Distancing in the Pandemic on the Global Village

[LuckyR]

This pandemic affecting rich and poor alike may be a Wake-Up Call, and hence a saving race. There is only one global village. If Distancing serves to decentralize the globe, the pandemic may be a blessing in disguise. Depopulation and de-growth will be the heard call.

Distancing is going to ramp up the birth rate, by my expectation. I am anticipating a baby boomlet in about 9 months.

[NukeBan]

The only question is whether the remainder will be headed to the stars or brandishing stone clubs.

I don't know the answer of course, just speculating like everyone else. To me, the evidence suggests we will be making many more trips to stone club land before we get technological civilization right. Assuming we don't go extinct, which I'm willing to do, then ok, maybe someday the stars.

What I see is that the knowledge explosion is rapidly accelerating while human judgment inches forward at best. Thus, the gap between power and maturity ever widens. We are ever more like the 8 year boy who just got a submachine gun for his birthday.

The Roman Empire crashed and it took a thousand years for progress to resume. If we are willing to assume that this pattern may repeat itself many times over thousands of years, it could eventually lead to a more stable success.

[Sy Borg]

The only question is whether the remainder will be headed to the stars or brandishing stone clubs.

I don't know the answer of course, just speculating like everyone else. To me, the evidence suggests we will be making many more trips to stone club land before we get technological civilization right. Assuming we don't go extinct, which I'm willing to do, then ok, maybe someday the stars.

What I see is that the knowledge explosion is rapidly accelerating while human judgment inches forward at best. Thus, the gap between power and maturity ever widens. We are ever more like the 8 year boy who just got a submachine gun for his birthday.

The Roman Empire crashed and it took a thousand years for progress to resume. If we are willing to assume that this pattern may repeat itself many times over thousands of years, it could eventually lead to a more stable success.

I think technology is the key difference this time. I see stars for the few and stone clubs for the many, just as the few today are breaking sports records, making more discoveries and achieving ever greater technical proficiency in the popular arts while the many are becoming more unfit, more ideologically fixed and ever less educated and curious.

[gad-fly]

Are we talking about the impact of distancing, as introduced by the pandemic, on the future of mankind? Let us bring the matter into perspective. The pandemic will be history, given at most a year or so, but how enduring and intensive will its impact be? A doomsday scenario can be frightening, but remote. Nor would we be back to the good old days soon enough. Shouldn't we focus on what we can and should learn at this stage, lest we miss learning our lesson before it is too late?

Let me say as a student of history: History has no obligation to give us a second chance.

[Sy Borg]

Clearly we are speaking of the future of mankind :)

What can we learn about this? We have China resisting an independent investigation, with the wet markets back in business. We have a POTUS intent on blame-shifting to cover for his month of complacency. Meanwhile, we know that China shut its internal borders while still allowing people to fly to other parts of the world. What does that say to the rest of the world about how China sees them?

Ultimately there are too many people on the planet. Notice nature's hint that we live too closely together? We are not evolved for this "sardine" lifestyle, so imbalances are inevitable, especially when China insists on allowing wet markets to continue. It will only be a matter of time before there is another. We have learned nothing because, until China behaves responsibly and shuts down its wet markets - or at least the wildlife component - there is nothing anyone can do about the future but watch it unfold.

[NukeBan]

I recently watched a documentary on Amazon Prime which made clear that a key pathway for viruses is wildlife => animal farming => humans. What seems to have been completely ignored in all the endless discussion of the pandemic is that we could go a long way towards protecting ourselves just by becoming vegetarians. This would have other big benefits, for example, animal farming is a big source of global warming.

What was weird was that even in the documentary where they were showing in great detail how viruses travel from wildlife to farm animals to us, no one ever suggested vegetarianism as a potential partial solution. It seemed to be assumed without questioning that we're going to keep eating meat no matter what, even if it kills us, destroys the economy, destroys the climate, no matter what.

I want my burger!!!!!! And I want it now!!! Period!!!!

