Preppers and Saints in the Time of the Coronavirus

It is difficult to find words for the disgust I feel for the prepper mentality that has proliferated in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.  People are hoarding vital supplies, stocking up on guns and preparing for the apocalypse.  The prepper world is flourishing.

Meanwhile, millions of medical professionals are risking their lives to help those who have contracted the disease.  Millions more are donating time and resources to help those whose businesses or livelihoods have been destroyed as a consequence of the pandemic.

In times of crisis there have always been saints and villains.  Humanity is a strange mix of selfless nobility and craven self-interest.  When put to the test, each human being must decide.  Will I be a person who tries to assist others by some means, who is willing to risk and potentially sacrifice resources or health for the general good?  Or will I seek to shield myself and my family and retreat from society, hoarding whatever supplies and resources I can get my hands on, regardless of the impact on others?

We are currently facing a unique challenge that crosses national borders, racial and ethnic lines and even economic class.  How we respond to this challenge will determine whether the human race can survive in the coming years of potential pandemics and climate catastrophe. 

The costs in terms of life and commerce will be staggering no matter how we respond. But if we are optimistic and work together in good faith, we will make it through this period with a heightened sense of our common humanity. We may even discover that our civilization becomes more united and empathetic, and that we can make further progress on other daunting problems such as war, genocide, refugees, immigration and climate change.

There are many saints among us who have chosen the high road.  In this time, it is the doctors, nurses and other health professionals who are most worthy of our gratitude and respect.  We also are grateful for the people who risk infection in their jobs of  keeping essential services and resources available But all of us can contribute in some way, whether it is donating generously to worthy organizations, keeping our social distance, or helping out neighbors in need.

The preppers and the hoarders are the vermin of society.  They have lost their humanity and they have somehow convinced themselves that a solitary, end-of-world existence is worth their stockpiling of resources and effort that could otherwise have been put to good use in our common need.  Shame on them!

The Nature and Dilemmas of Pandemics

The current coronavirus pandemic has re-emphasized the complex nature of health decisions.  Medical science informs our decisions, but the science is not exact, or at least our current capabilities to model and understand these phenomena are not at a level where we can be completely confident in our analysis.

Some people are outraged or indignant about the precautions currently being implemented.  Part of this is political in nature, as all things seem to be lately in our society.  But part of it is basic ignorance of how small uncertainties and differences can play a huge role in the progression of a pandemic.

Many argue that we should treat this like a flu epidemic, since flu epidemics spread rapidly and kill tens of thousands of people each year.  They don’t understand why we should view this disease any differently.

However, there are several factors that can play a dramatic role in a pandemic, and the coronavirus appears to be just different enough from the flu to make these factors very significant.

The first is the basic reproduction number - Rₒ, which is an estimate of how many people a contagious person will infect.  The flu typically has an Rₒ of between 1.1 and 1.6.  COVID-19 appears to have a much higher number, around 2.2.

This is a huge difference!  After 20 cycles of transmission the flu, with an Rₒ of 1.4, will infect about 136 people.  When a virus has an Rₒ of 2.2, twenty cycles will infect 137,000 people!!  

The second major factor is the mortality rate.  The flu generally has a mortality rate of 0.1%, meaning that 1 person in a thousand who get sick will die from the flu.  COVID-19 appears to have a much higher mortality rate, anywhere from 1-2.5%.  This means that 1 to 2.5 people out of a hundred will die.  This is a very big difference.

There are other important factors – the incubation time and how long the person is contagious are examples.  All of these factors are estimated from data collected.  We have years and years of data from the flu and understand the threat quite well.  The exact opposite is true of COVID-19.  We are learning in real-time and having to make decisions based on limited data.

Another key aspect of managing the pandemic is the ability of healthcare services to treat people with the disease.  Hospitals and healthcare providers are not prepared to respond to huge surges in sickness.  They make heroic efforts, but they simply do not have the beds, the equipment (respirators, etc.), the qualified people, or the quantity of drugs necessary to deal with massive increases in infected patients.

We have seen what the combination of high Rₒ, high mortality rate, and limits on healthcare facilities can do in Wuhan, Italy and Iran.  The mortality rate in these places rose well above the expected mortality rate because a triage situation occurred and many patients who could have been saved were abandoned because of the overwhelming number of desperately ill people. Those examples make it clear what can happen when little is done to defend against the spread of the disease. 

