize humans by the colour of their hair, or the colour of their eyes, or the length of their bodies, or any number of other physical qualities. There is no good reason to believe that these physical attributes have any direct correlation to other aspects of those beings, such as mental acuity, or ethical ability.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that there isn’t a difference that occurs between those of various “races.” But those differences occur not because of direct differences in physical attributes; they occur as a result of social pressure, which is often related to cultural and political structures that exist in those societies, that have already categorized those beings and afforded different opportunities to those beings, which as a result provide different levels and forms of education and employment to the different “races.” In other words, the game is rigged, which is what the protests are all about.

It should be of no surprise to anyone that the COVID-19 virus has disproportionately affected the black community in the USA, and probably in many other places in the world as well. The reason we ought not be surprised is because those people have more challenges and less resources with which to deal with the situation. Unlike those of us who are privileged enough to have a savings account, and are not living paycheck to paycheck, they cannot simply stay home and self-isolate to protect themselves and their families from a pandemic that is sweeping the world. This simple fact means that there are likely to be more black people wandering the streets, as they go to and from work, to and from the grocery store, etc. And there being more black people wandering the streets means that there is a much higher probability of an authority figure encountering such a person. And if that authority figure is already disposed to believing that a black person is more likely to pose a threat, and then happens to encounter that black person, they are more likely to manage the encounter poorly.

I’ll put this another way. If I tell you that it is considered a bad thing to hold a lit stick of dynamite, because it will likely be poor for your health in the long run, and then I hand you a lit stick of dynamite, because that is the only light source you are allowed to use while travelling in a dark passage, what do you expect is going to happen? You could refuse the lit stick of dynamite, citing my first statement, deciding that your heath in the long run is more important to you than being able to see in the dark passage. You could then muddle your way through, with great challenge, having to feel your way along the walls. Or you could accept the lit stick of dynamite, using it’s meager light to aid you in travelling through the dark passage, bearing the constant risk that the dynamite will explode in your hand, injuring you grievously. This is the situation of many people in our world, including black people in the USA.

So what is the correct answer? Well, how about “why do I need to travel through a dark passage?” Or, “why do I not have access to an alternative light source than a lit stick of dynamite?” Or, “can I talk to someone other than you for assistance, because you are not doing a very good job of providing assistance right now.” These “solutions” clearly don’t address the immediate concern—travelling through a dark passage. They point to something outside the immediate situation. They acknowledge, at least on some level, that there is something like a “bigger picture” that needs to be considered.

In the case of racism, peaceful protests may improve the situation marginally, but I do not believe they will provide a lasting, long term solution to the problem. Yes, change is something that happens slowly over vast periods of time. However, in some situations, change occurs very quickly and violently. And in those situations, it may be necessary to affect the needed change.

Putting this another way, what is needed is not policies of employment equity or defunding the police. While these measures may produce seemingly desirable results in the immediate, short term, the repercussions in the long term would be/are disastrous. What is needed is a cultural/political shift, and not a small one. Institutions need to be broken down. Marriage needs to no longer be a thing, because men don’t need an excuse to enslave women. And people need to not be judged by the colour of their skin, or any other physical features they possess. I would like to say that people should instead be judged by their actions, however, I am not so naive as to think that behaviors have only simple reasoning; that they may instead be extremely complex networks of perfect rationality if considered at length.

I do not have the answer to this issue for one very good reason; I don’t have an alternative. I can talk in negatives as much as I want, saying how things ought not be. What I am not able to provide is a positive response, saying how I think things ought to be. I do not know how the world ought to look. I do not know what world view is best to hold. I obviously privilege my own world view, but that does not make my world view the correct world view. This is simply the opinion of one individual in a world full of billions of individuals.

…

crimsonLeave a comment

…Where to begin…

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, this is where I expected to be at this time. However, I do not feel as I thought I would at this time. I thought I was going to begin with some lofty treatise, some epic epitaph, perhaps an impressive bit of prose. But no, it will be just this. General ramblings from the void.

