Finally, on page 211 Klaus gets around the individual and what this “great reset” will have in store for us from a personal perspective.
We’ve already experienced lockdowns and isolation from families etc., to Klaus
“what starts as change may end up as an individual reset” (211)
Hopefully, it’s a positive reset but given what we have seen to date, probably not.
Klaus tells us about how humanity somehow percolated through the lockdown and negativity Covid-19 had, by providing examples of how in Italy, opera singers would entertain their neighbours among other things.
To Klaus,
“the sacrifice of self-interest for the common good and caring came to the fore… [and] simple acts of kindness to him superseded “… manifestation of individual power, popularity and prestige were frowned upon…” (213).
None of that would have been needed if it only took two weeks to flatten the curve, but I digress.
Klaus glosses over the real issue of an individual vs group mentality and instead pivots to the “cult of celebrity”(213) and how us as a society who have now “discarded” them are now better people and possibly, we now have a better world.(213)
Bluntly speaking, Klaus asks:
“will we become more caring and compassionate?”(213)
It’s an interesting question, and it does seem to look at the situation with humanity, but, when you don’t have a job and you can’t put food on the table no amount of unicorns and rainbows will fix that, the base and primal urges of humanity will take to the fore and a, me first attitude will invariably become front and centre.
With all of this there is a lot of uncertainty, but with all of this uncertainty we still need to “function normally” as Klaus says:
what then invariably happens “… we are more likely to retrench rather than look to the needs of others…” (214)
Depending on what is being talked about I would say this is an entirely plausible situation however Klaus also tell us
“this is turn becomes a profound source of shame, a key sentiment that drives people’s attitudes and reactions during pandemics.”(214)
Shame is a pretty powerful emotion.
I really don’t think he makes the case for that.
Am I to understand that because some have a me first attitude instead of, a you first attitude, those people are filled with shame?
If you aren’t alive, it doesn’t matter, and if limited resources, for instance, is a variable in your ability to survive, I don’t think many people will feel shame in ensuring they and their immediate family are taken care of first.
Klaus tells us the concept of shame and outbreaks has been told and analyzed in countless novels, etc. Klaus mentions The Decameron.
“A series of novellas that tell the take of a group of men and women sheltered in a villa as the Black Death ravaged Florence in 1348.”(214)
Notice the conflation of Covid and the Black Death.
In actuality, they are nothing close to each other.
The Black Death killed between 30 to 60 percent of the entire population of Europe, whereas Covid isn’t even in the same universe.
Let's put this into perspective.
Europe, in 1347, had a population of approximately 80 million people. By the time the Black Death ended in 1353, approximately 50 million died.
Covid to date has killed 2,169,191 people in Europe from a population of 447.7 million in 2020
If you do the math, it’s about .005%, that’s half of one percent.
So using the Black Death in the same sentence as Covid is probably as big a lie as one could tell.
Klaus really hits home the point when he says:
“In the same vein, numerous literary accounts of past pandemics… relate how, so often, fear of death ends up overriding all other human emotions. In every situation, individuals are forced to make decisions about saving their own lives that result in profound shame because of the selfishness of their ultimate choice.” (214-215)
I think what Klaus is talking about here is survivor’s guilt, which is a real thing.
I won’t deny it is real, nor will I deny that some people feel this, but the way in which Klaus conflates it with massive death is disingenuous and it appears, at least to me, the propaganda machine was in full effect.
How he aggrandizes Covid and eulogizes the selfless acts of the doctors and nurses makes one wonder if someone were to pickup this book in 500 years they’d think humanity was on the brink of destruction.
It just isn’t the case.
Again, Klaus uses the example of the Spanish flu, and uses the book called The Great Influenza by John Barry.
Klaus brings this up and tells us that when the flu became more virulent and because of that, people didn’t volunteer. (215)
Klaus then goes on to tell us there is a “collective sense of shame that ensued…” (215) and that might be a reason why we know so little about the Spanish Flu.
It seems a little thin to me.
Perhaps, deeper investigation into the Spanish flu will provide answers many people don’t want to hear, or very possibly there is nothing to tell.
It’s curious that Klaus says:
“psychologists tell us that cognitive closure often calls for black and white thinking and simplistic solutions … We look for leadership, authority, and clarity, meaning that the question as to whom we trust becomes critical. In consequence, so too does the countervailing issue of whom we distrust.” (215)
Sure I buy that, even though our leaders fell into the secondary category for very many people, and I also buy that we as a group “circle the wagons” and then look for someone external to us to blame, i.e. a scapegoat (216).
