Sanitising to death our future generations

[Click here for an audio version of this blog entry.]
George Orwell's dystopian classic, Nineteen Eighty-Four, while a work of fiction had, as most in the genre do, a basis in the reality of the time when it was released.

Covid-19 and the new rules of engagement: Are they here to stay?

Published in 1949 when the world was still coming to terms with the true horrors of Nazi Germany — not to mention those of Stalin's Russia — the idea of an all-powerful, one-party state brainwashing its people, exerting almost complete control over the media and (continuously) rewriting history to suit its narrative wasn't quite fiction. 

The technological means of doing this portrayed in the novel were somewhat far-fetched for the period, but the concept certainly wasn't.

Not quite Orwellian, but it doesn't bode well

Seventy-one years later, the all-seeing telescreen depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four seems rather primitive. 

For sure, the surveillance under which we find ourselves in the twenty-first century may appear less obvious, less personal — although the likes of Alexa and other artificial intelligence talking directly to us is, in a way, now happening — and less centrally controlled, yet only the naïve believe that we're not being profiled. 

It may be mostly by private companies for purely marketing reasons rather than a sinister state, but it's taking place nonetheless.

In a democratic society with free elections, that this happens isn't inherently the worst thing in our lives. We can, after all, opt out, even if the practice of actually doing so is a tad more difficult than the theory. Some of us are in too deep. 

What's more, not having at least a smartphone these days puts one at a distinct disadvantage in practically every corner of the world across a range of diverse sectors, both socially and professionally.

Nonetheless, the hope is that as long as we allow free speech, robust debate and ensure that we clearly know the sources of the content we engage with in our virtual world, we can avoid an Orwellian-style manipulation of the masses. (As alluded to above and noted in a previous post, we're well into this battle.)

From a Western perspective, the lack of meaningful independent regulation of the not-quite-so-innocent FANG (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google) aside, I am — believe it or not — on the optimistic side that we can preserve our somewhat free society.

'The result will be an overly sanitised population of hypochondriacs, where our own natural defences will be rendered practically useless. And our actual lives will be numbed to the point of nothingness.'

I take this view in relation to my peers and older generations, where there appear to be sufficient numbers of sceptics and critical thinkers to thwart would-be brainwashers. You can't teach an old dog new tricks and all that.

One is less optimistic, however, for the younger generations. 

Indeed, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, it was the children who were shown to be most loyal to the Party. They would even go as far as to rat out their own parents to the Thought Police if they displayed even the slightest disrespect to Big Brother, the omnipotent, omnipresent, unquestioned leader.

Snowflakes all around us

Watching how many of today's children appear to have taken gung-ho to the biosecurity measures aimed at combatting the spread of the coronavirus, one can't help but think of the over-zealous youths in Orwell's classic. 

For sure, it can be said they're simply mimicking, harmlessly, the adults closest to them. There are, though, some worrying points to note.

Should, as seems likely, the new health protocols remain in place for some time, children may come to accept them as normal. 'What's wrong with that?', you ask. Well, for one, considering there's much debate in the scientific community as to the efficacy of mask-wearing in controlling viral contagion, it's unsettling to think that their use will become widely accepted.

Ditto with the over-the-top use of alcohol gel and sprays in public. (Although, I must admit, before coronavirus arrived I had something bordering on addiction to using alcohol-based gels where they were available solely because I love the smell.)

The net result is that we're killing the good with the bad in terms of microorganisms on our bodies, in the same way that those who overuse antibiotics can do more harm than good to their internal defences.

Effectively wrapping ourselves in cotton wool means that when we inevitably face a threat, viral or otherwise, our bodies — and minds — are at risk of simply submitting. 

We're taking the fight out of our species. But hey, whaddya know, there's medication available, at a not-too-extortionate price, that will see you right.

On top of this, social distancing is instilling in our children the idea that a fellow human is a potentially lethal viral infection personified. Thus it has ever been, of course. 

Where there are humans there are diseases to be spread, from a mild cold to a deadly flu and everything else in between. Yet, we got on with our business and took the risk to socialise. The current approach being enforced upon us amounts to 'stop living in order to live'.

We appear to be well on the way to creating an overly sanitised population of hypochondriacs, where our own natural defences will be rendered practically useless. And our actual lives will be numbed to the point of nothingness. 

That virtual sex scene between Sandra Bullock and Sylvester Stallone in the 1993 movie Demolition Man doesn't seem so ridiculous now.

It's not quite a dystopia in the strict sense of the word. We could call it, sticking to the Greek origin, a ukalostopia — a no-good place. 