The tricky thing is that there are really no half measures that one can employ to control contagion.  The usual recommendations of washing hands and covering your mouth when you cough are simply not enough to limit the spread of something with such a large Rₒ.  And the risk of creating a situation like those mentioned above is too high.  The only real solution until all of the cases are known and tracked is isolation and social distancing.

The sad fact is that these extreme measures, though certainly justified and necessary, will necessarily cause widespread hardship.  A world recession of unknown depth and duration will certainly occur.  I hope that it will bring out the better angels in our human nature and teach us to care for one another and this fragile earth.  Perhaps it will be the wake up call we need?

Economic Effects of the Coronavirus Pandemic

With much of the world taking dramatic measures (lockdowns, travel restrictions, social distancing etc.) to prevent or temper spread of the virus, there is no doubt that the economic impact will be significant.  Obvious victims will be the travel industry (air travel, hotels, cruise lines, tourism businesses, etc.), restaurants, bars, sports events, gyms, entertainment venues – pretty much any activity where people gather.

Many businesses will ask or insist that their employees work remotely.  But most businesses do not have that flexibility.  It is difficult to do a construction job remotely, or landscape work.  Most blue collar or service jobs will either continue to be done as before with whatever risk that entails, or the work will be suspended with the consequent layoffs and loss of income.

Initially, the worst damage will occur in the businesses mentioned in the first paragraph.  If the restrictions stay in place long, this will cause many of these businesses to at least temporarily lay off personnel.  Additionally, there will be many small business owners whose businesses have had their revenue dramatically curtailed.  All of this will have a negative feedback effect of causing less spending in general.  Once consumption rates start to fall, all businesses will feel the effects, as consumer spending is what drives the economy. 

It is difficult to predict how far all of this will go.  It will depend primarily on the length of time that extreme measures are in place.  However, what is clear is that the first negative effects will not be felt uniformly across the populace.  Those who have guaranteed salaries, and especially those who can continue to work remotely, will essentially be untouched initially (other than having their stock portfolios temporarily reduced!).  But people who work an hourly job or whose small business depends on the normal circulation of people, will be hit hard.

It would be wise for congress to target any aid packages to the people who are hit early and hardest, and not to institute a general stimulus like a payroll tax.  Unemployment pay, sick leave and outright tax reductions to those who are either laid off or those whose businesses lose money should be the first priority. 

Bailing out industries like the airlines, cruise lines, and other major industries with political clout should be done very carefully as they are in a position to recover better and more quickly than individuals or small businesses.  They will pass their woes onto their employees through layoffs with little hesitation, and their losses will typically only temporarily inconvenience their shareholders and lower their stock price.

The fair way to manage this crisis would be for those of us who are not impacted financially to share our good fortune with those who suffer significant effects.  Ideally, this would happen through generous, non-governmental transfer, however, there is no good way to accomplish this and it is unlikely to happen.  The next best way would be for the government to institute a higher tax on high incomes for a short duration and find a way to identify those who have legitimate claims (perhaps by comparing taxable income year over year or employment status) and make the funds available to them.

The Way It Should Have Been

I have been involved in computer software since 1975, when I took my first programming course junior year at Stanford University.  I was intimately involved with developing applications using data communications and networking for most of my career.

For many of the early years, the best software developers were a very eccentric group that saw software as a kind of art form.  They reveled in their counter-culture reputation and many of them disdained commercial influences. 

This was particularly true of the early Linux and Internet pioneers.  They saw the Internet as a shared resource that should be developed for the benefit of humankind.  They did not see it as something that would generate vast fortunes or megacompanies.  Many were associated with universities or labs, which also operated in a more altruistic manner in those days, unlike the modern versions that are mired in commercial and start-up relationships and are completely focused on making money.

The concept of open source software became popular as a way for these kindred spirits to develop code and allow it to be used by others without commercial gain.  There was an understanding that commercial software development would be undertaken for specific business purposes, but the idea was that the primary building blocks and infrastructure of the Internet and its progeny would be public property and free to all.

