Covid 19: Thesis and Anti-Thesis

This is an attempt to explain why CV19 policies (and it applies to many other things), has become so tribal. There are broadly two camps, those that accept the mainstream line on Cv19 and those who don’t accept it. The former support the CV19 Thesis and the latter are Anti-thesis.

Covid 19 Thesis:

CV19 is believed to be a serious threat to public health many magnitudes greater than even a bad flu.

Promoted by the mainstream media; the main social media channels; most Governments; most opposition parties; global bodies e.g. WHO; large pharmaceutical companies

Those who differ in their opinion are characterised by those who promote the thesis as Covid-deniers; anti-vaxxers; conspiracy theorists and even by some as potential murderers (granny-killers).

The condensed view of the Covid 19 thesis believers is that lockdowns both work and are required; masks work and need to be mandated; vaccines are safe and should be mandated across most/all age ranges to protect both themselves & others; and vaccine passports should be mandated so that things can open-up faster and pressure people into getting vaccinated. In summary, heavy societal controls and restrictions are needed as CV19 is more dangerous than any downsides the restrictions bring.

CV19 Anti-thesis

CV19 is not sufficiently serious to warrant the level of response seen. It is barely more serious than a bad flu season and badly affects only the very elderly (average age of CV19 death is 82) or those with specific long-term conditions that make them generally more vulnerable to any and all viruses.

This idea is not promoted by any large mainstream or social media organisations but there are many individual scientists, doctors and others who can be found on social media who believe that the response to CV19 has been exaggerated, inappropriate & ultimately counter-productive. The differing approaches across the world with no correlation between cases/hospitalisations/death outcomes and the levels of restrictions or vaccinations imposed is cited as evidence.

Those who differ in their opinion to CV19 anti-thesis believers are characterised as Government shills; unthinking sheep; fear-mongers and selfish dictatorship enablers.

The condensed view of the Covid 19 anti-thesis believers is that lockdowns are not needed and don’t work; masks have so little efficacy as not to be worth wearing; vaccine passports are simply a way to divide society with no proven benefit; in the near future we can expect to see a scapegoating of the unvaccinated and that we are on the precipice of a slippery slope that leads to increasingly draconian biopolitical control measures, the grip of which is unlikely to release, even when the pandemic is over.

In summary, more societal damage (across the economy, non-CV19 health, mental health, education and civil liberties) is done by heavy restrictions than by Cv19 itself.

Can we find a way forward?

Both of the above perspectives have some validity.
However, in anything but the most simplistic of situations, extreme views are ALWAYS wrong to one extent or another because they attempt to simplify the complex in a way that misses crucial factors.

We all have lives to lead which take up a lot of our energy, both physical and mental. It’s a form of self-preservation to simplify things down so that we can integrate them into our lives with minimal effort. We want to reach a situation, and quickly, wherein we have decided what ‘the answer’ is, so that we can stop having to think about it.
Our natural reaction to anyone suggesting that our answer may be wring is usually to push-back and double-down. Any thinking we do tends to be simply justifying to ourselves why it’s ok to carry on believing as we already do.

Put simply, and for various psychological reasons, we hate having to change our minds, especially on important issues.

Now clearly, this is less than ideal in terms of being open-minded and being less susceptible to propaganda. But as long as we know and acknowledge that’s what we do, so that when serious complex issues arise, we are consciously aware of our over-simplified biases, we at least have a chance of discussing things open-mindedly, rather than taking the easy but divisive route of simply seeing anyone with a differing opinion as either stupid or evil.

Neither the thesis or anti-thesis view of Cv19, when held tribally and uncritically, is right, and we do ourselves no favours in the long-run by closed-mindedly choosing a side and refusing to consider reasonable questions and concerns from the ‘other’ side.

We need to be able to synthesise a reasonable way through this which doesn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater or end in one side feeling totally victorious and the other totally defeated. Becoming either a tyrant or a slave are not good options.

The problem is that there is no arena for a sensible, good-faith discussion.

It could be done by the mainstream or social media, but these organisations have nailed their colours to the mast and are actively censoring views and individuals that don’t agree with their chosen position.
Governments could do it but again, they don’t want to be seen as uncertain or vacillating, so they also tend to nail their colours to one mast or another.
Global quangos like the WHO or the UN could do it but sadly, they are so riven with internal & geo-politics and vested interests that it doesn’t happen there either.

