The Other Side of Apocalypse

It happens in wartime--it happened in World War II for certain, and the Great War, and to some extent during Vietnam.  It happened during the Great Depression.  In the middle of an apocalyptic time, people begin looking beyond it, looking for the silver lining, the changes for the better it might clarify and enable.

The other side of this current apocalypse--of this current revelation--could be a better future.  It's a long way yet to that other side, but that discussion is already beginning.

Anna Marie Slaughter's piece in the New York Times, referenced in a previous post, is one example.  She writes:

"The coronavirus, and its economic and social fallout, is a time machine to the future. Changes that many of us predicted would happen over decades are instead taking place in the span of weeks."

Several of the innovations she mentioned involve increased use of technologies for remote learning, teleconferencing and 3-D printing.  Both remote learning and teleconferencing reduce the need to travel, which helps clear the air and reduces greenhouse gases.  3-D printing is one of the ways communities can reduce dependence for vital supplies on global supply chains. The question is whether universities and businesses go back to the old model or better integrate remote learning and teleconferencing in a new synthesis.

(Other questions are whether any of this stuff works, and how to make them work better.  For those answers, this crisis provides lots of data.)

This crisis, she writes, also increases our awareness of the vital roles of caregivers in our society as well as our economy, she writes, which should lead to valuing them more with better pay.  As for the economy in general, today's crisis argues for more attention to guaranteed incomes, as well as more investment in better broadband capabilities for everyone.  She concludes

"The future is here, whether we like it or not. Although a future dependent on the current federal government looks bleak, we can vote to change that in November. Right now, we can follow the lead of local and regional leaders and step up ourselves. Through the virus, we are rediscovering the dark side of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous “inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.” But we can also rediscover what is possible and what we are capable of as a nation. We can use this crisis to create a better America."

Another example of this kind of thinking is found in a compilation piece in Politico, in which 34 experts forecast how the coronavirus crisis will change the world.  A surprising number of them speculate that despite the horrors it is likely to inflict this year, the crisis and response to it could change the future for the better.

Some of the topics discussed are: "A new kind of patriotism," "A decline in polarization," "a return to faith in serious experts," new forms of reform, a greater appreciation of government, as well as a host of accelerated changes involving technology, new economic models and a society organized more on empathy than hostility.

Certainly some of these reflect the writer's wishlist, and some of them clearly have a dark side.  And there is a long way to go before we get to the other side, in which we will all be tested.  Already we're seeing racism, misinformation and anger erupting, and we're likely to see more.

But some changes, if not transformations, are inevitable, and some offer particular opportunities.  I can't help thinking that all that's being done that was previously unthinkable, was specifically cited as reasons why we weren't addressing the climate crisis with the required urgency.  Giles Tremlett suggests that those governments that acted comprehensively and with urgency to address the Covid crisis provide models for how to address the climate crisis.

Meanwhile--thanks to the vehicles not on the freeways, and the factories not polluting-- the air quality in Los Angeles is suddenly good.  Air pollution is suddenly declining everywhere.  The water is suddenly clear in the canals of Venice, and wildlife is returning.  Locals are talking about controlling tourism there rather than letting it overwhelm them again.

We've known for years that pandemics were becoming more possible for many reasons, but specifically because of global heating--especially those associated with insect-borne diseases. And while I haven't seen anything yet that links this virus to the climate crisis, it has been causally linked to the other paramount (and related) ecological catastrophe of our time--the mass extinction of life forms on the planet.

“We invade tropical forests and other wild landscapes, which harbour so many species of animals and plants – and within those creatures, so many unknown viruses,” David Quammen, author of Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Pandemic, recently wrote in the New York Times. “We cut the trees; we kill the animals or cage them and send them to markets. We disrupt ecosystems, and we shake viruses loose from their natural hosts. When that happens, they need a new host. Often, we are it.”

This view more than suggests that this is not the last viral pandemic we can expect.  For a better future, and for a longer one, the twin ecological threats to the survival of humanity and all life as we know it--the climate crisis and species extinction--must be addressed with a similar urgency, when we get to the other side of this apocalypse.

Update 3/28: Meehan Crist has an oped in the NYTimes, "What the Coronavirus Means for Climate Change" that is along these lines of looking to the future through this new lens.  But towards the end of this piece is a section about the effects of the suddenly clean air in Chinese cities, usually swamped in smoke and industrial pollution:

"In China, just two months of reduced pollution is likely to have saved the lives of 4,000 children under the age of 5 and 73,000 adults over the age of 70, writes Marshall Burke, an assistant professor in Stanford's earth system science department."  

I'm sure there is more to be said about climate crisis, public health and proportionality.

This Critical Moment

This is not the moment to lose our nerve.  Everything depends on it.

