by Hanna Rheinz, Dr. phil. (Psychology), Medical Journalist, Writer
There is little “normal” these days. Especially when you are treated as a dumb citizen on the verge of being a danger to the rest of the world. Nobody actually wants citizens to die – no matter what age or health condition – , but eventually they will.
Because of Corona?
Today is Corona Time. There is a Logic in it, or more precise: a new Logic.
This new Logic has been established right on the spot, where the other School of Logic resided, the one we once learned via language, reasoning, training.
The world today, its people, especially those few, who tell us, what to do, where to go, what to think (and feel), seem to have forgotten the essentials. How the world can be handled in a less erratic way.
How to make decisions in critical conditions is not easy.
Consider this Old School Method :
PREVENT EVEN MORE DISASTER.
When you have to choose between conflicting ethical rights, you need to weigh their importance, find a balance, prevent that your decision is the cause to create even more harm. This used to be the path to find the less harmful solution when being confronted with a catastrophic process: Find a method which not only minimizes the harm standing in front of you, but also the harm that will inevitably wait for you in the future.
You don`t know the future .. But there are parts of the future that can be predicted according to your past experiences and the way the phenomena of gravity work out. When you deal with physical effects, the way is always downwards.
There are some essentials of future you can predict.
Like the harm that follows global “lock-downs”. Some might save their lives, but millions will perish.
The public consent (as the media make us believe) seems to derive from the feeling of protection many people experience.What a benefit to organize one`s life according to personal well-being. That nowadays it is part of the political agenda is less reassuring than it sounds … People still consider a “lock-Down” life-saving. They feel protected. They feel safe. They have the impression their government keeps away the deadly infection, even death itself.
The possibility of death seems to have vanished from our scrutiny. Thanks to political foresight.
But – Is this true? Or just an illusion? Based on the different speeds of time related events?
Nobody wants to die. Or even speak about not wanting to die.
It seems the governments have discovered new goals and strategies:
“Avoid death by all means and no matter what it will cost.”
This strategy however is a short term problem solver. Sooner or later even the most panicked citizens will understand; this is not how it works. There is no insurance, no THRESHOLD against DEATH (and infection).
Praise the Swedes!
They still have some experienced senior experts who see things in a context, in their frame: Dimension and Proportion. Without this knowledge everything, even the slightest irritation, can become unmanageable, overwhelming: a crisis never seen before.
Don`t forget: this is not an exceptional event. Infections are part of life, even if the vaccination movement makes people believe there is a remedy for everything, so that future man (not the Bot-Men Hybrid) will be healthy and functioning in all situations.
But what if the label “Corona” hides a super BIO-WEAPON?
Maybe this is the underlying concern.
In this context it still does not make “sense”, but it could better explain the excessive reactions of the political class …
In the meantime, countries worldwide continue to make their decisions on the basis of superstition and not rationality. Listening to political strategists, it seems we are at the beginning of a new era:
An endless continuation of life threatening infections which will continuously demand restrictions and lock-downs and new vaccinations for new virus-variations, year after year, season after season.
In the meantime: All responsibility has been transferred to outside circumstances, regulated by Crisis Management Authorities.
Who is in charge? Who still remembers decision making as a choice between conflicting rights? There is no “good” choice when you are deciding between hurting outcomes. The ethically better option is to choose the less harmful outcome. Not only for the individual but for the community!
The question unanswered (and not posed): Is there still an idea of “common good”, “common interest” and “community” left at all? In our de-humanized, hyper-emotional, irrational, over-regulated and programmed world? A world, where algorithms decide which inputs make us move in the directions we are supposed to go? In this world, everybody is infected. Everybody is a data-corpse, no matter if still living or already dead.