All good things fall apart, as they say.  Two things conspired to derail this trend.  The first was the Revenge of the Nerds deification of the computer programmer.  Suddenly it was cool, and more importantly, profitable, to be an engineer or a coder.  This brought in all the wrong kind of people to the industry and corrupted many of the formerly altruistic participants.

The second was the emergence of the massive venture capital infrastructure.  The money available for start-ups and entrepreneurs grew exponentially and tempted every clever developer or idea with a fistful of cash and the promise of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

The Internet was first viewed as the ideal of an open society – information access and personal connection for all.  Programmers were proud to contribute their work to build up this incredible human resource without compensation.  But sadly, as the Internet evolved, the openness, idealism and public-spiritedness of its origins faded.  There was big money to be made. 

Open source search engines that allowed one to find anything became private companies addicted to ad revenue.  Social media that celebrated the connected nature of human society became similarly addicted. Both used the data they collected to manipulate users.

Imagine there was no google or facebook.  If search engines and social media were basic infrastructural pieces of a public service like highways and water supply, then we would not be facing the same level of privacy concerns and manipulation that threaten us today.  Imagine there was no Amazon, that all retailers would be equally accessible.  We would not have the increasing danger of an all-controlling single distributor of goods.

Both google and facebook make all their money from advertising.  This revenue has basically been robbed from traditional advertising channels such as printed media and television.  The Faustian bargain we have made with these megacompanies brings us many clever apps and gimmicks, but it also sells our souls, or more specifically, our data, in exchange for these tools. 

There is a balance to be struck between the free market and the best interests of a society.  Unfortunately, the debacle of revolutionary communism created a counter wave of uncritical idolization of capitalism that has created many modern monsters.

It is true that centralized planning and control can be horribly inefficient and paralyzing.  But allowing human society to develop without any plan or control also has its ills, as we are certainly experiencing today.

It is axiomatic in capitalism to assume that innovation will not occur without the incentive of profit and the freedom of an unplanned market.  But that is simply not true.  Innovation is a basic human trait.  The joy of creating something new is not dependent on money or even fame, though those rewards are certainly tempting.  The act of creation is reward enough for the best minds.

The early pioneers of the Internet, as well as a whole generation of engineers working on the US space program innovated joyfully with very little monetary motive.  It may be that innovation would not occur quite as rapidly under more planned circumstances, but perhaps that would actually be a benefit.  Rapid change often has disquieting side effects.

Adam Smith argued that all of society benefits from people pursuing their self-interest.  We have spent the last two hundred years equating that self-interest with wealth and power.  If we recognize that our self-interest can also be the joy of innovation and the feeling of contributing to a better world, then we might find a better path in this troubling time.

A World Without Billionaires

Are billionaires good for the world?  Is hyper wealth an important and necessary component of capitalism or is it a poison that has a toxic effect on our social compact?  Does it stockpile resources that could otherwise lead to a more harmonious economy if they were more evenly distributed?

The super wealthy capitalist is seen as a lynchpin of the capitalist economy and is fantasized in almost mythological terms.  He or she is the one who will risk all for an ingenious idea, who will mortgage the family home and work 7 days a week to take a tiny Mom and Pop venture to a mega corporation.

The necessity of having the fabulously rich in society is rarely questioned.  But let’s look at the underlying principles and see if they are really so axiomatic.  I can see three basic ideas that are said to undergird this so-called necessity:  (1) the free market will necessarily produce the super wealthy and should not be inhibited, (2) capitalism needs the super wealthy to fund new ventures, and (3) people will not be motivated to create new businesses if the reward of becoming super wealthy is no longer there as an incentive.

The first justification is a circular argument.  The free market and its legendary ‘invisible hand’ is not an absolute.  There are already many adjustments being made to the ‘free market’ because of the complex interwoven nature of post-industrial society and global economies.  The market may allow a huge amount of wealth to move in one direction (the absurd amount of money that is captured by wall street and various money managers is a classic example) but that does not mean that it should stay there or that the ‘market’ would somehow be harmed by its re-direction.

The second argument, that the super wealthy are needed as venture capitalists, is more difficult to counter.  I would argue that the super wealthy and the venture capital ‘society’ become a club and self-fulfilling prophecy for new ventures.  Is the serial entrepreneur repeatedly successful because of some rare genius or simply because he or she now has access to a club of mutually supportive wealthy people who promote one another’s ventures both from a financial and marketing perspective?