[gad-fly]

I recently watched a documentary on Amazon Prime which made clear that a key pathway for viruses is wildlife => animal farming => humans. What seems to have been completely ignored in all the endless discussion of the pandemic is that we could go a long way towards protecting ourselves just by becoming vegetarians. This would have other big benefits, for example, animal farming is a big source of global warming.

Your insight from pandemic to vegetarianism is inspiring. Let me incite the Law of Unintended Consequence. The concept of social distancing as a health concern may have lasting impact on our life-style. Socially, keeping distance would be seen less as anti-social. It is cool to be cool. But I shall leave someone else to dwell on that.

I am more concerned about the impact of distancing on our wallet. If distancing makes food more expensive, the world has no choice but to eat more vegetable than meat. The practice to switch from meat to vegetable may start as an excuse to cover-up, like taking fast food in stead of fine dining because fast is better. Eating vegetable is better for our environment? That too, coincidentally or subconsciously. Once kick-started to pass the critical mass, vegetarianism as a trend may become unstoppable, when the pandemic is but a distant memory.

[Sy Borg]

I recently watched a documentary on Amazon Prime which made clear that a key pathway for viruses is wildlife => animal farming => humans. What seems to have been completely ignored in all the endless discussion of the pandemic is that we could go a long way towards protecting ourselves just by becoming vegetarians. This would have other big benefits, for example, animal farming is a big source of global warming.

If distancing makes food more expensive, the world has no choice but to eat more vegetable than meat.

Maybe I am getting old and have watched countless such hopes dashed time and time again. When every hope and ideal you ever held for the world for over half a century has not only been dashed, but smashed, you start seeing how things work.

So I see the most likely outcome of economic hardship is the collapse of expensive organic farmers, resulting in a much greater concentration on factory farming, with ever more harsh conditions as the producers/torturers struggle to cut costs.

It is difficult to see much in this world improving until the human population has decreased significantly, since that is the cause of most problems.

[gad-fly]

So I see the most likely outcome of economic hardship is the collapse of expensive organic farmers, resulting in a much greater concentration on factory farming, with ever more harsh conditions as the producers/torturers struggle to cut costs.

Be that as it may, one would consume less when one has less in one's pocket. I can recollect that, in the old days, we used to savor steak once a month or so, and you know why? Vegetable may not be as tasty as meat, but taste can change to follow affordability, ethics, public pressure, and so on. Shark's Fin is an example. Factory farming, like everything else, has to go with the time. The Law of Unintended Consequence may work in your favor.

[Sy Borg]

So I see the most likely outcome of economic hardship is the collapse of expensive organic farmers, resulting in a much greater concentration on factory farming, with ever more harsh conditions as the producers/torturers struggle to cut costs.

Be that as it may, one would consume less when one has less in one's pocket. I can recollect that, in the old days, we used to savor steak once a month or so, and you know why? Vegetable may not be as tasty as meat, but taste can change to follow affordability, ethics, public pressure, and so on. Shark's Fin is an example. Factory farming, like everything else, has to go with the time. The Law of Unintended Consequence may work in your favor.

You are right that that will counterbalance the likely increased rationalisation of animal welfare in farming.

Still, veggies will become more expensive too as arable land degrades due to climate change.

[gad-fly]

Be that as it may, one would consume less when one has less in one's pocket. I can recollect that, in the old days, we used to savor steak once a month or so, and you know why? Vegetable may not be as tasty as meat, but taste can change to follow affordability, ethics, public pressure, and so on. Shark's Fin is an example. Factory farming, like everything else, has to go with the time. The Law of Unintended Consequence may work in your favor.

You are right that that will counterbalance the likely increased rationalisation of animal welfare in farming.

Still, veggies will become more expensive too as arable land degrades due to climate change.

It takes about 8 kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of beef. Similar though smaller multiplier applies to pork and chicken. If human beings are grain-fed, reduction in the size of farmland for grain alone would be astounding, let alone the area for livestock. Whether veggies will be more expensive is another question, but Vegetarianism almost looks like the proverbial magic bullet.