Our misinformed do-gooders at the wheel are driving us to an insipid future. It's time to take back control while we still can.
__________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz". 

Carry on regardless, Colombia

[Click here for an audio version of this blog entry.]
Many reasons have been given as to why certain countries continuously perform worse than others.

Colombia: It moves to its own rhythm, be that good, bad or indifferent.

The most common of these are the legacy of colonialism, the system of government in place, corruption, clientelism and the associated problems they create, religion, climate and geographical location and, condescending and a wild generalisation as it is, the psyche of the nation in question. 

While different commentators put more emphasis on one factor over another, most agree that it's a mixture of all the above and more that dictates a country's performance.

Not in the mood to brood

Speaking specifically about Colombia, this interplay of the malignant aspects of these factors gives a decent understanding as to why the country's overall record is mediocre at best, appalling at worst. 

Many, however, would place corruption top of the list, yet there are other issues at work fomenting that.

One of those, at the risk of making a broad generalisation myself, is what I'd describe as, putting it mildly, a somewhat philosophical attitude many Colombians seem to have when confronted with problems.

This manifests itself positively in their ability to 'just get on with things', to carry on regardless. 

For example, as one fellow Irishman resident here put it, 'If there was a devastating earthquake one day, they'd still get up at 5 am to go to work the next.' There's a bit of exaggeration in that, but it's not completely off the mark.

To give a recent example, the 44-year-old brother of the landlady of my local, family-run panadería died unexpectedly. 

Not only did they not close the bakery-cum-café, with family members working pretty much as normal, but the landlady herself, the sister of the deceased, was back preparing meals for customers the day after the funeral. She also worked the morning she found out her sibling had died.

Another way this 'what about it?' mentality can be refreshing is when it comes to arguments. For while Colombians can shrug things off, this isn't to say that they don't let their rage be known when they feel the need arises (some do this more than others, of course).

'The salary for Colombian politicians is up to 35 times higher than the minimum wage. That's like members of parliament in Ireland getting upwards of 50,000 euros per month.'

So you can have this unholy disagreement, replete with the harshest of comments, even leading to physical aggression in some instances. Yet, with the passing of no more than an hour, it's like nothing at all happened. 

Basically, as we Irish would say, 'Tis all grand.' Brooding over slights, perceived or real, just doesn't seem part of the culture.

Nonetheless, one has to wonder, in reference to the development of the country as a whole, as to whether or not, in the long run, such behaviour is beneficial. The negative side to it is apparent in a multitude of areas.

Blessed are the weak

For one, there's customer service, nay the lack thereof, which I've addressed before. This acceptance of mediocrity is infuriating. Indeed, if you speak out against it, you're generally seen as being in the wrong.

There's the aforementioned corruption. Again, many seem rather blasé about it. 

The unwillingness of drivers to obey basic rules of the road, how about it?! 

The lack of action to address the exorbitant salaries paid to politicians, up to an incredulous 35 times higher than the minimum wage. (While in Ireland we moan, rightly, about the pay for our members of parliament [TDs], using the same ratio, it would be like a TD getting upwards of 50,000 euros per month.) The list goes on. And on.

It was Why Nations Fail author, James Robinson, who said in a podcast chat with me late last year that Colombia has a weak state and a weak society. 

While one can point to areas where the state does flex its muscles and arguably excessively so, there is no doubting an overall weakness of collective action to tackle issues that are, or at least should be, of general concern.

In the days of European imperial interference in the Far East, the retort from some locals was 'Asia for Asians'. 

As an outsider in Colombia and seeing the frustrating indifference of many locals towards their plight, at times it seems the best option is to leave Colombia to Colombians. Carry on regardless, lads.
_________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

It's war alright, but not as we know it

*Click here for an audio version of this blog entry.
In my previous blog entry, I wrote about the possibility of the current cold war between China and the US heating up and how it could bring biological warfare to a new, devastating level.

In light of the deep ideological differences between the two superpowers coupled with the almost daily jibes being exchanged, it's not that difficult to imagine a casus belli. 

A more optimistic take is that, as was the case for Cold War I, while they might reach the precipice, neither side will take the plunge to destruction. Not directly anyway.

The front line of today's war; nobody is safe. (Photo by Andri from pexels.com.)

Waging cyberwar

The USSR-US stand-off was characterised by many proxy wars — Latin America saw its fair share of bloodshed in this regard — so at the very least we can expect something similar in Cold War II. Again, though, the shape of them will most likely be quite different from the battles fought in the 20th century.

In fact, online electoral interference by Russian actors, state-sponsored as it is seen to be, gives us an idea of the clandestine proxy conflicts to come.

