I guess it has become a bit of a hobby of mine - or less generously an obsession - to trace the contours and dynamics of what is more or less the equivalent of a calving glacier: the steady dissolution of society as it is currently composed. Implied in this - as the historical record shows - is also transformation, but transformation requires a thing to be transformed, and a platform for that thing to transform on, all of which could be rendered moot by the greater climate change crisis.
It would be just great if we could put all of this behind us and get back to a positive theory of transformation, but this bullshit keeps getting pushed in my face, so here we go. As the rapper Black Thought put it so succinctly on the excellent "Education," a song on the recent and excellent Freddie Gibbs and Madlib album Bandana, "I focused on sinnin' when winnin' was not an option."
Anyway. There is a whole lot of speculation here, and it is not meant to be so much a precise prediction - glacier dynamics are complicated as it is, not to mention an advanced industrial society - as it is a suggestion for thinking about how things could play out.
As frightening as the recent coronavirus outbreak is, it may serve to act as a sort of imaginary angiogram for the body politic. We can watch as the metaphorical ink makes its way through the circulatory system, and reveal its function, or dysfunction, for that matter.
The neverending procession of political, economic, and environmental crises, of all sizes, have served as such. And then the conjunction of multiple cascading crises says something in addition, above and beyond analysis of any given individual crisis.
We could imagine a fanciful scenario in which the characteristics of the virus contribute to a wiping out of vulnerable groups like the elderly, many of whom hold larger stores of wealth, which could upset family structures and wealth holdings on a vast scale, ultimately setting in motion profound shifts in social power and the movement of wealth.
Of course in the real world, wealth disparities affect who gets the hit hardest, and who is vulnerable to the brunt of the destruction, and what we would more likely have is a hardening of the status quo, though on the other hand if we get a virus or disease that is destructive enough or aggressive enough, who knows what could happen? But we don't even have to imagine a simplified and fanciful scenario to come up with all sorts of effects that are readily observable.
There is a reason for so-called "stress tests" whether you are talking about engineering or finance. A larger shock like a deadly, worldwide virus puts all sorts of strain on systems both big and small. Throw a snake in the room and see what happens, so to speak. Heck, they're already whining about stock market fears over the accelerating spread of the coronavirus, after a period of so-called "strong growth," "tariff turbulence," and then settled "tranquility." Quite the fair-weather friend, that stock market.
Dangerous viruses call into question medical facilities, the administrative structure of those facilities, the economic structure of those administrations, behavior of transportation networks and the security of those networks, the economic and political structures that organize those networks, the climate of international relations and the dynamics between multiple political and economic structures across the globe.
Because these systems were ostensibly put into place to perpetuate human society, we get to see in greater contrast whether these systems are doing what they should be doing when faced with a more clear and forceful threat. Of course it is my position that these systems are no longer affecting perpetuation, but are instead accelerating just the opposite. But it is a little more interesting to attempt to show your work than just state this flat out.
We could even speculate on something good, but nevertheless a substantial change, like Bernie Sanders being elected president, and nevertheless raise all kinds of concerns. Establishment figures tend to put up the argument that no one would want to work with him, which is unfair and ridiculous in the context of voting choice, but also probably true given the systems we have.
For someone like him to suddenly assume office would be shattering to the current composition of the establishment. We could only imagine what would happen with the massive ecology of monopolies, interlocking boards of directors, revolving doors, the security state, corporate media, and so on. Why, the whole thing could seize up. And then whatever happens next just happens.
None of this is to say that nothing should be done, as doing nothing would result in some other cataclysm that just happens in a different way. What all of this does say: expect some weather.
