How to explain the events of 2019/2020 to the next generation – a handy guide

I get this as a nice idea in the way that whoever wins the war gets to tell the story, but it conflates 3 different issues. Environment, disease, and economics. It starts of telling the story of the environment, completely ignores the disease and somehow magically, the issues in the current economy get resolved.

Another way to tell the story is that Mother Nature got tired of the greed and people that did not care for the environment and wanted to get as much as they could at the detriment of others. So, Mother Nature created a new disease which ravaged the earth. It meant the shutdown of all international travel. The economy ground to a halt, and people started to realize they didn't need all these things they were buying. They started living within their means, taking care of each other and enjoying the simpler things in life. A few of the very rich, donated their money to help cure the disease. We opened our eyes to find that not only did we not need as much, but the world was a better place when we started to look at each other and understand what was really important. The new car, bigger house, nicer clothers, wasn't as nice to have as good old health and peace of mind.

You think that greed is ending due to this? It's exactly the opposite.

Never let a good crisis go to waste. Load up on shorts and puts and enjoy the yacht you'll be riding on when this is all over

Its simpler than that, if we're brutally honest and scientific: the developed world had accumulated, through extensive use of modern medicine and redistributive welfare schemes, a large population of people who were kept alive solely by modern medicine and the support (forced or otherwise) of their fellow citizens.

With the appearance of a new type of virus, mostly harmless to the majority of the population, but lethal to those at the medical fringes (eg. 99% of fatal cases in Italy have existing health problems, average age 79), we overreacted and in the process destroyed our economy and society, unwilling to face our own mortality.

> I get this as a nice idea in the way that whoever wins the war gets to tell the story

Absolutely true, but look what country is about to "win."

Not speaking about that is a disservice to intellectual integrity.

While I owe the most of my money to trade with China, I fully understand that if the West will get a great downward dip, the current establishment in China will with 100% certainty exploit the situation

The CPC has always been a very opportunistic political force, and with the current people at the helm, they will certainly be even more so.

The West needs to think how they will be dealing with China after the crisis.

You already hear some whispers in the CPC suggesting that a conflict with Taiwan could be a quick and dirty way to distract the nation from the current crisis.

A conflict with Taiwan will mean the world looses 70-80% of its semiconductor supply, which can be a game over for the developed economies.

The blog post is an exercise in pointing out that it's truly remarkable that within a few months of the global environmental protest movement, global governments have actually delivered, forcefully, quickly and with global agreements, many of the outcomes that the environmental movement would have wanted/needed.

That's just a really weird idea because the reason for the governments doing all those things is completely unrelated to the environmental protest. AND there was no hope in hell of the world doing all those things "for the environment".

The blog post deliberately tries to illustrate that point by presenting the story as though there were no virus, only environmental protest plus government action.

And instead of governments being slow and begrudging and endlessly politicking, it has all happened within a matter of weeks.

Illustrating the story in this way also goes some way to dispel many of the reasons that governments give for government inaction, usually they protest that it's not possible for humanity to respond in such radical ways - but clearly we can, given sufficient urgency/motivation/imperative.

With the irony being that both the environment and the virus represent a threat to humanity, but the virus operates in a much faster timeline than the environment.

If the environment was collapsing as fast as the virus is playing out then the world would act in the needed radical manner. Conversely, if the virus played out as slowly as the environmental disaster then it would not get much of a response from anyone.