The whole point of this, as I see it, is for Klaus to shine a light on the countries of the world and tell them we need to cooperate for the betterment of ourselves.
I don’t think that is not necessarily incorrect, but I think it’s odd that to Klaus our
“existential challenges are (the environment, and the global governance free fall…)(217)
Two things every globalist for the last 20 years has been harping on.
I may accept the environment as an issue, but global governance is something I’ve never heard anyone talk about.
It’s clear Klaus is pushing an agenda.
At least Klaus acknowledges that:
“the pandemic has forced all of us… to enter into a philosophical debate about how to maximize the common good in the least damaging way.”(217)
The problem with this, however, is from my perspective it is a forced dilemma.
Covid isn’t the Black Death.
If it was we would have different conversations.
The other issue which is probably more academic is some fashion is what kind of common good?
It’s clear to me Klaus believes is something called communal common interests.
“When citizens engage in social deliberation about their laws and institutions, a communal conception typically directs them to abstract away from their private interests and the sectional interests they may have as members of one subgroup or another and to focus instead on their common interests as citizens.”
The other form is something called distributive.
A “distributive” conception of the common good differs from a “communal” conception in that it does not direct citizens to abstract away from their private and sectional interests in the same way. A distributive conception starts with the idea that citizens belong to various groups with distinct sectional interests.”
Isn’t this exactly what our politicians did to us?
They made decisions that appear, at least to me, that abstracted away their private interests, i.e. working, keep the economy open, visit family, etc.
All for the common good of preventing the virus from spreading.
Unless, of course, the politicians were acting in their own self interest, which then creates other questions like who are they really serving if they didn’t consider any of their constituents when these decisions were made?
Aside from that, there is something called an epistemic conception of democracy which basically states:
“According to this view, there is an independent standard of correctness for legislation, which says that laws must serve common interests. Democratic decision-making is a requirement of political morality because the legislative process is more likely to generate laws that meet the standard when the process is democratic. Moreover, a democratic process is more likely to generate laws that meet the standard when those taking part in the process are actually trying to identify laws that meet the standard. So citizens taking part in the democratic process should assess legislative proposals in terms of how well these proposals serve common interests because this is the best way to identify and enact laws that are justified.”
When we look at what governments did regarding the decision-making process, it’s clear this concept went out the window, not that this concept was front and centre in anyone’s mind to begin with but the one thing that is interesting a
“substantive requirement that legislation must be consistent with a public understanding of the common good that treats people as equals…”
Again, it appears that this wasn’t the case, which is why there was some much consternation regarding these decisions.
There was no public discussion, and laws were rammed through that now are being challenged for their constitutionally.
It appears everything that should have been done wasn’t, which created a whole host of issues relating to legal, moral and ethical outcomes.
Klaus says as much where he briefly discusses the philosophical thoughts on page 218.
Interestingly, he asks;
“is it right to lie for some greater good?” (218).
I would say generally if you have to lie to get someone to do something, it isn’t for the greater good, and it has a tendency to have a positive outcome for the person asking you to lie and that has nothing to do with the greater good.
To be blunt, if it's for the greater good, why do you need to lie?
Unless of course you can’t come up with a convincing argument in order for people to follow the decision.
Klaus again states that the ethical choice was between public health and the economy, which I have already stated was a poor argument, although most would frame the argument as such, but doing so one obviously has the moral high ground.
At least Klaus tells us:
“this is ultimately a moral choice about whether to prioritize the quality of individualism or those that favour the destiny of the community.” (220)
Which is what I’ve argued from the get go.
The thing that has amazed me from the beginning of Covid is how everyone, from politicians, bureaucrats, medical personnel, to news media, all had the same narrative that Covid was brutal and would kill everyone unless we acted now.
It’s been shown since its inception that Covid isn’t the humanity killer everyone thought, yet here we are three years later and some countries still aren’t back to normal.
What are they so scared of?
It very much reminds me of the Joseph Goebbels quote:
“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you yourself will even become to believe it yourself.”
This is the impression I am getting.
Even Klaus uses terminology to create this dichotomy that seems to be disingenuous.
“The cruel utilitarian calculus.” (221)
for instance, or a
“delicate compromise between saving as many lives as possible… (221)
Not knowing anything about Covid, yet reading this book one would get the feeling Covid is decimating the worldwide population yet, this wasn’t, or isn’t the case.
anyone who really thinks that either doesn’t read, or is willfully ignorant of the facts.