I suggest that the new, more egalitarian forms of providing capital – kickstarter and other Internet-based mechanisms - are better sources of funding.  And remember that most great businesses did not need that much capital to get started.  The modern examples of massive venture funding and huge losses before success is achieved are perhaps examples of forced business growth by the plutocracy, rather than organic, democratic growth.

The 3^rd argument, that entrepreneurs would not be motivated to take the risks and sacrifices necessary if they are not hugely rewarded, is amusing to me.  Aren’t capitalists idealized as noble spirits whose passion to create a new concept or business is what drives them?  Isn’t the joy of creation and the feeling of accomplishment sufficient reward?  Isn’t the challenge of building something and seeing it flourish the true motivation for entrepreneurs?  I am quite certain there would be more than enough gallant entrepreneurs who would be inspired by these goals. I suspect they would probably be a better class of entrepreneur in many ways.

And we are not talking about denying successful people their financial rewards.  Any successful entrepreneur will have plenty of money.  We are simply talking about taking the massive wealth – tens of millions or billions of dollars – that are generated by new businesses and feeding them back into society through infrastructure development and tax cuts to the working poor and middle class.

Re-directing the huge wealth that might otherwise go into billionaire’s pockets into a wider population would have many benefits.  The public use for large infrastructure projects would become the basis for the next generation of businesses and technologies.  Education through university, trade school and even graduate school for the entire population could easily be financed.  And the money that would find its way back into the population at large through tax breaks would be spent in normal consumer fashion and thus stimulate the economy much more than it would sitting in the vast holdings of some billionaire.

It is often theorized that the massive wealth of billionaires is necessary for investment.  But investment is neither necessary nor worthwhile unless there is demand.  Returning the profits back to the workers will create that demand.  Investment will surely follow and there will be no dearth of capital.

As to how to achieve a world without billionaires, that is not a simple issue, but it is certainly attainable.  Heavy individual income taxation such as occurred in the 1950’s in the U.S. is one option.  This taxation would have to target stock sales and overall wealth as well as income. The tax would have to be careful to allow full compensation for the investment and sacrifice that is made and provide a reasonable level of wealth without allowing too much to accumulate. 

Another is to heavily tax corporations that benefit from monopolistic trends, such as Apple, Amazon, Google and others.  This taxation would avoid the negative repercussions of tech dynasties and overly powerful mega-corporations.  The taxation might limit some innovation in these companies, but having that innovation spread more evenly across other companies is a better long-term situation.

In the end, having no billionaires (and eliminating even the next several layers down) and no mega-corporations would lead to a much healthier socio-political environment.  Power and wealth are too closely related, and they make for a toxic mix that is becoming ever more dangerous for our fragile world.

Middle Class Guilt, Ethical Living and Spending Habits

I have always been pretty frugal, though let me qualify this statement.  On a relative scale, my life is extravagant.  I have always had good cars, nice houses, wonderful vacations and most of the possessions that I needed or even wanted.  I eat out fairly frequently at some very nice restaurants and drink good wines and cocktails. I sent my daughters to an International private school and then to expensive colleges.  Compared to most of the earth’s residents I live in luxury.

However, despite all of this I would still classify myself as relatively frugal.  By this I mean that I spend much less than other people of a similar income and wealth level.  I rarely stay at luxury hotels, I don’t buy high end cars, I look for bargains on clothes, furniture, and other goods. I don’t fly first or business class unless I am upgraded.  Basically, I fret over spending money.

Part of this is due to a frugal nature that I believe I inherited from my father.  I am also a risk averse person in financial matters.  This may be caused by the health problems I have always had and which for many years caused me to worry about possibly losing my ability to generate income.

But there is another component to my frugality – the guilt I feel in indulging myself while so many on this earth are struggling to survive.  I wrestle with this guilt partly because of the pangs of my own conscience, and partly because of my wife Karen’s very strong inclinations toward social justice and simple living.  She challenges me on a daily basis on this issue and I find it difficult to argue effectively against her principles. 

