Could Covid-19 end 'human exceptionalism'?

[brad465]

Also know more formally as "anthropocentrism", I strongly believe (and other posts in other threads suggest similar views are shared here), that our response to Covid is human exceptionalism at its worst; the general definition is the argument humans are the most important entity, but arguably also the belief that we can and should beat anything. Essentially we seem to think because of our advanced technology and collective intelligence (relative to other species), we've seen Covid as a threat and tried to throw everything at it because our "exceptionalism" will supposedly beat it and we won't lose much in exchange, or what we will lose we will quickly recover. I'm sure many others will agree I think we are in for a real wake up call when the fallout from all this comes to light, which will accelerate once support schemes end and the longer restrictions overall prevail. I think basing a strategy around a vaccine is by far the best example of how our technological capabilities are driving exceptionalism.

I do think though there are benefits to such a wake up call if it happens, although it would be shame that the consequences of human exceptionalism have to be found out the hard way. Nations that may have had exceptionalist attitudes in the past, but were then ravaged by war/other suffering before eventually growing stronger out of that and have become more cooperative with other nations (like the EU/European relations after the consequences of two world wars); I think if/when we realise we're not exceptional and that nature always has and always will be the ultimate power broker, we might treat our planet better and acknowledge realities and how we best manage them.

Given the average life expectancy of covid deaths (similar to average life expectancy generally), it could be argued covid is just one of nature's "balancing acts", where throughout the world's ecosystems no species is allowed to get the upper hand for too long; if the population of one species goes up, their predators can thrive off them and drive them back down, then the reverse applies when that predator runs out of food. We have been advancing ourselves to live longer over generations, which has caused our world population to rise rapidly to almost 8 billion and we are now a major imbalance in the world ecosystems. Covid probably would not have been a significant worry several decades ago if it behaved in the same way it is now, because not as many people would be living to its average age of death. Our ability to live longer has brought up for some (and should bring up more widely), a debate about quality vs quantity of life; we have become obsessed as a collective species with trying to make ourselves live as long as possible with no regards to quality, when living longer brings up a whole host of new problems, including dementia, Alzheimer's and other mental/physical illnesses that become more problematic with age. They are expensive to treat/manage, and are not from what I've heard a dignified way to live out one's last days. Essentially reality has become in places "too dangerous" a subject to talk about, namely the simple reality that death is a natural part of life. Some countries have started acknowledging this, such as New Zealand recently legalising euthanasia for those with terminal illness, although it can be argued it's not very broad at the moment there.

Bringing this back to Covid effects, if the fallout from the pandemic is as stark as many are predicting, in which many more lives are lost through mental health problems, undiagnosed physical illnesses and consequences of increasing levels of poverty, then we might start to realise we're not exceptional after all and start debating and acting in ways that improve quality of life through more balanced measures. As I said above, it would be nice if we could realise this without having to go through all the troubles of our Covid response, but unfortunately humans only seem to prefer to find out the hard way. I believe we can end this apparent human exceptionalism problem, but it's important that the costs of everything we've been through do not go unnoticed/undermined.

 

[MikeWM]

Also know more formally as "anthropocentrism", I strongly believe (and other posts in other threads suggest similar views are shared here), that our response to Covid is human exceptionalism at its worst; the general definition is the argument humans are the most important entity, but arguably also the belief that we can and should beat anything. Essentially we seem to think because of our advanced technology and collective intelligence (relative to other species), we've seen Covid as a threat and tried to throw everything at it because our "exceptionalism" will supposedly beat it and we won't lose much in exchange, or what we will lose we will quickly recover. I'm sure many others will agree I think we are in for a real wake up call when the fallout from all this comes to light, which will accelerate once support schemes end and the longer restrictions overall prevail. I think basing a strategy around a vaccine is by far the best example of how our technological capabilities are driving exceptionalism.

I think this is a very interesting argument and largely I agree. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that humans have achieved many incredible things and hopefully will continue to do so, but there are limits, and we need to recognise that. The King Canute story is famous for a good reason!

I think a large part of the issues we face in modern society is our lack of ability to recognise the fact that, to be crude, 'sometimes s**t happens'. Sometimes things just aren't due to someone's fault or an imperfection or something we should have done something about. This mindset that we have created where there is always someone or something to blame - or sue - for a bad thing happening, is not a healthy one.