Rather than directly or indirectly fight each other, the belligerents will attempt to deepen divides in enemy territory to fuel ongoing internal strife and instability. War on the cheap for the instigator. It's also relatively low-risk with potentially high rewards.

In the US particularly, from the outside looking in, it appears not merely a case of the seeds for division having been planted, they've sprouted and are already in bloom in many respects, thanks in no small part to the media. 

For pretty much every issue, consensus is out, contestation is in. An insignificant spark is all that's needed to set off the warring factions.

The media, both traditional and new-age, amplify any divisions by a considerable amount, while in some instances they create them where none really exist. 

On the ground, the differences are often much less pronounced than they are made out to be. This gives some cause for hope. (Take a week's break from Facebook, Twitter and the media in general and there's a big chance you'll become more relaxed.)

Be that as it may, two-form media manipulation is as strong as it's ever been. There's manipulation of the media itself by outside forces as well as the media's own malignant influence on the people it speaks to.

On the first of those, in terms of superpower conflict, we're already in a hot war and have been for some time. 

From a Western perspective, this is relayed to us, as mentioned above, in terms of Russian interference. 

No doubt it's a two-way street, perhaps done more overtly than covertly by the West, as in public denunciations of the dirty tactics from conniving Eastern powers, while at the same time, we must assume, playing them at their own game.

'At this remove, the thinking must be that the West can be crushed by the very things it holds dear — its open society and liberalism.'

However, considering the more muzzled media in the likes of China and Russia compared to the West, interference by the latter on the former in this sphere is unlikely to be too effective.

Now, the fact that we hear dissenting voices and have verbal battles over the best course of action for a given situation is in itself not a bad thing. It's what liberal democracies with a free (in name anyway) press are all about. In normal times, this works fairly well.

Problems arise when our leaders look to unite the citizens behind a cause, especially an emotive one that is, literally, a question of life or death. This is what we're seeing right now with the coronavirus. The divide it has created brings to mind the old aphorism, 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.'

Comedown from a liberal high

In one sense, it's an inevitable product of an open, literate society replete with multiple sources of information available to the masses. If we lived under an authoritarian regime there would really only be one narrative. Thankfully, we're not subject to that — yet.

Moreover, deciphering what is #FakeNews from genuine information isn't easy in this particular conflict. 

There isn't even agreement amongst those best qualified to speak on the matter, so little wonder many lay folk, Google at hand, have serious doubts about debatable decisions being taken for 'our own health and well-being'.

As I wrote about previously, the approach to dealing with coronavirus isn't a simple black-and-white issue. It's not, as some like to make it out to be, a dollars-versus-lives decision. 

It's fair to say most agree that measures taken to stop coronavirus at all costs, to prevent premature deaths due to the virus in the here and now will have knock-on, adverse effects for some time to come.

Thus, while we can unite behind this common microscopic enemy to the extent that pretty much everybody wants it to go away — or, in the likelihood that it doesn't disappear any time soon, that it becomes less a burden on us than it currently is — we're far from united on how best to achieve this. (With such differences of opinion it's easy to understand why controlling the flow of information becomes such an attractive option for those in power.)

We can only assume that this makes for pleasant viewing for the monolithic systems in Beijing and, to a lesser extent, Moscow. At this remove, the thinking must be that the West can be crushed by the very things it holds dear — its open society and liberalism.

So have we given our worker ants access to too much information to the point that they're now harming the system itself?

Answering in the affirmative, it can be said we've already reached peak liberalism and operating at such heights has made us become lightheaded. 

It's far from clear as to the best route down to a safer level, if one exists that is.
_______________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz". 

Forget the novel coronavirus, a novel First World war is a-brewing

An audio version of this blog is available here.
'Your grandparents and great-grandparents had to live through devastating wars, with a bloody end a very real possibility. Today, all you have to do to play your part is stay at home.'

Conventional warfare may be surplus to requirements for the next global conflict.

This has been one of the typical messages levelled at those who have been struggling or unwilling (there's no place for conscientious objectors) to comply with lockdown measures. A case of, 'cop yourselves on lads and stop complaining.'

Uncomfortable home truths

On the face of it, it makes sense. We're not being sent to the battlefields in our millions or asked to work around the clock to do our bit for the war effort. No. To stop the spread of this coronavirus, it's simply a case of adhering to an even more sedentary lifestyle than many had been living heretofore — sedentary in terms of work anyway.

In addition, in the more economically advanced nations, some are getting paid for their efforts i.e. getting money to do nothing.