The truth is I’ve not done this before. Not really. Oh, I’ve been on the Internet since 1994, connecting through a 1200 baud analog modem with no graphical interface. I’ve spent ridiculous amounts of time “surfing” the Internet by hopping FTP sites and scouring newsgroups looking for interesting binaries. If you’d like a taste of what one could find back then, check out this site. Don’t worry, the link is not dangerous. Just trippy.

I’ve even used WordPress before. There are a couple webpages floating around out there from old classes I took while at university. Code samples mostly. But those pages were quickly thrown together. Their purpose was simply to get me the marks I desired in my classes. The content may be legitimate, but the formatting and the presentation is embarrassing. I could search these pages out and fix everything, but I prefer to let the past remain the past.

Which brings us to now. Now I write to you. In this place and in this time. Locked at home during the most significant worldwide event since World War 2. Okay, it is debatable whether this pandemic ranks higher than other events that have occurred since World War 2. But certainly it is the most significant health related event since the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918. Okay, even that may be debatable if you want to talk about AIDS or cancer. Perhaps this current pandemic is simply what is going on right now. Perhaps it is just what is grabbing all the attention presently.

What little wisdom I wish to impart today is about the current circumstances we all find ourselves in. The significance of this pandemic is not what you think it is. The lasting effects that will carry humanity into the next several centuries is not health related, believe it or not. What is significant with this pandemic is what is being revealed about humanity and human nature.

As may already be clear, I come from a part of the world where consumerism and patriarchy reign supreme. Our economies, our social structures, are all intimately focused on perpetuating and reinforcing consumerism and patriarchy. This pandemic is pulling aside the veil of ignorance to reveal the guts of these structures. It is up to us to take note. Anyone could have looked and seen all of this before the pandemic began. But it was much easier to ignore it and pretend it did not exist. Before, one could go about their life in blissful ignorance of the truth. Actually, many people still do, despite a pandemic occurring around them right now. They blame doctors for doing a bad job of saving lives. They blame the government for the economic collapse. They blame their neighbors for not social distancing correctly, or for believing that social distancing is even necessary.

I’m sure I am expecting too much in this situation. For the revelation will only be experienced by the few. When I was younger, I was taught the three R’s: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. I really don’t know why I was taught such a crazy thing, as reducing and reusing are crippling for consumerist economies. Recycling, now that’s something we can get behind, as it doesn’t stop people from purchasing objects they don’t need. But reducing, people not purchasing as much stuff, and reusing, people extending the life of their stuff, stops people from infusing their hard earned money back into the economy. However, reducing and reusing also reduces the demand for products to be generated, and reusing exercises people’s creativity and ingenuity, both reducing the stress humans place upon their surrounding environments. Had people been practicing this before the pandemic, perhaps it wouldn’t have been so hard to stay at home…

Lots of people have been wondering when the pandemic will be over so they can get back to doing what they were doing before the pandemic began, as if the pandemic is just another fad diet. I agree the pandemic is like a diet, but it is like a proper diet. A proper diet isn’t something you go on for a limited period of time and then get off and return to eating as you did before. That is how people lose 50 lbs, and then gain 50 lbs right after again, with their net loss of weight being nothing. A proper diet means a lifestyle change. You don’t start a diet just to get off it; you start a diet to change how and what you eat, and that change is something you carry with you for the rest of your life. At least, you do if you want to keep the success you gained through the diet in the first place. You can’t go back to eating chocolate bars and MacDonald’s whenever you want, you have to focus on your vegetables and drink your water.

With the pandemic, the situation is the same. We are not returning back to how we did things before. Not unless we expect to reinfect our neighbors and risk killing our loved ones. This pandemic means a fundamental change in how humans conduct themselves. It will require changing how we doing things. It will require a reduction in consumption of products. It will require people to get their hands dirty and acknowledge all that is going on around them, instead of pretending they are in some utopian bubble. Or at least it ought to…