So it is left to small independent thinkers like Jonathan Haidt or the you tube channel Rebel Wisdom, to try and bring some reasonable thinking into difficult areas.
All any individual can do is support these reasonable thinkers and do what we can on social media in our small way. We can also try to introduce other perspectives into conversations.

What is the kind of thinking we need to move forward collegiately?
Well in simple terms it means not insisting upon winning; not insisting on being right; being aware of the danger of all of our thinking being merely rationalising why it’s ok to go on believing what we already do without asking often obvious questions and genuinely trying to see the other point of view.
It requires, ‘yes, and..’ or ‘true but only partially’ or ‘ok, but what if…’ or ‘ok but perhaps we could consider this as well…’

Politically, it comes down to how we want to organise our society.
Do we want: 1. as much genuine democracy as possible? This requires high levels of openness and public discussion and involvement;
2. Occasional democracy interspersed by a virtual dictatorship? Where the elected Government gets to do basically whatever it likes until the next election;
Or 3. no democracy at all? Accepting that a ruling class know what’s best and the rest of us happily just do as we’re told – something foreseen by Aldous Huxley.

What we must have is genuine open and honest debates on vital societal issues. Otherwise, we will find that those with power and influence change our society without us having any meaningful say.

As well as books and you tube interviews by Jonathan Haidt and the Rebel Wisdom channel, I would suggest certain books to read. They are all available on kindle for well under £10 (actual books more expensive). They explain how we think and how easily we can be influenced:

Influence by Cialdini
Think Fast, Think Slow by Kahneman
Mistakes were made but not by me by Tarvis et al

Pragmatism must win over emotion

The 'we have to show our humanity by taking all these refugees' people don't seem to have thought through the practicalities.
It's all about the 'moral signal' that they want to give.

Most are comfortably off financially and believe that questions asking where we will get all the houses, hospitals, doctors, nurses, social-workers, teachers, jobs, etc to cope with an ever increasing population on our tiny over-crowded island, are somehow irrelevant or trivial or just an excuse for nastiness.

Whether this is moral naivety or wilful bad-faith and whether conscious or otherwise, who knows? But as long as I feel that I’m a ‘nice moral person', that’s all that seems to matter.
Sod the genuine practical social issues that large influxes of new people bring, or the poor already living here upon whom the extra costs and adverse consequences of rapid major societal change always falls hardest.

On this refugee issue, you either believe that we should prioritise helping the needy people of the UK, of whom there are plenty, or you believe in prioritising people from other parts of the world.
It’s pretty much as simple as that.

What we don’t have is the luxury of doing both, whether from a financial, skilled labour or geographical space viewpoint.
We will just end up doing both badly, which is indeed what we are doing.

You don’t have to give other people whatever they want to be a good decent person.
You don't need to take on guilt about things that you personally have had nothing to do with to be a good decent person.
You don’t have to take the problems of the world onto your own shoulders to be a good decent person.
Sort your own life, family and country out, then in your spare time, perhaps.....

One day we will realise that, for a host of reasons, life cannot be made totally fair for all people; which brings us back to the question, ‘do we focus on our own people in need, on our own poor, or those from other countries?’

It’s not a case of not caring, or not being a nice person.
It’s being practical & realistic about what is possible and about how much we can do, without destroying what we’ve already got; as opposed to being a self-righteous emotion-driven utopian idealist.

The thing with self-righteous utopian idealists is that it costs them very little to pontificate on social media or walk down a street waving a placard and shouting slogans, while potentially costing everyone else an awful lot if their ill-thought-through impractical emotional blackmail wins out.

Selfishness: some thoughts

Humans are innately selfish. It is a built-in part of our evolutionary survival instinct.
Whether individuals plough their own furrow or cooperate within some form of group, it's because they judge it to be in their own personal interest to do so.
If we can acknowledge this, we would, both on an individual and societal level, make better decisions by being more sceptical of authority.

“Oh, but I know people who often do things for others with no benefit to themselves. I even do things like that myself”, you may say.
I understand what you mean, of course. And on a small-scale personal level, it can happen.
But I would gently point out that even then, whether hoping for a favour in return in the future, or even just the glow of self-righteousness you get from performing the act can be construed as, if not outright selfishness, then gaining some form of benefit.