I suppose I can’t be too hard on those people when it appears to be a narrative push of worldwide proportions all saying the same thing, but wouldn’t that make your spidey senses go off and make you wonder why everyone is singing the same tune when you can’t get politicians to agree and just about anything, yet they all agreed on this.
It’s clear an agenda is at play when logical people doing scientific jobs are blind to the facts and almost verbatim tell us the same thing as everyone else, Covid is a humanity killer or various versions of that, yet, on the WHO website it plainly shows that since its inception Covid has claimed less than 7 million people in 3 years.
In fact, when you do the math, the death rate is about 1%.
When you break it down by age, it makes even less sense why the economy was shutdown.
But apparently logic doesn’t matter in this case.
That is why Klaus talks about morality a lot.
He tells us that objective fact is framed by ethical considerations that are eminently personal (222). “Simply put, what we expose as facts or opinions are moral choices that the pandemic has laid bare. They are made in the name of what we think is right and wrong and therefore define us as who we are.” (222).
To me, this is telling.
Klaus doesn’t have an argument against the raw data and the response to it, so instead he pivots and tells us we made ethical choices.
Basically, feelings trump facts.
Klaus provides us the example of wearing a mask, and how a decision to wear one or not is framed in an ethical decision, yet it’s been known since 1918 that masks don’t work If you don’t buy that, the CDC said as much in 2009
“third type is flat/pleated and affixes to the head with ear loops. Facemasks cleared by the FDA for use as medical devices have been determined to have specific levels of protection from the penetration of blood and body fluids. Facemasks help stop droplets from being spread by the person wearing them. They also keep splashes or sprays from reaching the mouth and nose of the person wearing the facemask. They are not designed to protect against breathing in very small particle aerosols that may contain viruses. Facemasks should be used once and then thrown away in the trash.”
So what is ethical exactly?
The question that should really be asked:
Is it ethical to lie and coheres people into doing something you already know to be false?
I guess we already know what the answer to that question is.
Morality to Klaus as far as I can tell leans on the side of the group instead of self-interest.
Yes, there can be problems regarding self interest, like price gouging that Klaus brings up on page 223, but what almost no one has ever brought up is that people remember when they’ve been screwed over, and even though someone may get over on your today that doesn’t mean they will be able to do it tomorrow, or someone else.
In the end, after all is said and done, all you have is your name and if it is synonymous with price gouging or being unfairly treated, how long before that someone becomes a pariah in their own neighbourhood?
Klaus, on the other hand, believes that if we can put away our self interest (in favour of the group, I might add. How very communist of him) and
“we may be able to pay more attention to issues of inclusivity and fairness.”(224)
This is right up the alley of Marx. I’m not sure that should be considered a good thing.
Klaus gives us a brief outlook on mental health, a total of 7 pages, the long and short of it is 350 million people suffer from depression, covid and the lock downs didn’t help and some social issues, like domestic violence increased due to the effects of the lockdown
Klaus goes on to tell us about changing priorities, our relationship with time, the environment, and consumption.
Basically, the lockdowns, and Covid have shown us that there is more to life than working and consuming.
The environment is there to be enjoyed, not exploited and if we consume less, prioritize our health and wellbeing we will be better off and happier.
Being happier generally speaking will allow us to become more creative and start doing things we want to do instead of having to do.
This is all probably true, but unless you don’t have money, how is any of this going to be possible?
At least to me, I think the concept of universal income is going to come into play in the very near future so everyone can do what they “really want to do”.
As Klaus puts it,
“it’s all about lifestyle choices”.(242)
I don’t think this is incorrect, but it appears many of those choices are going to be foist upon us instead of allowing us to make them individually, and given the option of a universal basic income most will clamor for the free money, discard that job they hate and “do what they want to do” all the while not understanding that it was never a choice they made because the ramifications of that decision have never been discussed, so how can you make an informed decision when you don’t have all the information?
Couple that with digital money, your so called free decisions aren’t so free when your government can turn off your purchasing power if you fall outside of what they consider normal behaviour, and more importantly, opinions.
In the end Klaus pushes the environmental agenda.
He states,
“the reset for individuals: the pandemic has drawn our attention to the importance of nature. Going forward, paying more attention to our natural assets will progressively become paramount.”(242)
Is that an observation, predication, or a dictate?
I find it curious that Klaus seems to think that with everything going on around us, people will somehow determine on their own that the environment is paramount in their lives.
In an abstract way I guess it is, but food, water, heat, clothing, your future and the future of your children are the things most people I know worry about on a regular basis and seem to be forefront in the minds of at least the people I know not the environment per se.