A year ago, young people’s call to prioritise sustainability over the economy was criticised as naïve. The circumstances are different, but the corona crisis now demands for this call to be addressed. We are asking ourselves how long we want to put up with the restrictions and how much of a drop in our standard of living are we prepared to accept. This then raises the ethical question: is the way we have been living more important than the lives of the people the virus could kill?
From climate denial to corona denial
The mindset behind climate change denial is the same one that propagates the idea of the coronavirus being harmless. Behind this lies the desire to simply carry on as before. We pursue a narrative that only economic growth can guarantee us a good life. We are now confronted with the contradictory nature of this narrative. Economic imperatives are currently taking a back seat to those that seek to save lives and set new priorities. It feels like a breach of taboo: old, familiar chains of logic are being broken.
Similar to the „CO2 lie”, we now have “corona hysteria”. Some people claim: “It was the same with Sars, swine flu and bird flu. Nothing happened there either. And anyway, 25 000 people died during the flu outbreak of 2017/18 and we didn’t bat an eyelid. People die in traffic accidents, of starvation, from alcohol abuse and in wars, and there are all those other unnecessary deaths we don’t give a hoot about, so why all the fuss now?”
Walls fall first in our minds
At the same time there is growing acceptance for the precautionary measures. We accept such restrictions because we almost all know someone who belongs to a high-risk group. The harsh herd immunity approach could mean the death of these people. Who wants to say yes to that?
In my book “Mindset Matters”, the fall of the Berlin Wall exemplifies how we underwent a sudden and profound societal mindshift literally overnight. On 9th November 1989 we experienced that it is possible to change reality and to interpret it in a new way. We were willing to give up old ways of thinking, the absurdity of which had been obvious for a long time.
Just as we now also know that we are one human family living on a planet with limited and dwindling resources. So far, though, we have not had the emotional strength to bring about effective new behaviours from this realisation.
Which walls are now falling in our minds?
Many things we once thought were impossible are happening. It’s as if a mental wall is coming down. On a collective level, we are learning to deal with a complex global problem. We are learning what it means to put life before the economic storyline. Taking this decision will not be a walk in the park, but could fundamentally change our society.
We are becoming aware that we are an interlinked and interdependent global community. The nationalists who dismiss the virus as someone else’s problem and the economic liberals who see the rising death toll as mere numbers are becoming more and more silent. A secondary response has been the introduction of climate protection measures, such as the reduction of air and road traffic, which would have been considered utopian but a few weeks ago. We see what we are capable of when the will is there and the necessity is felt.
On a personal level, each of us is thrown back to our own presentness and unknowingness. Disconnected from the momentum of everyday life, we are confronted with new feelings. Who is important to me? What am I doing now? Where is my place? What kind of world do I want to live in? We are faced with our own mortality. The likelihood of getting the virus is real. When we think of our parents, our children and those in risk groups, we feel an intense sense of responsibility. These new feelings offer space for concepts that are aligned with life.
What do we want to want?
There are multiple indications to suggest that we are not dealing with an anomaly that will only briefly separate us from the status quo and in a few weeks everything will be fine again. We have faith in science and hope in a vaccine, widespread testing and our state institutions. There are signs the situation will be protracted and that much will depend on the decisions we make.
After the Berlin wall came down a friend from Dresden told me: “I feel like I’m on holiday in the West and can’t go home.” Our economic system will temporarily break away from the constraints of efficiency-driven economic viability and follow more the paradigm of public service provision. We will see whether this will just be a holiday or a real shift in values.
Change involves three crucial aspects
1. Vision – What does the shared vision of the new situation look like?
This vision is still being debated, but it does not seem to be hard herd immunisation. We have so far opted to preserve life, even if it means a heavy burden for a longer time and a loss of prosperity.
2. Power – What are the power structures in the current system and what is preventing or enabling them?
When it comes to power we see an interesting development. In some countries we see incompetent and ignorant politicians holding forth at the microphone, whereas elsewhere expert panels of scientists have established a prudent and rational approach. Who do you think we will trust more in the near future?
3. Mindset and values – Which emotional values are the drivers of development and with which mindset do we face change?
The third aspect is the most exciting because it is often overlooked, seemingly invisible. Our inner mindset decides which reality we create now. Deep down are we selfish beings who fight over toilet paper, or do we also show a different face.
Someone said to me the other day, “I’d never have thought that life here could be changed so quickly and that so many would take responsibility and go along with it.”
The issue of “public services versus economic growth” will be with us for some to come, so the decisions we make and our mindset are absolutely critical.
Where do we go from here? My father, who had Alzheimer’s, used to answer questions he didn’t quite grasp by saying, “Surprise me.” To which I add, “with the spontaneity of being.”