As the Guardian notes in its morning headline story:
As fears grow over the threat posed by the highly mutated Omicron variant, detected in more than 30 countries, Prof Dame Sarah Gilbert, [the creator of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine,] warned that while it was increasingly obvious that “this pandemic is not done with us”, the next one could be worse.
Is she right? Who can tell? But, given that history makes it clear that pandemics happen, and given that it is clear that we are heading for unknown environments in which radical changes in the conditions that support life will occur, I do on the balance of probability think that she is likely to be so. In that case the question is, what does this mean?
My own sense is that what this threat poses is the question of what is important to us? It would seem that, as yet, there are many in society who are in complete denial about the risks that climate change and pandemics pose, whilst many more appear reluctant to accept the challenges that they pose to the way of living that we have ‘enjoyed' during the last few decades. In that case there is almost certainly a majority who are not yet willing to suggest what is really important to them. This is reflected in the current state of UK politics, which still prioritises present interests over any long-term consideration.
This, however, does not mean that the question does not need to be asked. Nor does it suggest that this question will not be asked. My suggestion is that the only doubt is about when this question will top the political agenda.
What is it that will create the change? I think that will happen when the current suppressed doubts that many have move towards fear, which in turn requires action on the part of government to address it.
Why are there suppressed doubts? Despite all the excess deaths that have happened, there is no doubt that during this summer and autumn the government succeeded in somehow persuading many people in the UK that this pandemic was over. That is now being shown to very obviously be wrong. However, as populist tropes go, this one has been immensely popular amongst those who the government has deliberately exposed to risk, including all children and their parents. This trope provided false reassurance by suggesting that the government really is not indifferent to their fate, but has instead solved this issue.
Now the reality is becoming obvious. The issue has not been solved. People are very definitely at risk. And although government cost-benefit analysis place very low value on children's lives because of their limited economic contribution to society, real people have very different perceptions of what is of importance. If, as South African experience to date suggests likely, the next wave of coronavirus does threaten young people then I think that questions will be asked that will begin to reframe priorities.
The question as to why we cannot have clean air in schools, hospitals, workplaces and elsewhere will be one that will be addressed, when it is possible for that to happen.
The trade-off that this will demand in environmental terms because of the resources that producing clean air will consume, will be one of the next to happen.
And, after that, the entire relationship between health, well-being, life itself, the environment, and how we live is likely to be of significant political concern.
I have no doubt that there will be continuing free-rider thinking despite this. In other words, there will be those who deny the problem deliberately so that they need not pay the price that society must settle if we are to maintain safe life on earth. There will also be political parties that will reflect that view. The likelihood that the Conservatives will be one such party is high. But what I expect is that majority sentiment will change.
What I am certainly not expecting, however, is a complete sea change of opinion, overnight. However, I welcome articles such as this one in the Guardian for what they signal is that the time for questions to be asked has arrived. The challenge is that for decades we have had politics in which ethics has been afforded a very low priority. The opposite now needs to be the case. One of the biggest questions is, can we make that transition?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
‘On est tous des Pangolins!’
You are right to point out the lack of any ethical concern from mainstream politics for our future survival, whether this is the present coronavirus pandemic and possible future more deadly variants and more so regarding the enormous elephant in the room – climate overheating.
Whilst our current media pundits love to emphasise the immediate and often trivial “news”, the big issues, especially if this means billions and in the case of climate, trillions of investments are conveniently for governments and corporations, shrugged off as either impossible now, or need to be deferred to a later date. The ignoring of scientific advice on Delta and now more urgently Omicron in order for people to “enjoy”a carefree Christmas is beyond belief. The failure of COP26 and the continuing hurtling towards at least 2.7 c above pre-industrial temperature levels have been completely forgotten by our governments and spokespeople. There probably is more awareness now by the general public of these issues and more people want to take action to try and improve the situation but the government realises this and so is introducing draconian new clamp downs on civil liberties and political action with new legislation.
