A common response to people criticising lockdown or other extreme anti-corona measures is “well, what’s the alternative?”. This is a common fallacy: people see a problem, someone comes up with a solution and unless you have a better solution, you are not allowed to criticise. This is fallacious; there is always an alternative, namely not doing anything. Maintain the status quo. Human psychology finds this difficult: inaction is perceived as failure. We live in a culture where failure and unforeseen consequences are acceptable as long as we “tried”.
Let’s have a look at the, entirely fictitious, scenario below which is not in any way based on any real-life events:
A new form of malaria is discovered in central Africa. This malaria (named Catch-22 as it takes 22 days to display symptoms) is more deadly than previously known versions, and current medicines don’t protect against it. While the medical world is looking for a vaccine, a group of chemical engineers offer a solution: as the mosquitoes carrying Catch-22 tend to spawn in the deep jungle, burning the jungle with napalm may eradicate the disease.
In that scenario, does one need to have a solution of their own before they criticise the engineers? No. Any reasonable person understands that burning down entire jungles would cause so many victims- both directly (indigenous tribes, etc.) as well as indirectly (loss of livelihoods, etc.)- and goes so against basic moral and environmental principles that the reasonable option is simply not to follow the recommendation. In other words: do nothing, until perhaps in the future a better alternative is found.
Does choosing not to follow the recommendation mean that more people will die of malaria? Yes, very likely. Is that tragic for the victims? Yes, absolutely. Is it still right not to burn jungles? Without a shadow of a doubt.
Does this mean that we are sacrificing the lives of those Catch-22 victims? It depends on how you look at it. Yes, they may have lived otherwise. But the alternative would have killed many more. There is a long-standing moral tradition that we don’t kill one person to save the life of another, certainly not against their will.
Does this mean that the chemical engineers were wrong? No, they only looked at it from their limited perspective, just as they were trained to do. They are not trained to look at the bigger picture. They are not environmental scientists or economists. That’s why we have politicians. Politicians need to take all kinds of experts into account, most of whom would have shouted “please don’t!” when the napalm plan was raised.
Back to the real world, back to Corona: the medical profession has had one focus, limiting deaths of Corona. They recommend extreme measures to accomplish this. That approach by medical experts is understandable. However, any economic, sociological or psychological advice would have told politicians that the consequences of such drastic measures would be disastrous, causing millions of victims. Please see BEWARE THE MEDICALTOCRACY for a further discussion of this. The government would also have been told that there was a lot of uncertainty with respect to the effectiveness of extreme measures, and that there might be many hidden or indirect negative consequences not clear yet.
Faced with a situation where some experts provide a solution through drastic measures while other experts warn that such measures will cause the deaths and suffering of many others, the absolutely right option is to “do nothing”. This is especially true when there are also still many “unknowns” floating around in the equation.
To be clear: “do nothing” refers to extreme measures. Basic anti-corona measures will not have led to such dire warnings from non-medical experts, and so taking them made much more sense. Let’s call this the “Swedish option.”
Our reaction to corona has caused unimaginable destruction around the globe, damage that is much greater than corona ever could. Please see THE FREEDOM TO SELF-INCARCERATE for a further discussion of this. The reason? Authorities did not respect their limits and did not recognise the importance of often doing nothing.
This pattern is visible throughout the history of policy making. Governments feel that they need to act, spurred on by anxious populations, even when the best course of action is to do nothing given uncertainty and potential destruction.
Take, for example, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 and 2003 respectively, when, in their eagerness to fight enemies, politicians caused enormous harm to their own and foreign populations. In their eagerness to defend themselves, Western nations accelerated their own decline and paid trillions of utterly wasted dollars- not to mention lives- in the process.
The International Aid sector has shown similar patterns: in attempts to alleviate global poverty, many aid projects have had destructive impact on the local communities they targeted. This is typically because of lack of full information and flawed decision-making processes.
Another example would be countless domestic policies where governments, with the best of intentions, try to solve social or economic problems without having fully mapped out all the likely consequences. By improving surroundings in poor neighbourhoods, cities worldwide have raised the rent for their residents, thus forcing the poor (who were supposed to be helped) out of their rented homes as gentrification occurred.
The pressures that lead to governments acting more often than they should come from human psychology. We see a problem; we want to solve it. We see someone in pain across the street, we want to run towards them, even if hastily crossing that street is likely to lead to severe traffic accidents. We like being in control. We like to think that everything can be solved if only we make the right decision. We tend to believe in the make-ability of society. We attribute inaction to a lack of caring or incompetence, while the opposite if often true: a government that truly cares is one that knows its limitations. It knows the dangers of acting without full information. And it knows that the more drastic the action, the more severe the potential negative consequences. Unfortunately, voters and the media typically don’t recognise this. They don’t respect decisions not to act, even if acting leads to victims.
We do not always have proper solutions; we are not omnipotent, and society is complex and still dependent on factors beyond its control. We cannot avoid every death in society. Nature still dictates our lifespan in many cases. It is crucial to respect that and be modest. Unless we know exactly what the result- or range of potential results- will be, we should not act. If the range of potential results involves destruction beyond the problem you are trying to solve, err on the side of caution. Not doing anything is a very valid and righteous alternative.
The current crop of political leaders, in their eagerness to limit corona victims, have rushed like a bull into a china shop, crushing everything in their wake and doing damage for years to come. They do not deserve to be in their positions of power. They are responsible for unnecessary death and suffering.
It is those who have mastered the art of doing nothing who need to lead society. They understand that humans cannot control everything and that often the humble approach, one of inactivity, is by far the best option.