Karen has always battled for social justice and if she were not married to me, she would probably be living a much simpler lifestyle.  I have corrupted her somewhat, or perhaps it is more accurate to say she has acquiesced in our higher standard of living.  But if it were not for her persistent challenges there is no doubt that I would be spending much more money.

Choosing a simple (or simpler) lifestyle could potentially be desirable on two levels:  (1) It is possible that simpler living is a healthier and more satisfying way to live, and (2) it may be that living simply is something we can do to make the world a more equitable and more sustainable place.

The first idea, that a simple lifestyle may simply be a better way to live, is a concept that we have all heard many times.  It drove the counter-culture movement of the 60’s and early 70’s, it has been a basic tenet of many of the world’s religions, and it continues to be a topic of contemplation for just about anyone who takes the time to examine life seriously.

The difficult question is what does living simply really mean?  Does it mean driving a Subaru instead of a Mercedes?  Or living in a 2500 sq. ft. house instead of a 4000 sq. ft. one?  Does it mean eating out 1 time a week instead of several times?  These are absurd comparisons, but 'simple' is relative.  

The way most of us who even pretend to care about this topic deal with it is to limit our materialism and try not to have the pursuit of material goods and luxury dominate our thoughts and actions.  Christians have developed impressive logical gymnastics to interpret Jesus’s admonitions about wealth and materialism as warnings about ‘obsession’.  As long as they can convince themselves that they are not ‘obsessed’ with wealth and that they have their ‘eyes on the prize’, then they can accumulate vast holdings and feel perfectly justified and at peace.

And, of course there are lots of people who have no illusions about living simply.  They indulge their every whim and desire and never give the danger of excess or the possible salutary benefits of a less material life a second thought.

I have also seen the other extreme – people whose simple lifestyle is a badge of self-righteousness.  It becomes a chip on their shoulder and a source of resentment for them. They are so obsessed with living simply that they cannot enjoy life.

In the end, we must individually decide what the best lifestyle is for us in terms of how it affects us mentally, spiritually and physically.  And this is in great part determined by our financial means.  A simple lifestyle for a millionaire is likely quite different from that of a blue-collar worker. 

The second possible reason for living simply and curtailing one’s consumption is if one believes that doing so would benefit humankind.  There are two related but somewhat independent lines of reasoning here.  The first says that we have reached a point in human development where we will have to limit our use of resources or face increasingly unpleasant consequences for the planet and its inhabitants.  Such habits as recycling, avoiding the use of plastics, using less carbon-based energy, and creating less waste are the types of behavior that one would choose to support this concept. Additionally, one can argue that limiting a family to two children would make sense in order to avoid over-population.

But there is also the question of how lifestyle impacts the problems of global poverty and inequality.  Consumption is the basis of economic growth, and there are many that would argue that we should consume and acquire at the upper level of our means to ensure continued expansion of the global economy, which in turn creates jobs and lifts people out of poverty into the middle class.  

It is a basic tenet of capitalism that consumption is a good thing and necessary to promote general well-being, i.e. that the engine of capitalism needs the fuel of consumption to work efficiently.  This is basically the ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ argument, sometimes characterized as trickle-down economics.

But there is a counter argument that the long-term health of global society is dependent on a more equitable distribution of wealth and that this will never be achieved if people strive to accumulate in an unlimited manner for their own private use.  Moreover, the worship of wealth and the cult of materialism create an unhealthy disharmony in society that creates a cycle of social upheaval.  The argument here is that a consciousness of moderation and sharing, if embraced by all, would ultimately move our society toward less income disparity and a higher level of community.

Also, if consumption is the necessary fuel for the economic engine, wouldn’t it be just as effective, and much more socially beneficial, for this consumption to be distributed more evenly so that the wealthy don’t consume quite as much, and the less wealthy consume more?  This is not easily done, but the northern European economies seem to have come close to achieving this type of balance.

Like so many other questions about how to live, there is no simple answer.  I do believe that we have a social obligation to carefully consider the impact of our life choices on the world around us.  But it is also clear that the complex nature of our economy, political biases and philosophical inclinations plays a large role in our decisions. The global warming crisis and other ecological issues may in the end dictate much of our future behavior.  That may be a good thing, if we can adapt quickly enough to avoid massive injury and misery in the process.