I've probably said this before, and maybe I'll get some flack for it, but one of the things that really drove this home for me was the railway deaths that happened at Elsenham in 2005. Two young girls took a silly risk and were very unlucky and paid the ultimate price. A horrible and unfortunate event. But we look around for someone to blame, someone didn't do enough to prevent it or block it or stop it, and we point fingers because anger is easier to deal with than grief. We think people need to be protected from themselves, and there is always blame to be allocated if they're not.

Our ability to live longer has brought up for some (and should bring up more widely), a debate about quality vs quantity of life; we have become obsessed as a collective species with trying to make ourselves live as long as possible with no regards to quality, when living longer brings up a whole host of new problems, including dementia, Alzheimer's and other mental/physical illnesses that become more problematic with age. They are expensive to treat/manage, and are not from what I've heard a dignified way to live out one's last days. Essentially reality has become in places "too dangerous" a subject to talk about, namely the simple reality that death is a natural part of life. Some countries have started acknowledging this, such as New Zealand recently legalising euthanasia for those with terminal illness, although it can be argued it's not very broad at the moment there.

I totally agree. As I've probably said before, I've experienced two close relatives in their 90s die in the past decade, and there appears to be no consideration whatsoever given to quantity v quality of life - quantity seems to win out entirely. To be blunt, a quick case of pneumonia caused by Covid (or flu or similar) would have been a much more humane way of passing away than what actually happened to them in their last days/weeks. And yet in some respects they were lucky - I know other people with elderly relatives who have 'lived' with no quality of life whatever for *years* after eg. suffering a serious stroke.

I wonder how much this ties in to the decline in organised religion. If you don't believe in an afterlife, then this is all you've got, and I wonder if that has helped to tip the balance somewhat in favour of quantity over quality.

But whatever the cause, we urgently need to address this issue. The curremt crisis is in no small part a clear manifestation of exactly this problem.

 

[DustyBin]

A good post and interesting question! As for the answer I’m really not sure, but for all of the excellent points you make (and those made by @MikeWM) I think there is a real danger of things actually going the other way....

 

[brad465]

I totally agree. As I've probably said before, I've experienced two close relatives in their 90s die in the past decade, and there appears to be no consideration whatsoever given to quantity v quality of life - quantity seems to win out entirely. To be blunt, a quick case of pneumonia caused by Covid (or flu or similar) would have been a much more humane way of passing away than what actually happened to them in their last days/weeks. And yet in some respects they were lucky - I know other people with elderly relatives who have 'lived' with no quality of life whatever for *years* after eg. suffering a serious stroke.

I wonder how much this ties in to the decline in organised religion. If you don't believe in an afterlife, then this is all you've got, and I wonder if that has helped to tip the balance somewhat in favour of quantity over quality.

But whatever the cause, we urgently need to address this issue. The current crisis is in no small part a clear manifestation of exactly this problem.

There's certainly a lot of merit to this: on the subject of religion's role, I'm Christian and do support the argument that we should live a natural life, however I think that argument works both ways: yes we should not prematurely end an otherwise healthy life, but I think artificially extending a life through life support means, 24 hour care and other measures where an individual cannot survive independently is not natural either, and think in those circumstances there is justification to providing the choice of ending suffering. Covid could become/be seen as an alternative "Old man's friend" for this reason. At the very least this matter should be debated, and I do think religions collectively have struggled to adapt to the advances in technology in relation to some of their related teachings, many of which still date back millennia (when many of the health problems and types of long-term suffering weren't a thing), which may have played a part in their reducing followers.

A good post and interesting question! As for the answer I’m really not sure, but for all of the excellent points you make (and those made by @MikeWM) I think there is a real danger of things actually going the other way....

I see where you're coming from, which is why I suggested at the end of my original post if we are to overcome this exceptionalism problem the collateral damage of our Covid response cannot go unnoticed.

 

[Scotrail12]

I personally hope so.

I am very against the idea that we need to keep living as long as possible and always hate when I hear things like "we're aiming for people to live for 150 years in future". I'm much more about quality of life. For me personally, I'm 19 so have a long way to go yet but I know that I wouldn't want to live if I reached the point where a good quality of life was not possible and I wouldn't be able to do anything for myself. We obviously aren't in the minds of people in care homes but if you've done your own thing for your whole life and suddenly are stuck alone in a house and can't do anything yourself, that must be really upsetting and would drive some insane.