[Sy Borg]

You are right that that will counterbalance the likely increased rationalisation of animal welfare in farming.

Still, veggies will become more expensive too as arable land degrades due to climate change.

It takes about 8 kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of beef. Similar though smaller multiplier applies to pork and chicken. If human beings are grain-fed, reduction in the size of farmland for grain alone would be astounding, let alone the area for livestock. Whether veggies will be more expensive is another question, but Vegetarianism almost looks like the proverbial magic bullet.

I see no way around the considerable resistance in the community towards vegetarianism. Even today it can be difficult to find vegetarian option in food stores. In fact, meat eating is increasing around the world. At least it looks like that trend will now be reversed.

[gad-fly]

It takes about 8 kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of beef. Similar though smaller multiplier applies to pork and chicken. If human beings are grain-fed, reduction in the size of farmland for grain alone would be astounding, let alone the area for livestock. Whether veggies will be more expensive is another question, but Vegetarianism almost looks like the proverbial magic bullet.

I see no way around the considerable resistance in the community towards vegetarianism. Even today it can be difficult to find vegetarian option in food stores. In fact, meat eating is increasing around the world. At least it looks like that trend will now be reversed.

You mean it will"not" be reversed? You may be right. Take an example, If you are wealthy enough, you buy a car, and you will cycle less. If you are not wealthy enough, you buy a bicycle, and you walk less. But if you are poor, you walk. I have seen this happening in my generation.

But more. Nowadays people with fanciful cars walk for the heck of it. Why? Crazy, isn't it? They walk up the stairs when they can take the lift or escalator. This can happen between tasty meat and and bland vegetable too in future, and the fall in living standard brought by distancing following the pandemic may give the trend a kick-start or some wake-up call. Isn't that what we need?

[Sy Borg]

Isn't that what we need?

It is better than not, but there's simply far, far too many of us for sustainability. About five times too many, at least. Thus, I see any potential positives at all at this stage as being too little, too late. If we were to handle the coming challenges, we would have needed to have acted on population, climate and resources four decades ago. Alas, the job was too imposing, too difficult, so we opted for "business as usual".

Further, when many of the wealthiest and most politically influential companies in the world are fossil fuel producers, clearly nothing serious was ever going to be done that could jeopardise their profits. As if they would allow that!

I still believe in acting as though there is hope - consuming and disposing of waste carefully - but, realistically, a major extinction event is in train and it will catch up to humans too. Not the billionaires, of course, but regular people.

[Sculptor1]

Isn't that what we need?

It is better than not, but there's simply far, far too many of us for sustainability. About five times too many, at least. Thus, I see any potential positives at all at this stage as being too little, too late. If we were to handle the coming challenges, we would have needed to have acted on population, climate and resources four decades ago. Alas, the job was too imposing, too difficult, so we opted for "business as usual".

Further, when many of the wealthiest and most politically influential companies in the world are fossil fuel producers, clearly nothing serious was ever going to be done that could jeopardise their profits. As if they would allow that!

I still believe in acting as though there is hope - consuming and disposing of waste carefully - but, realistically, a major extinction event is in train and it will catch up to humans too. Not the billionaires, of course, but regular people.

Your phrase "Alas, the job was too imposing, too difficult, so we opted for "business as usual"." misconceives the problem utterly. As if "we" *whoever the F that is), had some sort of choice. There is no authority, no political body, no community able to act on this.

The problem of population is due to the richest countries in the world making all the pollution and GW, and the obsession with the white goods, and shiny things that make us go faster and in more comfort. It is due to the love of family and the joy of children, and the wish to fulfil the expectations of the previous generations to provide children, grandchildren ad nauseam.
Its the fact of acquisition, not only through greed and thoughtlessness, but right down to basic needs. It is also the lack of a pan-human organisation; the valorisation of nationalism, patriotism and a range of other tribalisms that throw humans into competition and conflict, against ourselves and other living things.

Acting to dispose of waste carefully will do nothing. Not making the waste in the first place is the only effective strategy, to do that we need to eat the rich.