On Monday there were two potentially catastrophic trends.  The first was the wave of stories, prompted by the White House, that social distancing and stay at home orders should be abandoned.  Republicans in particular are losing their nerve about damage to the economy, which translates in their terms to corporate profits.

They are doing so as the number of cases and deaths start to rise, and infection experts (led by Dr. Fauci) unanimously say that social distancing is crucial to slow down and minimize new infections.

Even now, the patchwork guidelines and orders, begun at different times to different degrees in different cities and states, as well as different countries around the world (and they continue) have made effective response a dicier matter than it should be, not to mention the people who are disregarding social distancing guidelines.  These strictures should be strengthened, not ended, the medical experts say.

The medical consequences most likely would be more sickness and death, and especially the implosion of hospitals and the public health system.  All of these would also have economic consequences, worse than shutting things down for awhile.

Jordan Weissmann writes in Slate:

The more sensible approach to taming this virus and saving our economy would be to orchestrate an actual nationwide lockdown for at least three or four weeks while the government essentially pays everybody’s bills (see: the economic aid bill Congress is working on). During that time, the country could ramp up production of tests and ventilators, and put in place measures necessary to set up an effective regime of testing people suspected of being ill and tracing their contacts, which appears to have worked in both South Korea and Taiwan. We’d face a dramatic economic downturn, yes. But we might also enjoy a relatively quick, V-shaped recovery as life returned to some semblance of normality.

The coronavirus crisis is going to create a severe economic hardship. There’s no escaping that. The question is whether it will be a short-lived disaster that we can begin pulling ourselves out of with the help of a serious public health mobilization, or if it will be a long, lingering horror we muddle through as people die. The fact that Trump is already having doubts about the half-measures he took last week unfortunately suggests he doesn’t have the stomach or foresight to pick the right course, because he’s too worried about the daily fluctuations of the stock market. Instead, he’s steering us toward a long pandemic and a depression all at once."

But as sensible as this is, we know we're unlikely to get a comprehensive national policy from this administration.  In the end, however, we are talking mostly about an additional two weeks or so of closed businesses.  The administration's announced policy is to maintain the federal strictures for two weeks in total and then reevaluate.  Medical experts will be consulted, and they are already talking about an additional two weeks at least.

The crucial element is to identify how and where to restart activity. We have to hope the states themselves will be looking at this.  Otherwise with confusion and conflict we risk chaos and an outbreak of panic.

Also on Monday, in the guise of a comprehensive support for the economy, Senate Republicans authored and forced votes on a bill that basically provides bountiful support for those who make millions a year.  In this immense crisis, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can't seem to get beyond his default position as a partisan bully, trying to get a Trump-controlled corporate giveaway passed as a crisis measure: a classic shock doctrine tactic.  By forcing two votes at high pressure moments, McConnell tried to bully Democrats into voting for a bad--and decidedly not non-partisan-- bill.  They wouldn't.

Meanwhile a more responsible bill is taking shape in the House under the supervision of the only member of legislative leadership I personally trust, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  A comparison of provisions (though a partial one) suggests that yes, it contains some Democratic wish-list items that could be eliminated in a bipartisan bill, but in general is a much better and more effective response to this crisis.

The news on Monday night was cautiously better.  The Senate minority leader said that a $2 trillion consensus bill should be finalized on Tuesday morning, that includes at least some of the guarantees and protections for workers and the support for the health system that Democrats can support.  Speaker Pelosi was reportedly in the loop, as was the White House.

We're not going to get the national leadership we need from this administration.  But Trump must at least be forced to back away from his cowardly threat, and his cowering to corporations that don't want appropriately strong measures taken.  We still need time to prevent the worst.

Poetry Monday: A Blessing

A Blessing

Just off the highway to Rochester, Minnesota,
Twilight bounds softly forth on the grass.
And the eyes of those two Indian ponies
Darken with kindness.
They have come gladly out of the willows
To welcome my friend and me.
We step over the barbed wire into the pasture
Where they have been grazing all day, alone.
They ripple tensely, they can hardly contain their
       happiness
That we have come.
They bow shyly as wet swans.  They love each other.
There is no loneliness like theirs.
At home once more,
They begin munching the young tufts of spring in the
       darkness.
I would like to hold the slenderer one in my arms,
For she has walked over to me
And nuzzled my left hand.
She is black and white,
Her mane falls wild on her forehead,
And the light breeze moves me to caress her long ear
That is delicate as the skin over a girl's wrist.
Suddenly I realize
That if I stepped out of my body I would break
into blossom.

--James Wright

James Wright on horseback with fellow poet Robert Bly, who is
the friend mentioned in this poem

In Memory

     Flora Severini Kowinski   Sept. 13, 1920--March 22, 1974