Certainly, when you move away from small interpersonal interactions, the idea that something may be bad for us personally but best for the majority in society is one we understand in concept but can rarely bring ourselves to act out.
Rather, we spend a lot of mental effort rationalising why what is bad for us personally is bad for wider society and what is good for us personally is good for wider society.
Life is just so much easier that way, isn’t it?

No-one champions, let alone votes for, a system or a societal change which they believe will make their own life materially or meaningfully worse. And I use these words deliberately.

We are sometimes prepared to live with minor inconvenience to 'do the right thing'; to appear, both to ourselves and others, as virtuous, but nothing major, nothing meaningful, nothing material.

For example, people who are comfortably off financially may be prepared to advocate for a rise in tax rates such that they too would have a bit less disposable income.
However, if the tax increases being suggested were of a magnitude that meant they would struggle to maintain their current lifestyle, their support for the idea would disappear faster than water in a sieve.

If someone is advocating for something, it is either because they believe they already do, or will in the future, directly benefit from it - or, at the very least, that there will be no meaningful downside for them or their immediate family.

The consequences of our views for other folk are either something we can claim credit for if good, or unfortunate but necessary collateral damage, if bad.
But the primary driver is always ‘what’s in it for me?’
It might be money, it might be fame, it may be praise, it may be future benefits. But one way or another, we only do it if we believe that in some way, we benefit personally.

Our belief may prove to be wrong of course; but cultivating wisdom is a different and much more difficult discussion.

Elites de-couple themselves from the Plebs

In all societies throughout history, the elite classes have set themselves apart from the unwashed and, however much we may think ourselves enlightened, we are no different. 

For example, the Kick it Out campaign has been incredibly successful in removing racism from football, both inside the game and on the terraces, over the last 30 or more years.
Indeed, football is now so racist that the majority of Premier League players are both ‘ethnic minorities’ and multi-millionaires.

Many footballers, of whatever ethnic background, have almost no educational attainment behind them. To make it to the top, you have to devote your life to it from a young age, so that’s not a criticism, other than perhaps of football itself.

But what it does show is that, not only does our society happily allow ‘black’ people to benefit from social mobility, but that it also allows those with little educational attainment, irrespective of ethnicity, to do so as well; and football is by no means the only example.

Just like you will never end sexism or homophobia completely, you will never end racism completely and it’s perverse and naïve to believe otherwise.

Perfection is often the enemy of mere excellence.

There are too many human individuals to eradicate any bad behaviour completely. Just look at how many murders, stabbings, etc take place each year, yet no-one would be so naïve as to believe that these can be totally eradicated.
The best we can do, and we have done so, is marginalise racism and make it unacceptable within the vast majority of society.
But the law of diminishing returns applies, wherein you can end up causing more harm than good in trying to get to a wholly unattainable zero point.
And don’t forget that ethnic minorities are just as capable as 'whites' of racism, since it is a Human trait, not an exclusively ‘white Human’ trait.
There are those within ethnic minorities who despise those of other ethnic minorities, tribes or religions, as well as ‘white’ people.

The remnants of aggressive/violent racism are largely confined to the inner cities and occurs across all racial groups.
Too often now, racism is simply used as a stick to beat white people with; a stick often wielded by other white folk desperate to show their ‘progressive’ credentials, no matter who or what they throw under a bus in doing so.

Those England football fans booing their team taking a knee might be racist, but it is just as likely that they are a) not supportive of the avowedly Marxist BLM movement (as opposed to the simple statement ‘black lives matter’ which is indisputable) and b) tired of being lectured by multi-millionaire footballers who know no more (and often less) about the history and intricacies of the socio-economic issues of our country than anyone else.

And remember, the recent report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, published in March 2021, found some racism yes, of course, but not systemic racism; and that there are many other important reasons why some ethnic minority communities do very well and some do less well; it’s just we aren’t allowed to talk about them. Why? Because they don't fit a certain simplistic political narrative. 

When not wanting to hurt some people’s feelings comes ahead of telling the truth, we are in big trouble as a society; so I'm afraid we ARE in BIG trouble because we are in that position on a number of important issues, not just racism.

And finally, what does it gain the (mainly) A, B & C1 upper class self-styled ‘progressive’ elites to continue to wag their fingers at the ‘stupid, bigoted, racist etc’ lower classes?
It gains nothing but things they don’t want, e.g. Brexit and a huge Tory majority.
But it seems to make some people feel so good about themselves that, counter-productive though it is, even though it brings outcomes they don’t want, they just can’t stop themselves.

