The 21st century has offered us a significant volume of philosophical, political and social changes. In the new situation that is being lived one of these new chapters is the dichotomy between humanism and economics, or it is what some ones intend to force us to decide.
In the moment of the coronavirus crisis, serious discussion has taken place among countries, which believe that any action to minimize the worsening of the health crisis is the priority that society must take; and those who, on the contrary, consider that, in front of this crisis, the economy has to go ahead, minimum measures must be taken, while still betting on improving and implementing health services to combat this virus.
One of the elements to be taken into account between the two concepts is the model of communication of this disease to civil society. It is curious to find that countries that have chosen to keep the economy active, are the countries that have the least contagious, seriously ill and dead, meanwhile the countries that opted for the freezing, named as hibernation, of their economies are the sickest at the moment. Outside of these models, there is the American model that has opted for the version of the heroic American sacrifice against the new virologic war, allowing it to offer more realistic figures and keep the economy running.
Looking at the countries that keep their economies running, their economic debacle is also important, but they have an element in favor, and that is that the day after they do not have to start the machine, because it never stopped, they do not have to re-starting the society to the previous monotony operation, for they have never finished losing it. These countries are the ones that are unwilling to stand in solidarity with those who have opted for the humanistic health model. Obviously, that all these countries hide the reality of the impact of the virus on their society, but in the face of the denunciation of information obscurantism they have the defense of the psycho-social protection of their societies, and in part, no one is evaluating this other indicative that should be taken into account.
The countries that have opted for health humanism and the defense of health above all, are the ones that show us much higher indicators of contagion, disease and death; a very serious humanitarian crisis and the need for a total haltion of the entire economic system, minus taxes, that is. These countries are shown as the champions of a society of information transparency, of democracy for people above any other value. It is curious to note that in most cases they are countries with a social democracy very weakened in their governments.
Even if they present an idealistic view of the fight against the pandemic, the reality is that they are also hiding the reality of their numbers, which should multiply them tenfold in terms of contagion, which would mean that the pandemic is much more expanded, but on the contrary, its impact on the aggravation of it is much lower than that presented to us. I mean, communication occultism comes from the other side.
Faced with this, we find two versions of antagonistic and misinformative information in both cases advocated to a failure and a new model of creation of blocks of ideas that will be the ones that divide future societies, but always since misinformation, or seen from another point of view, of positivist or denier social psycho-politics.
But because of health ignorance, the best model is that of common sense, only the concept itself can be analyzed. This is the dilemma of Hiroshima’s atomic bomb, the thought of those who advocated not to throw it away since it was known that the war was over, but that they accepted the possible need for more bloodshed in the short term; and those who advocated launching it and ending the war quickly. The latter, the health humanists, did not take into account that after the 300,000 killed with the two bombs, a similar number died indirectly in the following decades as a result of their impact; that led to a cold war focused on the nuclear model, which we are part of in various nuclear accidents that have quietly but irrevocably killed a few million people.
Either model can be offensive to those who think one way or another, the difference is to have long-term vision or simply to decide for one step after another, short-term vision. It is equally curious to note that likewise these two visions of society are divided into what we would define as Greco-Latin societies and Anglo-German societies. Social culture may support Greco-Latin thought, but political successes have always held them, throughout history, those of Anglo-German thought, or barbarians as the Romans of their time indicated.
The economic freezing of countries is going to lead to a new socio-political paradigm that we are not prepared to face, nor do we know the consequences of it. Remember that when you freeze a food, then you have to thaw it before heating it, or what you will have in something sinsabor, tasteless and without the same quality as when you froze it.
Economic freezing will mean for countries such as Italy, Spain, …, a fall of more than 30% of their GDP and this will have a dramatic impact on society. If Europe with this crisis has gone back about 40 years, the Mediterranean countries have gone back almost 90 years, and I do not want to recall what we face after the ’29 crisis.
Someone should have a different view within governments so that they can assess the short-, medium- and long-term impacts before making decisions whose effects can be as devastating on the surviving society as those of bombs Atomic.
If the potential victories today seem to be the Humanists, we may not surprise some, if the Economists end up tomorrow being so.