It’s not surprising to me that a virus went global. We’ve had pandemics throughout history.
What is surprising to me is our global response this
time around – we’ve basically shut down the world economy. Well, I’m not an
economist, so that’s probably an inaccurate metaphor, but our collective
response to COVID-19 has obviously impacted our global, national, and local
economies in a truly significant manner.
I’m not saying we should not have responded the way that we
have. Taking precautions against infections seems non-controversial to me. But
surely, while enacting social distancing rules, we can also at the same time
ask questions as to how we should best keep our economy rolling.
The stress, anxiety, and fear caused by unemployment, loss
of businesses, and uncertainty about the future (to name just a few factors)
take its toll on everyone. The virus also affects everyone, granted. But the
nature of public policy is to balance various complex issues so that the most
benefit to the most people is reached. At least, ideally.
I guess all I’m saying is that we have to take into account
other factors than simply the possibility that the virus could kill someone. A
public policy based on the bravado that ‘saving even one life is worth it’
cannot be sustained.
New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, said in a press conference on March 24, 2020: "We
are going to fight every way we can to save every life that we can. Because
that's what I think it means to be an American." (And this from a governor
who celebrated the passing of a law in NY that allows doctors to kill babies –
the opposite of saving a human life!)
Now maybe Cuomo didn’t mean exactly what he said. It was a
press conference after all. So he probably didn’t think through the
ramifications of his statement. There are a lot of things we can do “to save
every life that we can.” We could ban travel because accidents occur; we could
ban soap because people slip on it. What I'm saying is that every public policy
has to deal with balancing the impact it has on society.
We should be able to discuss, openly and without fear of
being insensitive to those who actually have contracted the virus, how best to
navigate these next weeks and months to balance the needs of everyone in
society. This isn’t a profound insight on my part, of course.
That being said, let me play the devil’s advocate for a
moment and address the question raised in the title of this blog post. Why not
just let the virus run its course? Remember: devil’s advocate.
It seems to me, given that the coronavirus is a part of
nature, shouldn’t we simply let nature do its thing? One tenet of evolutionary
biology is the survival of the fittest. Throughout history, viruses ‘thin the
herd’ by getting rid of the sick and weak, letting the strong survive. With
overpopulation a looming concern for so many, it would make sense that if a
billion people die off the rest of the population can thrive that much more.
Okay, I’m taking off my devil’s advocate hat now. But my
question is this: Why this premium on life all of a sudden? Why this concern
that we try “to save every life that we can”? That’s laughable to me. It
definitely is not a concern for all human life. Some of the
same people who are all up in arms when economic questions are raised, advocate
for the killing of unborn children! So I don’t buy the appeal that to them
every human life matters. Clearly, that’s not the case.
I believe it is the fear of death itself that causes people
to grasp and cling to this idea called life. The here and now is all they know.
The future is extinction. The past doesn’t apply. That’s why people can so
easily advocate for abortion – they’ve convinced themselves (against all
science and common sense) that a pre-born baby is not a human life. It’s the
same argument used against the Jews in WW2 Germany – that they were sub-human.
Same with slavery.
But for them, the person looking out at the world through
the lens of their own eyes, this current existence is all there is. So it must
be grasped, hoarded, protected with everything they’ve got. The alternative is
too much to contemplate.
What is the alternative? That life, being finite, is
ultimately meaningless. There is no purpose to anything, there is no legacy to
leave that will last beyond the memory of a few generations, there is nothing
of ultimate worth or value because all passes away.
“Vanity of vanities, says the Teacher, vanity of vanities!
All is vanity.” - Ecclesiastes 1.2
This subconscious nihilism haunts every human being. And we
rail against it – because if true, then why live even a moment longer?
“Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor
player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more:
it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” -
Shakespeare's Macbeth (Macbeth, Act 5,
Scene 5)
Our existence, indeed, this very universe, signifies nothing
– if that is all there is. But that’s the lie we’ve been taught to believe. As
Carl Sagan put it in his quasi-religious video production from 1980, Cosmos: “The Cosmos is
all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” (He says in near reverent tones,
addressing the cosmos with a capital C!)
But if that is true, then the human speck is not any more
significant than the viral speck. And so, I ask again, why not just let the
virus run its course? The fact that we are fighting this virus belies the
belief that the physical universe is all there is. Deep down, we know that’s
not true. That is why we rail. We fight against this idea that life is
meaningless, and our actions to save as many lives as possible is a clue, a
pointer, that human life is inherently of value.
But note: human lives only have inherent value if, as Thomas
Jefferson, et al., stated in the Declaration of Independence, “they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life....”
Without God giving meaning to this cosmos He created, there
is no ultimate meaning. Without God giving us life in the first place, there is
not ultimate purpose to life. This is why we should be concerned for our fellow
human beings – because everyone has value. Everyone – from those with the virus
who are suffering and those affected tangentially by the economic repercussions
of our policy decisions.
So yes, let’s mitigate the dangers of this virus as best we
can because human lives matter. We’re called to tend the sick and help the
needy, not because we are desperate to hold on to life in the face of
extinction, but because God calls us to be a neighbor to those in need. All of
our neighbors.
One final thought for now. I can’t speak for other
monotheistic religions, but if you are a Christian, you need not fear death. If
the virus takes you or a loved one, and they are a follower of Christ, you will
see them again. We need not throw up our hands at the inevitability of a
pandemic’s results, but we need not panic either. We are not fatalists, but
neither are we in control.
This is not to say that the pain of death (grief, loss,
anguish, etc.) is not real – it surely is. But as the Apostle Paul stated
in Romans 8.18 – “I consider that the sufferings of this
present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to
us.” This word can only be received if ‘we know whom we have believed’ (2 Timothy 1.2).
The ones who have ears to hear, let them hear.
Submitted for your reflection,
Lyn Perry
(* These are just some of my thoughts during the coronavirus
pandemic as of April 8, 2020. My view and position may well change as the days,
weeks, and months progress. Also, I’m not purporting to address every facet of
this topic in this essay. I’m not omniscient.)
