Philosophy Discussion Forums

Where I live, the attempt by our government to enforce the almost complete lock-down of society in order to slow the spread of covid 19 is resulting in greater use of technology for remote interaction in work and education, as well as shutting down entire industries.

When this is all over, do you think we'll drift back to business as usual, albeit with a hangover of massively increased debt for us and our children to pay off, or will this result in some permanent changes? If the latter, to what extent do you think those changes will be negative and positive?

I think Covid is the straw to break the camel's back. Population. Climate change. Ecosystem decimation. Bankruptcy-style debt levels.

Game Over.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 8:36 am Where I live, the attempt by our government to enforce the almost complete lock-down of society in order to slow the spread of covid 19 is resulting in greater use of technology for remote interaction in work and education, as well as shutting down entire industries.

When this is all over, do you think we'll drift back to business as usual, albeit with a hangover of massively increased debt for us and our children to pay off, or will this result in some permanent changes? If the latter, to what extent do you think those changes will be negative and positive?

If it leads to the demise of the bush meat trade I would be overjoyed.

Steve3007 wrote:...to what extent do you think those changes will be negative and positive?

Greta wrote:I think Covid is the straw to break the camel's back. Population. Climate change. Ecosystem decimation. Bankruptcy-style debt levels.

Game Over.

Somewhat negative then?

LuckyR wrote:If it leads to the demise of the bush meat trade I would be overjoyed.

Fair enough, although that's a surprisingly specific positive you've chosen there.

There are many different areas to consider, which will be effected by the current situation. I can think of some very interesting ones:
1. global income
2. working remotely
3. change of perspective on what are now called " system relevant" jobs
4. felling responsible for the fate of other people; decline of individualism
5. state involvement control; economic and tracking
6. impact on environment; single use gloves, masks and toxic cleaning materials, reduced use of cars, temporary closing of polluting factories
7. global population; will there be another baby-boom in the winter?

Some of the changes seem to be positive, and some seem to be negative. Since the changes are in such different fields I think it makes sense to discuss them separately.

Well It is clear that people will be more altruistic and will have more solidarity with other people at least after all of that. I think Also health system will be refurbished and many cases at hospitals unattended now, in future with social contributions will be sort out.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑March 26th, 2020, 3:07 am

Steve3007 wrote:...to what extent do you think those changes will be negative and positive?

Greta wrote:I think Covid is the straw to break the camel's back. Population. Climate change. Ecosystem decimation. Bankruptcy-style debt levels.

Game Over.

Somewhat negative then? :-)

Very :) I could have gone on with a litany of disasters and emerging disasters too.

However, in the long term (thousands of years) I am upbeat. This is a time of transition, where the Earth is changing. Drastic change is hard at the best of times (think renovations or organisation restructures) so we are in for a wild ride that has hardly even begun. Most have already forgotten about climate change, but that and population are key to what's happening.

So almost all large animals and plants are doomed in the next century. They will be replaced by humans and their machines in fortified and compact high rise city states / arcologies surrounded by slums and arid lands. This degree of biosphere transformation has happened before; the Great Oxygenation Event. It opened the door to a new age, one of complex plants and animals. Now the consumptive reign of animals is in its twilight and we move to the "reproductive stage" that will produce ever more entities (probably with none or little biological components) capable of taking bits of Earth to other worlds to grow and expand, starting with the blueprints they will bring to build bases from which to operate.

Actioninmind23 wrote: ↑March 26th, 2020, 7:24 pm Well It is clear that people will be more altruistic and will have more solidarity with other people at least after all of that. I think Also health system will be refurbished and many cases at hospitals unattended now, in future with social contributions will be sort out.

That is a very optimistic prognosis. Lets hope it turns out that way! I wonder though what will happen in a few months when the novelty of the situation wares off, and in countries in which inequality is very visible.

I also think that the epidemic will shake up the health systems and produce some more government based health care.

Yep It is very optimistic my opinion, It is rather a desire than something for sure, besides i think that health system right now It is not linked with the government but afterwards government will need to develop a efficient system, to adopt all the measures to embrace and have commitment with the population.

Trouble is, SARS-CoV-2 comes on top of climate change and the largest debt bubble in world history, and the only one that is fully global.

I cannot see people becoming more caring or and health services will probably improve in some places, but many will struggle to afford it.

One possible positive Perhaps, after patients are allowed to die over an extended period due to a lack of ICU beds, people will be less precious about saving lives and allow the dying to pass away in dignity rather than clogging up health systems keeping the unwilling alive.

The ageing population needs to be looked at with a dispassionate eye (and I say that as one soon to be in that particular firing line). Carrying huge frail aged populations makes societies far more vulnerable to virus and bacteria attacks. By the same token, a herd of wildebeest with many old and weak members will naturally attract predators. If there are weaknesses, life will find a way.

Since killing off elderly people who love life is unthinkable (other than in sci-fi, eg. Logan's Run), it makes much more sense instead to simply allow older, sick people to exit life with grace when they see fit.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 8:36 am When this is all over, do you think we'll drift back to business as usual, [...] or will this result in some permanent changes? If the latter, to what extent do you think those changes will be negative and positive?