Whilst Greens have been campaigning for decades on climate, biodiversity, and our very survival, they have only made limited progress held back by our antiquated first past the post elections. Now, however, with more public awareness of the anti-green stance of the”mainstream parties”, Greens may get a surge enough to start to try to repair the planetary damage and counter the power and hold to account the huge corporations who are in cahoots with the government and are largely responsible for the mess that we are all in..
I don’t like to categorise the left and I am not an anarchist. I believe we need a State to meet the challenges ahead as we face planetary and civilisational collapse. I think we need to heed those of the past like Marx, Luxembourg, Lenin even, ‘Be ready!’ At present our options are weak and pathetic even, Capitalism will roll on until the last man standing, tearing up and ripping the heart out of planetary niches for profits. For value added. Expecting our Capitalist Civilisation to work for the Common Good, of Humanity and all the other Species we share this planet with, is a pipe dream. Tinkering the system, a bit at a time, as Social Democrats and Liberals like to think is possible, will never, cannot ever work. It is as plain as day that large corporations, particularly those involved in Fossil Fuel extraction and delivery, the huge mining and logging conglomerates, the financial institutions that fund and hedge for them, will never, ever remove themselves from the harm they are doing. They cannot contemplate a cessation of their economic model. They are psychologically incapable and structurally incapable of doing so. They must all, at some stage be nationalised, Exxon, BP, Shell, all of them. We need them for a transition, but they cannot be trusted to act as they need to. No Western government will contemplate this as they are all in hock to these Corporations and the Oligarchs who own and control them, but there will come a time soon, when they will face a terrible price for their obduracy and greed. Under rising pressure from drought and famine, huge refugee flows and burning landscapes, zoonotic overspill (yes there are more to come), resource wars and desperation for access to water, they and their government lackies will falter. They will rush to emergency powers as they did with the Sars-Cov 19 crisis, and this is the opportunity for us to strike. Not as lone anarchists, but as an educated and motivated alternative. They will try to use desperate measures to keep the show on the road, cloud seeding, Carbon Capture and Storage (for profit), iron filings on the oceans, any desperate measure to keep the corpse of Zombie Capitalism alive at whatever cost to the earth. They have to be opposed. We have to change our model of civilisation. Completely.
Gordon I note what you say but the working assumption of this blog is that the mixed economy us here to stay, and personally I think that desirable.
Richard = ‘the entire relationship between health, well-being, life itself, the environment, and how we live’ is a political concern.
We are bound to be slow to think of ourselves as now very fragile and vulnerable to nature – as in the early modern period when life span was 40 etc – after decades of assuming we had basically conquered nature. Can we, never mind political parties, get our heads around what that means for our whole way of life and the economy.
There could be whole new industries getting public spaces – schools, offices, theatres, sports grounds safe through monitoring and ventilating and certifying . There might be whole new regulators guiding of how we gather together and under what conditions.
Maybe new gazebo suppliers for new kinds of semi -outdoor family and friends socialising, new types of outdoor heating, less flying, re engineered railway carriages and bus interiors etc etc.
Vastly expanded renewable energy sectors etc etc
But the rentier/monopolistic financialised capitalism we have – might simply not do any of this – it has already persuaded the government that tens of thousands should die unnecessarily.
I agree
Thanks for this, Richard.
As you know, as well as running the Church Action for Tax Justice programme, I’m a staffer at http://www.deepadaptation.info – where we treat climate disaster as though it were the real possibility it is; and find ways to meet a messy future with compassion, love and courage.
One of the things we use to map a way into the unmapped times, is a framework called the 4R’s – a way of working out what needs keeping, getting rid of (as it doesn’t serve us well), bringing back or perhaps reconciling ourselves/making peace with. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea – but perhaps works as well in navigating pandemic problems just as well as it does climate collapse: https://www.deepadaptation.info/the-four-rs-a-framework-for-inquiry/
Cat
As a Quaker I relate to that
Go well
Richard