And of course, it’s just as bigoted to call other people 'bigots', rather than trying to understand their viewpoint but, hey-ho, one rule for those at the top of society and another for those at the bottom; 'twas ever thus.

I forget who said, ‘the self-righteous forgive themselves everything’ but it's an accurate observation and something we must all actively guard against. 

NHS Staff - a special case?

Recently I got embroiled in a discussion, on social media about NHS staff and pay rises.
Well, I was discussing, others were simply yelling emotion-driven abuse.

You may not be aware of this but there seem to be people out there who genuinely believe the following things:

a) that if you work in the NHS you are a better person than those who don't;

b) that those of us who don't work in the NHS would not be prepared to do what they do; we’d be too scared or it would be too much like hard work;

c)  that, far from being equal, there are different classes of citizen in our country. There are those who work in the NHS (and some might be good enough to add Police, Fire & Ambulance Service as well), then there are other Public sector workers and finally, at the bottom of the worthiness list, all those that work in the Private sector. 

I KID YOU NOT, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY THINK THIS!

This is a quite remarkable, dangerous & worrying way to think.

Firstly, let’s remember how money flows in terms of the Public and Private sectors. Put simply, the Private sector generates taxation via corporation tax, worker income tax, and employer & employee National Insurance.
These revenues go to the Government. The Government uses this money to pay for the Public sector, including the salaries of all those that work in it.
Yes, I know that all of those Public sector workers pay tax & NI, but as the wages they get has come from the Private sector (via the Government), any tax they pay is merely returning a proportion of that back. It’s not NEW tax revenue.

The point is that the Public sector does not create wealth, rather it consumes the wealth generated by the Private sector & distributed by the Government.

Now this isn't a problem as long as we all remember that without the Private sector being successful (which is not just successful companies paying taxation but unemployment being low such that all the Private sector workers are paying tax not receiving benefits), there would be no money to pay the NHS staff or the Fire Service, the Police service or the Ambulance service or the people that come and take away your rubbish every week etc, etc. 

Once we allow ourselves to think of any part of the Public sector as uncriticisable, like a cult/religion, we have lost our objectivity.

We all need to agree that we will not pursue any idea that certain people doing certain jobs or working in certain parts of our society are more deserving, better people, than others.
That’s divisive, which we have enough of already at the moment!

Importantly, and I can only speak for myself here, I would have been perfectly happy to work in the NHS if that’s the way my life had gone.
Indeed my mother, an aunt, and several cousins did/do work in the NHS.
The risks of being on the front-line of patient care would probably not even have occurred to me.
Like joining the armed services, it’s a risk you are aware of and accept when you choose that career.
Anyway, I suspect that people choose to work in the NHS for positive reasons and are not constantly weighing-up any dangers there may be over and above other jobs.

Also, when you look at the groups most vulnerable, not to catching CV19, but to being really badly affected by it, very few will be working in the NHS.

By far the most vulnerable group, the over 70s, are retired, and those with long-term existing susceptible conditions are likewise less likely to be working in the NHS, and if they are, they should have been self-isolating.

So, while CV19 patient doctors & nurses in the NHS may be of greater risk of catching CV19, they were, in reality, at no greater risk of serious illness or dying from CV19 than anyone else in the low-risk groups.
Of course I feel very sorry for the exceptions but they are such a small number compared to the total that they prove the rule.

Remember also that only a certain proportion of NHS staff come into direct contact with CV19 patients; under half, by no means ALL NHS staff as is implied by many.

Additionally, not only is it impossible for everybody outside the Public sector to work within it, but neither is it desirable that they should; remember where the money comes from.

Without the Private sector there would be no NHS.

And it certainly isn’t the case that everyone should WANT to work in the Public sector in some bizarre attempt at symbolising what a ‘good’ person they are, which really appears to be the view of some strange people on social media.

So, while I am sure that we are all very grateful to those who do work in the NHS, that gratitude simply cannot overflow into cult status, hero worship & special treatment.  

When so many people in the Private sector have, and over the next 12 months even more will, lose their jobs; and when even more will receive no pay rise of any kind, it seems rather strange to be singling out people that work in the NHS as if they are the only people who have had a difficult time in the last 12 months. They are not; not by a long chalk.