During WW2, in the UK, women started doing things that had hitherto been the exclusive province of men. And they found they could do them as well, if not better. Pandora's box was opened, and it couldn't be closed again. I think I agree with you, that there will be permanent changes. Or there will if we survive:

Greta wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 4:41 pm I think Covid is the straw to break the camel's back. Population. Climate change. Ecosystem decimation. Bankruptcy-style debt levels. Game Over.

I thought the financial collapse of 2007/8 might have been the trigger. Our global economy is screwed, because the continuous-growth economics we have relied on for so long relies on an ecosystem offering effectively-infinite resources. Now that our consumption levels are approaching the levels (of resources) that actually exist, the whole thing is falling apart. We have survived the financial crash, maybe we can survive this pandemic too? It's the crash of the ecosystem, which can't be far away, that will get us, I think. It won't be long, as we increase our consumption in the face of scarcity.

Actioninmind23 wrote: ↑March 26th, 2020, 7:24 pm Well It is clear that people will be more altruistic and will have more solidarity with other people...

I'm sorry, I have to disagree. Our main reaction has been selfish. Panic-buying, and similar behaviours, show that people will do nothing for others, and will deprive others of what they need just to assuage their own greed and selfishness. Yes, there are those who help others, admirable folk, but the loudest ones - the ones that get the media coverage - are the populists, who shout out (and vote) for Boris, Donald and Vladimir. They hate everyone, believe no-one and nothing (except what they want to believe), and believe they deserve a lot more than they have, and a lot more than others have too. So in storing away all the toilet rolls, while I wipe my a**e on newspaper, they are only reclaiming what should be theirs in the first place.

Sorry to disagree so negatively. I would love it to be that your sentiments are right, and reflected in the real world. Wouldn't that be great?

In a parallel world, I would like to believe that there is a common project where people should be concentrate only in the responsibilities of welfare which our fate is definitely only that...to take care of ourselves. But as you said selfishness is the main reason to fulfil our projects. I can imagine a field full fruits for the whole world to live in it only for 100 days, for sure our greedy character will finish it in a day. However, there are still people that they moral will say that we need to act as doctors and nurses to take care of people.

Greta wrote: ↑March 27th, 2020, 6:06 am Trouble is, SARS-CoV-2 comes on top of climate change and the largest debt bubble in world history, and the only one that is fully global.

I cannot see people becoming more caring or and health services will probably improve in some places, but many will struggle to afford it.

One possible positive Perhaps, after patients are allowed to die over an extended period due to a lack of ICU beds, people will be less precious about saving lives and allow the dying to pass away in dignity rather than clogging up health systems keeping the unwilling alive.

The ageing population needs to be looked at with a dispassionate eye (and I say that as one soon to be in that particular firing line). Carrying huge frail aged populations makes societies far more vulnerable to virus and bacteria attacks. By the same token, a herd of wildebeest with many old and weak members will naturally attract predators. If there are weaknesses, life will find a way.

Since killing off elderly people who love life is unthinkable (other than in sci-fi, eg. Logan's Run), it makes much more sense instead to simply allow older, sick people to exit life with grace when they see fit.

I think that there are better ways to curb population growth. I agree that world human-overpopulation is very harmful to the environment, yet I believe that population growth control should focus on birth-control. The population of the world is growing fast, and the world does not have the resources to accommodate everyone. policy changes, life-style changes and birth-control can lead to a smaller, happier population, letting older people die not treating them will not make a big statistical difference to world population, but it would have negative effects for the people involved. why are the old less deserving of life than other age groups?

As to the second part- allowing people to die in peace when they so choose - that is not age dependent, and should be a basic human right. Sadly I don't believe that the people that oppose the right to die will change their minds as a consequence of the epidemic.

Greta wrote:However, in the long term (thousands of years) I am upbeat. This is a time of transition, where the Earth is changing. Drastic change is hard at the best of times (think renovations or organisation restructures) so we are in for a wild ride that has hardly even begun. Most have already forgotten about climate change, but that and population are key to what's happening.

So almost all large animals and plants are doomed in the next century. They will be replaced by humans and their machines in fortified and compact high rise city states / arcologies surrounded by slums and arid lands. This degree of biosphere transformation has happened before; the Great Oxygenation Event. It opened the door to a new age, one of complex plants and animals. Now the consumptive reign of animals is in its twilight and we move to the "reproductive stage" that will produce ever more entities (probably with none or little biological components) capable of taking bits of Earth to other worlds to grow and expand, starting with the blueprints they will bring to build bases from which to operate.

It is interesting to consider all this. But if there is this non-biological reproductive age, I wonder if there will be any non-biological equivalent of David Attenborough (or other famous naturalists) talking in a hushed, reverential voice about the (non-biological equivalent of) flora and fauna on the old planet? Even if it's a natural progression, it's still difficult not to be immensely sad that the incredible diversity of life - unique, as far as we know, in the Universe - will soon be largely gone. But I guess, one way or another, it has to go eventually.