I'm agnostic so I don't pay attention to the religious or utilitarian teachings, it's just my personal view that I would rather have 80 good years than continue to live on afterwards for another 20+ years and have a miserable time.

And even taking out old age - should we keep people in pain when dying of cancer just for the sake of them being alive? I'm sorry but I think that's inhumane.

 

[bramling]

Also know more formally as "anthropocentrism", I strongly believe (and other posts in other threads suggest similar views are shared here), that our response to Covid is human exceptionalism at its worst; the general definition is the argument humans are the most important entity, but arguably also the belief that we can and should beat anything. Essentially we seem to think because of our advanced technology and collective intelligence (relative to other species), we've seen Covid as a threat and tried to throw everything at it because our "exceptionalism" will supposedly beat it and we won't lose much in exchange, or what we will lose we will quickly recover. I'm sure many others will agree I think we are in for a real wake up call when the fallout from all this comes to light, which will accelerate once support schemes end and the longer restrictions overall prevail. I think basing a strategy around a vaccine is by far the best example of how our technological capabilities are driving exceptionalism.

I do think though there are benefits to such a wake up call if it happens, although it would be shame that the consequences of human exceptionalism have to be found out the hard way. Nations that may have had exceptionalist attitudes in the past, but were then ravaged by war/other suffering before eventually growing stronger out of that and have become more cooperative with other nations (like the EU/European relations after the consequences of two world wars); I think if/when we realise we're not exceptional and that nature always has and always will be the ultimate power broker, we might treat our planet better and acknowledge realities and how we best manage them.

Given the average life expectancy of covid deaths (similar to average life expectancy generally), it could be argued covid is just one of nature's "balancing acts", where throughout the world's ecosystems no species is allowed to get the upper hand for too long; if the population of one species goes up, their predators can thrive off them and drive them back down, then the reverse applies when that predator runs out of food. We have been advancing ourselves to live longer over generations, which has caused our world population to rise rapidly to almost 8 billion and we are now a major imbalance in the world ecosystems. Covid probably would not have been a significant worry several decades ago if it behaved in the same way it is now, because not as many people would be living to its average age of death. Our ability to live longer has brought up for some (and should bring up more widely), a debate about quality vs quantity of life; we have become obsessed as a collective species with trying to make ourselves live as long as possible with no regards to quality, when living longer brings up a whole host of new problems, including dementia, Alzheimer's and other mental/physical illnesses that become more problematic with age. They are expensive to treat/manage, and are not from what I've heard a dignified way to live out one's last days. Essentially reality has become in places "too dangerous" a subject to talk about, namely the simple reality that death is a natural part of life. Some countries have started acknowledging this, such as New Zealand recently legalising euthanasia for those with terminal illness, although it can be argued it's not very broad at the moment there.

Bringing this back to Covid effects, if the fallout from the pandemic is as stark as many are predicting, in which many more lives are lost through mental health problems, undiagnosed physical illnesses and consequences of increasing levels of poverty, then we might start to realise we're not exceptional after all and start debating and acting in ways that improve quality of life through more balanced measures. As I said above, it would be nice if we could realise this without having to go through all the troubles of our Covid response, but unfortunately humans only seem to prefer to find out the hard way. I believe we can end this apparent human exceptionalism problem, but it's important that the costs of everything we've been through do not go unnoticed/undermined.

A very interesting post. I'm not necessarily sure the notion of finding a vaccine to mitigate against Covid is a major issue, that's more a case of science at its best. However I'd certainly agree that elements of the political response is exceptionalism, right down to the language like "let's beat this", or that people not wearing masks "have blood on their hands".

The whole Covid thing reminds me of some times when we get something like a complex signal failure on the railway. The operating staff will be running around like blue-arsed flies flapping around doing all sorts of unhelpful things, meanwhile the signal technicians will be quietly and calmly working away doing their best to ignore all the commotion, and after a little while will calmly announce that they've fixed the issue!

 

[brad465]

Taken from the vaccine progress thread but I think fits in with this subject:

The problem is that it is not remotely the greatest threat to humanity in living memory.

TB, Polio, Hitler, Stalin, Imperial Japan, atomic bombs being dropped on cities, devastating hong kong flu in 60s are all in living memory.