The problem is, this just-stay-at-home thinking assumes people have no issue in doing so. Yet even the most misanthropic individual can suffer from cabin fever. 

A change of scenery every now and again, however unremarkable, is needed for one's mental health. Or at least the reassurance that you can move relatively freely about without fear of retribution. Simply knowing you are allowed to do something can be good enough in itself, you don't actually have to do it.

What's more, while there's been a cautious return of sporting events that have long served as catharses for many, seeing games played at empty venues has rendered them as exciting and emotionally useful as President Iván Duque's daily coronavirus updates. Indeed, both tend to leave us just more depressed.

'In the past, we could "rely on" a wide-scale war or two to give a raison d'être to the restless, fighting-fit, sexually frustrated (read incel here) men.'

Added to this is the increase in already existing worries amongst our younger generations about a financially insecure future, especially for those who have been struggling to find a meaning to their lives. 

To repeat myself for the umpteenth time — the pandemic appears to have inhibited foresight in some folk, if they ever had the faculty at all that is — the collateral damage from the stop-coronavirus-at-all-costs approach could be very high and long-lasting.

While some academics, though not all, say that previous pandemics played a part in reducing inequality, today's viral enemy will most likely do the opposite. 

For one, Covid-19 is not a fatal infection for the working-age population, bar a very small number of exceptions. So it won't be the case that it will be an employees' market when we get through this. Job insecurity and lack of opportunities will most likely be worse, not better.

Such an environment is a perfect breeding ground for discontent.

In the past, to counteract this, we could rely on a wide-scale war or two to give a raison d'être to the restless, fighting-fit, sexually frustrated (read incel here) men, with most of the women providing backing support on the home front or tending to the wounded in field hospitals.

Of course, we can never rule out another conflict where our First World nations get involved en masse — it is, after all, in the so-called developed regions where we tend to have more discontented young men.

However, today's modern warfare requires fewer infantry soldiers than previously. (In emerging-market countries such as Colombia, to highlight but one difference, it could be argued that criminality absorbs at an early age those who otherwise might have become lost, thus giving them a purpose with more pressing concerns to worry about than the meaning of life.)

'Our best "hope" might be for Mother Nature to strike first with her own deadly attack, by whatever means she deems necessary.'

So as much as there may be sufficient numbers of willing young men ready to take up arms for a cause, our next global conflict involving the advanced nations is likely to be less in-your-face than those that humanity suffered in the 20th century.

Nonetheless, by that very fact, it could prove to be much more pernicious. As we're seeing with coronavirus, when you're fighting a microscopic enemy it's rather difficult to pinpoint exactly where to strike a telling blow.

So imagine a more lethal, indiscriminate killer than Covid-19 at large amongst the populace. We're talking 21st-century biological warfare. 

In such a scenario, mobilising our frustrated young men — those who managed to avoid death from the initial wave of disease that is — would be of little use, save for sending them in as foot soldiers to tidy up and, perhaps, repopulate enemy territory if and when the belligerents have been defeated.

Bet on Beijing

It might sound far-fetched, but with a belief amongst a number of shrewd analysts that the US and its allies are already in a cold war with China, heating this up doesn't require an actual military battle.

If this current pandemic happens to be an unplanned test for something far uglier to come, China's leaders must surely be confident that having tight control over their people gives them a distinct advantage over the West, with its disenchanted, disunited, undisciplined youths. 

In fact, Beijing mightn't be far off the mark if it feels the West has hit the self-destruct button. In a zeitgeist of cancel culture and wokeness, a slight nudge is all that's needed to send it over the edge.

Our best hope might be for Mother Nature to strike first with her own deadly attack, by whatever means she deems necessary. The problem with this is that it most likely wouldn't sufficiently deal with the issue at hand in the way conventional warfare would i.e. disproportionately take out those disenchanted young men. 

It would, or at least should, however, make us all, wherever we're from and whatever we believe, appreciate our precious, privileged time on this planet. It's certainly going to take something more threatening than this novel coronavirus to achieve that in any case.

Having said that, it is an insult to all those who died in the world wars, not to mention the Spanish flu, to compare them to this current pandemic. Mercifully, Covid-19 is a discriminate killer and at that, not a terribly lethal one.

Nonetheless, for those of you who feel coronavirus is our defining war moment right now, you might want to start building that bunker while you still can. To borrow from the 1970s rock hit, 'You ain't seen nothing yet.'

Total war, 21st-century style, might be the only way to give a dose of much-needed reality to incel and virtue signaller alike.
___________________________________________________________
Click here to listen to an audio version of this blog entry.

Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".