Is the Evolution of Human Thought the Key to Progress?

Almost no one is in favor of slavery anymore.  Yet a mere 170 years ago there were millions of people in the United States who felt that somehow slavery was a morally acceptable institution.  They justified it through passages in the bible and through various forms of supposedly logical reasoning.  There may still be instances of slavery  in the world today but there is no longer any serious attempt at justification.

Less than one hundred years ago, a majority of people in this country believed that a woman’s place is in the home and that she should not be allowed to vote and should only have a vocation if she is unable to find a husband.  There may still be people who believe that today, but generally one can say that this is no longer an acceptable point of view in society at large.

There is a general ‘consciousness’ in human society that evolves.  It is different from biological evolution in that it may go through pendulum-like cycles of advance and regress, but there can be little doubt that our global consciousness has changed dramatically over the centuries.

Examples of this are the two major shifts mentioned above.  But there are others:  

• The idea of conquest of another society or people is no longer generally accepted.  War still occurs, but for other reasons – ethnic, religious, economic – i.e. for failures of diplomacy rather than outright desire for conquest.

• War itself is now seen as a ‘necessary evil’ rather than a noble calling.  We still venerate war heroes and seem fascinated by war, but the idea of war and battle being a crucible that all men should pass through is no longer embraced by most of the world’s people.
• The idea that some races are innately superior to others has also fallen into disfavor.  There is certainly still racism, sexism and ethnic prejudice and stereotyping, but most people accept, at least in a theoretical sense, that every race and ethnic group should be treated equally.
• Torture is no longer seen as an acceptable form of punishment or interrogation.  There is sadly still plenty of torturing done, but society in general no longer tolerates it.

Societal norms change.  Some may change and then revert back in a reaction to either too rapid or too dramatic a result.  An example of this is sexual practices.  There have been numerous periods of more liberal sexual mores followed by a return to conservative practices.  However, the general trend, or change in consciousness, has been a gradual recognition of the complexity of our sexual nature and an acceptance of more open sexual relations, including the use of birth control, the widespread acceptance of pre-marital sex, depictions of sexual relations in film, TV, books, etc. and the overall willingness of people to openly discuss sexual matters.

The evolution of consciousness can in some cases be accelerated in today’s world where there is instant global dissemination of information and ideas.  The rapid de-criminalization and acceptance of homosexual relationships, including the legalization of marriage in many countries, is an example of this phenomenon.  This has taken place over a period of 50-60 years.

As we look forward to the future and ponder how human society can confront the many ills that still plague it, it seems clear that the path forward is through a global shift in consciousness.  We have learned through painful episodes that humans rebel when forced to do something and that the reaction can sometimes wipe away any progress.  Laws alone cannot change society.

The civil rights movement is a good example.  In the end, it was not Brown vs. Board of Education or the Civil Rights Act that brought in the new era for African Americans, though certainly they helped solidify the gains.  After all, there were laws on the books after the Civil War that should have in theory accomplished much the same thing. It was a tectonic shift in attitudes throughout our post-WWII society that allowed these new behaviors to take root and slowly become part of our societal organism.  And that consciousness is still evolving.

The biggest impediment to progress is and always has been self-interest.  It is only when self-interest can somehow be associated with societal consciousness that advancement is possible.  But how does this occur?  Theories of change such as the tipping point, the hundredth monkey and Gaia have all postulated a kind of organic relationship in society where a critical mass of thinking can rapidly spread more or less uniformly across the entire population.

An example is recycling.  It is inconvenient for people to do the extra effort required for recycling, and they will rationalize their refusal to do so. But if recycling is taken up by enough people to become a societal norm (as it is already in some European countries), then people will feel motivated to embrace it as if it is in their own self-interest, which of course it is in the long run.

Someday it will no longer be acceptable to let people in the world starve or die from preventable diseases.  It will no longer be acceptable to have some members of society go bankrupt paying for chemotherapy.  Someday it will be accepted that we must curtail our use of carbon-based energy to save the planet and it will feel good to accept some limitations on income and material possessions as a part of a world sharing of resources.

These are very idealistic goals for the evolution of consciousness, but human beings have undergone some pretty amazing shifts in thinking over the past two hundred years, so why not hope for the best?