It is only because of our modern risk averse culture and the decline in belief in God making the prospect of death more terrifying that lockdowns, social distancing and other disruption of normal life has occurred.

If it really was the biggest threat to human life in living memory then there would be no need to pass laws ordering people to stay at home.

Completely agree with this: I'm Christian and wondered early on if being against the current approach were compatible with my religious views. However on another side of my family, my very strong Catholic aunt and Uncle have been struggling mentally with all this and dislike much of the current strategy, which makes me believe being against the current strategy isn't an issue.

In line with something I said in my original post, if the costs to society through deaths from other causes and economic hardship are publicised highly enough in months and years to come, it may just make us accept risk and reality in how we live much more.

 

[squizzler]

I read today that the birth rate has gone through the floor for the UK (a trend that would presumably affect most countries as well) as people delay expanding their family. Perhaps this marks a change from the idea that more people is a good thing, and continuous growth (on a finite planet - ha!) should be encouraged.

The role of religion is an interesting route to follow. Single deity faiths like Islam and Christianity are overly anthropocentric - they effectively say that humankind was given dominion over the natural world by the creator who tends in Christian heritage to look like us. Compare and contrast this with pagan belief systems where multiple gods would were present in the natural world in various forms including those of animals, and the avoidance of their wrath required us to navigate our way amongst them in a respectful and unselfish manner...

 

[MikeWM]

I read today that the birth rate has gone through the floor for the UK (a trend that would presumably affect most countries as well) as people delay expanding their family. Perhaps this marks a change from the idea that more people is a good thing, and continuous growth (on a finite planet - ha!) should be encouraged.

Enforced social distancing seems likely to be an issue too. If we're not forming new relationships, and people in existing relationships are choosing not to have children for now, then little surprise that the birth rate has tanked. While I agree a reduction in some cases may be welcome, changes like this occurring too quickly just leads to demographic timebombs.

The role of religion is an interesting route to follow. Single deity faiths like Islam and Christianity are overly anthropocentric - they effectively say that humankind was given dominion over the natural world by the creator who tends in Christian heritage to look like us.

Though in many cases that is tied into the concept of 'stewardship' - that the dominion we have been given also has an inherent responsibility not to abuse it.

I'm Christian and wondered early on if being against the current approach were compatible with my religious views. However on another side of my family, my very strong Catholic aunt and Uncle have been struggling mentally with all this and dislike much of the current strategy, which makes me believe being against the current strategy isn't an issue.

I was raised Catholic and periodically have returned to the faith, though I've been away for quite some time now. I see no contradiction between Catholicism and objection to what has occurred over the past year. Indeed, the rather craven and cowardly attitude shown by the Catholic Church over the past year - meekly obeying the strictures of the state, depriving the faithful of the sacraments and the benefits of communal worship and prayer at a time of crisis - would have irritated me immensely if I were still a practicing Catholic. My mother (who still is a practicing and fairly devout Catholic) has found the lack of support from the Church to be deeply frustrating.

 

[brad465]

I read today that the birth rate has gone through the floor for the UK (a trend that would presumably affect most countries as well) as people delay expanding their family. Perhaps this marks a change from the idea that more people is a good thing, and continuous growth (on a finite planet - ha!) should be encouraged.

Enforced social distancing seems likely to be an issue too. If we're not forming new relationships, and people in existing relationships are choosing not to have children for now, then little surprise that the birth rate has tanked. While I agree a reduction in some cases may be welcome, changes like this occurring too quickly just leads to demographic timebombs.

The problem here is because of our perpetual growth economic model the Government has and will just bring more cheap labour in from other countries to keep the "pyramid scheme" afloat. That's not to say immigration is wrong and should be stopped, but the way it's being used is exploiting immigrants and causing a brain drain in their home countries.

We do need to come up with alternative measures of human welfare to GDP, and actually given the Covid-induced economic crisis it would be beneficial to make a change in parameters in line with making a fresh start, but that's easier said than done. Another attitude that needs to change that is linked to perpetual growth is consumerism: we're constantly made to buy more and more stuff as means of feeling happier and "keeping up with the Joneses", but this is encouraging environmental destruction and if anything helped contribute to this pandemic, and is certainly a risk factor in future ones.