I know what covid strategy I prefer.
As I've said before, I believe China's collectivism to be more advance and civilised than Western liberalism, and that Carl Jung and Hegel got individualism wrong, although not entirely wrong, which I've written about here before. They were right about individualism, but not about it being the most highest state, as a supra collectivism of willing individuals comes after. Western individualism seems rather crude and somewhat primitive to me.
The Chinese prefer to preserve life and to be able to live free of covid, rather than risk it and put up with covid. They might have to live with it at some stage, but the vaccines are forever improving, including ones that will protect against all variants, so the risk will be small, or even non existent, when they fully open up their society. Their economy doing better than ours too.
The Chinese were prepared to knuckle down to get bigger gains later, so their society is now virtually back to normal. Personally, I think that wearing masks, social distancing, and getting vaccinated is no big deal, and I don't know what the fuss is about.
Everything we do has risks, but vaccines are far safer than the diseases they protect against. If people are worried about such small risks, then why cycle on a road, like I do, or drive a car. Many of these antivaxxers are knocking back the beer, wine, and spirits each night doing far more harm, and some people, like me, are probably get too much caffeine.
Is China Zero Covid Policy Right or Wrong?
8 comments:
China doesn't have zero Covid. Their elderly die of natural causes just as ours do. Their deaths do not make the news. No strategy can eradicate coronaviruses.
Unlike many western countries, China doesn't warehouse its elderly in nursing homes.
That is a cultural difference worth contemplating.
As for individualism versus collectivism, only the latter commits genocide. Hundreds of millions were killed because the ends justified the means. Such acts are a form of mass psychosis, whose behavioral roots can be traced to tribalism. The 'othering' of people is not a product of culture.
Then there are people like yourself, who view collective action as some sort of virtue. As if collectivism is an end onto itself. For me, it is just a method of accomplishing a task. Whether that be eradicating smallpox, or exterminating Jews.
We all accept risks, knowingly and unknowingly.
We are not good at perceiving risks, even when confronted by numbers.
What about the fuss regarding vaccination?
When I'm given the choice, I exercise my agency. I decide what goes into my body, and which medical procedures I consent to. End of discussion. If you have a problem with that, look up the Nuremberg Code.
"I know what covid strategy I prefer."
Move to China then and get the whole experience.
Leave the west to those of us who are not too keen on totalitarian regimes.
As for individualism versus collectivism, only the latter commits genocide. Hundreds of millions were killed because the ends justified the means. Such acts are a form of mass psychosis, whose behavioral roots can be traced to tribalism. The 'othering' of people is not a product of culture.
You are joking, right? Did you miss imperialism and colonialism in history class. Oh right, that is not taught in history classes in the West. Goes back to the Greeks who killed all the males in a defeated city-state and enslaved the women and children. As a hoplite, Socrates apparently either was involved in it or at least was OK with it.
Now it persists in neo-imperialism and neocolonialism. Man's inhumanity to man seems to "natural." Then there are the animals.
I don't associate collectivism with socialism. It is responsible for the atrocities you mention.
There are rationales for those crimes, that the perpetrators tell themselves, but 'othering' is a behavioral trait.
There is systematic "othering" the US. It called "racism" and institutionalized "discrimination" including gender).
Canada doesn't have a great record regarding its indigenous either. Neither does Australia. British colonialism was the ancestor and example for this. Anglo liberalism is based on individualism and it has been one of the worst serial offenders.
Othering began long before colonialism.
Exactly. It is an evolutionary trait occurring at the sub-human level as well. Simply put, animals, including humans have a preference for sameness, which is the basis of cooperation, and an aversion to difference, which is the basis of competition, as means to preserve and transmit like DNA.
(See Robert Ardrey's The Territorial Imperative, for instance.)
But humans can rise above this trait to some degree, since humans are guided by reason and developed sentiment rather than instinct as are subhuman species. This provides humans with a greater degree of freedom, which can be developed. The ability increases with increase in the appreciation of universality, which is grounding in at least tacit appreciation of the unity of being. Individual and collective consciousness (baseline of a group) is based on this. The basis of liberalism as a philosophical POV is based on recognition of universality.
no culture or ideology is responsible for this behavior
Culture and ideology can be implicated, however. But this is actually a reflection of the collective consciousness of that group that at that period of history. Some individuals consciousnesses is capable of appreciating less universality than others, and in the aggregate this affects an entire group. There are both biological and sociological reasons for such differences.
Exile was/is another punishment for failing to submit to the collective.
The basis of liberalism as a philosophical POV is based on recognition of universality.
The individual puts theory into practice, through interpersonal experiences.
The collective usually ends up practicing the opposite of what they extol.
Forgot to add: Exile was also an opportunity.
Post a Comment