What I suspect is that a lot of the fuss and noise around wanting to treat the NHS staff better than everybody else, is generated by the usual suspects: certain politicians, certain parts of the media, trade unions, those who generally favour the Public sector over the Private sector, and those who just never think about where the money comes from to give Public sector workers pay increases. 

I was going to say that I wonder, should there be an anonymous poll of NHS staff, how many of them would be happy to claim that they are better people and more deserving than their fellow citizens.
However, I am confident that the vast majority of people working within the NHS would NOT describe themselves in such an arrogant narcissistic and entitled way.

I agree with them.

They do a great job; they do a very necessary job, and we are grateful.
But they do benefit from almost 100% job security which is worth a lot at the moment, and I for one am not SO grateful that I'm prepared to pretend that they are literally better people and more deserving of special treatment than the rest of us.

The NHS

The NHS was conceived toward the end of the Churchill wartime government. It came into being in 1948.
The population of the United Kingdom in 1948 was 49.8 million. The average life expectancy for women was around 70; the average life expectancy for men was around 66.

The population of the United Kingdom now is approximately 68.2 million. The average life expectancy for women is 83; the average life expectancy for men is 79.

If those making the decisions in 1948 had been able to predict this level of growth in population combined with increase in life expectancy, they may have paused for thought before proceeding.

There is something which is very important in the context of the NHS's position within our society that doesn't get discussed.
Namely, that not only is our overall population much larger and growing but the proportion of our population that is elderly is far higher than in 1948 and very importantly, there has been a vast increase in the number of people being kept alive by modern medicine yet who are not very healthy.

Thus, not only is the total number of people using expensive NHS resources much higher than at its inception, but the proportion of the population needing to use expensive NHS resources on a regular or permanent ongoing basis has increased hugely.

So, the original decision to go ahead with the NHS all those years ago, which was always based more on social factors than a robust financial case, is rapidly becoming untenable.

Put simply, it's Pyramid Scheme. 

Not just a reducing proportion of healthy/young paying for the increasing proportion of unhealthy/old but Private sector paying for the increasingly costly Public sector.

It’s surely obvious to anyone with an even vaguely open mind on the subject that the Public sector in general and the NHS in particular is becoming, if it has not already become, unaffordable; unaffordable bearing in mind all the other things that are in the Public sector.
Unimportant things like education & law & order for example.

Even if we think we can get away with it for a few more decades, our children will find it a burden that is simply not sustainable by the time they get to my age, unless significant changes are made.

Let’s remember how money flows in terms of the Public and Private sectors. Put simply, the Private sector generates taxation via corporation tax, worker income tax, and employer & employee National Insurance.
These revenues go to the government. The government uses this money to pay for the Public sector, including the salaries of all those that work in it.

Yes, I know that all of those Public sector workers pay tax, but as the wages they get has come from the Private sector via the Government, any tax they pay is merely returning a proportion of that back.

It's not NEW or EXTRA money in the economy!

The point is that the Public sector does not create wealth, rather it consumes the wealth generated by the Private sector & distributed by the government.

I know that so many people don't want to hear this and don't want to even think about it.

90% of people alive today have known nothing else but the NHS.
They think of it as a ‘Right’.
The whys and wherefores of how it is run, organised and paid for are, to many, irrelevant.
They want it, they will always want it, and the only way in which they want it changed is for yet more money to be put into it so that it does exactly what it does now but faster, with more capacity and, yes, more staff.

The only way that we can stop the Public sector and specifically the NHS consuming more and more to the point of bankrupting the Nation is through innovation.

I strongly recommend Matt Ridley's book How innovation works. 

Innovation, far more often than not, is stifled by State intervention. Scientific innovation generally, but medical innovation in particular, is being slowed massively by bureaucracy and the desire for medicines and products that are 100% safe.
The length of time it takes to get new products to market is enormous.
So enormous, that it often puts companies off bothering to the detriment of many potential beneficiaries.

This is not how we will reduce cost while improving outcomes for all.

We see what can be done with the covid vaccines.
They have been created, essentially, from a standing start, and were ready to give people in around nine months. And the vast majority of people are more than happy to take it, even though they are aware that, simply by definition, they cannot possibly have gone through anything other than short term safety trials.
Indeed the clinical trials for the current vaccines are not officially due to end until well into 2023.

