VIRUS

Let me give you a hypothetical scenario.

Imagine, as best as you can, that there's a virus.

To help your imaginations, I'll describe this virus.

Let’s suppose it’s a novel new strain of an old structure that we’ve known about for a long time.

Let's suppose it appears quickly, and it spreads quickly.

Let's suppose it's deadly and vicious. It harms a lot of people, and many of those it harms it kills.

Let's say in some places, people are better prepared for the virus, and less people get infected, and less people die as a result, but in other places, people are worse prepared for a virus, and more people get infected, and more people will die as a result.

Now, imagine that this virus spreads so effectively because a large number of people who get it—perhaps even a majority of the people who get it—are asymptomatic carriers.

They don't intend to carry it, they likely don't even know they carry it, but they do.

People will be harmed, and some will suffer permanent damage, and some will die, because of these asymptomatic super-spreaders, who will never even need to know that they were the cause of all this needless pain.

They didn't mean to spread it. But they did.

Now, let’s say the best way of containing such a virus was for everybody to agree, for the sake of those who are most vulnerable, to do some things that are manageable, but personally inconvenient and perhaps uncomfortable, and even in some cases carrying some expense.

Let’s make up some random examples: first, on a personal individual level, they’d need to wear something that is very slightly uncomfortable, and to stay indoors as much as possible, and to avoid social contact as much as possible.

Doing this would make a huge difference.

Next, on a macro level, their government would need to invest heavily in relief for people whose livelihoods depended on at-risk behavior, and on vigorous, nationally coordinated testing—in short, on knowing about the virus, and then on spending what it costs to combat it.

Now let’s say that in time the virus will be defeated. Herd immunity or vaccine. The virus will seem, for all intents and purposes, to be gone—but it won’t be gone. Viruses mutate, grow, change, and eventually evolve to new strains.

I hope this scenario is relatable.

So, a society that is wise and knowledgeable about viruses will invest in vigilant prophylactic systems to monitor and guard against viruses—in short, they will commit to knowing as much as possible about viruses in general, and then on spending what it costs to contain them.

On a macro governmental level, and on a personal individual level, then, combating a virus depends on knowledge of the virus, and then on actually acting on that knowledge, which involves some cost.

Now, imagine a society that decides to *ignore* the virus. Can you imagine this?

Imagine a society that decides to demand as a philosophical principle that societal systems don’t really exist, or that systems exist but can’t be changed, all so they don’t have to spend time or effort or convenience or expense on combating viruses.

What must we assume?

In such a society you might find a government that decides only to fight the virus to the extent that profit is protected, and, outside of those bounds, will simply exercise a practiced ignorance that the virus exists, or is simply an unchangeable part of the new way of things.

Such a society might select as leader of such a government a man of ignorance, who decides to suppress testing, because even through dim awareness he realizes the report of infection makes him look bad, and without such report, the full truth of infection won’t be known.

Imagine a government that decides not to invest in monitoring and guarding against the next virus.

Or even to actually dismantle the apparatuses already in place for monitoring and guarding against viruses.

Can you imagine?

Before long you might decide that such a government was not committed to the health of its citizens. Before long you’d have to conclude that such a government had deliberately chosen ignorance of things already known, in order to satisfy the temporary benefit of other interests.

Before long you might even have to conclude such a government has *aligned* themselves with the spread of the virus, no matter their stated intents. They’ll tell you that they are against viruses—of course they are. But you will know better, if you have eyes to see it.

They don’t align themselves with the spread of the virus by actively spreading it, but by simply refusing to acknowledge things that are already known, so as to avoid the responsibility that comes with knowledge, and thus avoid any cost that might come with that responsibility.

Or: Imagine a society of people who absolutely refuse to participate in the minor discomforts, framing their decision along lines of personal individual risk and intention and freedom.

Imagine they refuse to understand that they might be spreading the virus, citing only statistics to support their contentions, ignoring all others, demanding proofs of things already known, even believing the lies that the virus doesn’t exist.

I know it's a wild premise.

Imagine such people get very angry when they see other people engaging in the minor inconveniences that would allow the virus to spread, almost as if the sight of people exercising knowledge about the problem convicts them of their decision to align with ignorance.

Before long you might decide that such a society was committed, as a first priority, to ignorance of things already known, in order to satisfy the temporary indulgence of their own convenience.

Before long you might even have to conclude such people have *aligned* themselves with the spread of the virus, no matter their stated intents. They’ll tell you that they are against viruses—of course they are. But you will know better, if you have eyes to see it.

They don’t align themselves with the spread of the virus by actively spreading it, but by simply refusing to acknowledge things that are already known, so as to avoid the responsibility that comes with knowledge, and thus avoid any cost that might come with that responsibility.

Imagine a virus. Something systemic and deadly.

And imagine a society that aligns itself with that viruses spread, by choosing not to know it exists, because knowledge brings responsibility, and responsibility brings cost.

To help your imaginations, I'll describe this virus.

Let’s suppose it’s a novel new strain of an old structure that we’ve known about for a long time.

Let's suppose it appears quickly, and it spreads quickly.

Let's suppose it's deadly and vicious. It harms a lot of people, and many of those it harms it kills.

Now, imagine that this virus spreads so effectively because a large number of people who get it—perhaps even a majority of the people who get it—are asymptomatic carriers. Spreading it in ignorance of it.

Me. You. Us.

We know now. We can't not know, unless we decide not to.

The question is one of alignment. Now that we know, what will we do? Will we accept the responsibility that comes with knowledge, and the inconvenience, discomfort, and cost that comes with responsibility?

Or will we go the other way, and choose the danger of ignorance?

We've arrived a point where ignorance is a choice. To ask for proofs of this old virus is to commit, as a first priority, to ignorance of things already known, in order to satisfy the temporary indulgence of our own convenience.

And unchecked viruses compromise the whole system.

The individual choice isn't whether or not the virus exists, but the choice to align with or against it.

Acceptance of knowledge then of responsibility then of cost. It's a matter of survival.

Refusing it makes our system unsustainable.

And unsustainable systems don't sustain.