What this proves is that if State bureaucracies stopped the cult of ‘safteyism’ and adopted a light touch approach to innovations in medicine, the improvements we need on both the medical outcome and the cost sides can happen and can happen quite fast.

This does not mean a free for all with no testing & trials done for safety.
It does mean slimming the approval process down, so it doesn’t take 70 months to approve the use of a new pacemaker as it did in Europe recently.

The only way to stop the Public sector and particularly the NHS becoming a financial burden that cannot be overcome for our children and grandchildren is through innovation.

It’s through making it worthwhile for those in science generally and medical science particularly to put a lot of time and effort into new ideas and new concepts many of which will fail. But the ones that don't, can make a significant difference.

In simple terms we have to get out of the way of medical science & technology as much as is reasonably possible because we need them to find ways not just of keeping more and more people alive but keeping them alive and healthy.
The healthy for longer, thus requiring less NHS resources part, is how the NHS remains affordable long term while at the same time allowing more people to live longer in good health. 

It may not affect me too much, but it will certainly affect my children and their children if we don't realise this.

The Media: Friend or Foe?

 Most of us feel much more comfortable chatting & discussing things with those who entirely or largely agree with us. It’s much more relaxing, very easy and makes us feel good about ourselves.

Who enjoys conflict? Very few.

We recognise this on social media because, either fed by their algorithms, or by making it easy to block anyone who doesn’t agree with us, it is obvious that we get bound into bubbles of confirmation bias. These partly imposed, partly self-created opinion bubbles mean that many people, even those who spend a lot of time on numerous social media platforms, often end up never hearing any alternative view.

This can easily lead to thinking either that alternative views don’t exist or that an alternative view does exist but is so obviously wrong, it can be legitimately ignored.

There are two psychological consequences from this immersion in confirmation bias which are desperately bad for our society:

One seems to be the number of people who feel threatened by alternative views, i.e. they develop a fragility that sees alternative views as a form of violence against them.
Here, the psychological safety response is either to close their minds and refuse to engage with any possibility that those with an alternative view may have perfectly valid points worth considering OR to adopt a war footing and launch vituperative personal attacks on anyone disagreeing with them.
Hence the sort of polarisation of views witnessed in the USA where social media was born and has most effect.

The other consequence, which is becoming more common all the time, is the development of an authoritarian response akin to a fundamentalist religion, wherein anyone who doesn’t affirm the ‘righteous’ view, (embodied by what I think of course), should be treated as a heretic or evil-doer to the extent that it’s not just acceptable, but morally correct to do all that’s possible to silence them, coerce them into obedience, or even seek to ruin their lives by for example, contacting their employer and demanding they be sacked.

While these traits are obvious within social media, they are perhaps less so in the traditional media; possibly because this behaviour has become the norm over many decades and thus, not being new, it goes unnoticed.
However, many newspapers and TV news stations have seen their regular audience fall in recent years which is causing concern to their owners.

Whether newspapers or TV news, as your regular audience declines, you have two choices. Make changes that widen your appeal by expanding the range of views on offer, or become more insular by narrowing the range of views down and simply reflecting what you believe your core audience wants to hear, and hoping that this will stabilise your audience numbers at an acceptable level.

In newspapers, the tabloids, both Left & Right, have been doing the insular & myopic ‘just feed them what they want’ model for a long time, but it has become the case that the broadsheets, or what some choose to call the ‘quality’ press, are also doing this now.
TV news channels also now present far from balanced news coverage (but of course you have realise this!)

While wrong, this should not come as a surprise. Media tycoons & TV executives aren’t known for their humility after all.

So, we now have a situation where across all forms of mainstream media, whether social or traditional, we have very little cross-fertilisation of ideas; very little calm and reasonable discussion of the moral & ethical issues of the day; and no genuine good-faith searching for the truth as opposed to striving for the victory of our existing views.

We are fed a dangerous and untruthful diet consisting of confirmation of our own righteousness with a large side-dish of condemnation of the evil ones who dare to disagree.

The only people who will stop this is us, the consumers of this poisonous diet, refusing to eat it anymore.

Of course, it takes time, effort, and courage to break out of unthreatening environments; to do your own research; to deliberately listen to the views of those who disagree; to take one foot out of safe order and place it into uncomfortable chaos.

Do we have the wisdom to recognise the need and the courage to actually do it? 

If not, I fear it will lead either to violent revolution or a supposedly benevolent but suffocating dictatorship.