Masking, Covid, denial & fatigue

Prompted by a link to an article that popped up in my social feed. In The Atlantic. The Evermaskers. The isolation of people who take precautions against Covid has only gotten more intense. By Daniel Engber.

I can relate to this. I avoid indoor meetings when possible, but it’s not always possible, and I’m really frustrated that people have indoor meetings unnecessarily. There’s a lot of times when we could be meeting outdoors or by zoom.

I had Covid once, it wasn’t a bad case but I think I got long-term effects. I’m not worried about dying but I am worried about worsening effects if I catch it again. And there are other viruses too.

And it’s not just about me. I am a relatively healthy person after all. But I’ve met a lot of people via social media who constantly have to mask and avoid any kind of close contact with people. Add, all of us in my household have had health challenges and I don’t want to expose anybody unnecessarily.

One time I was indoors and masked, expecting others to be masked because most of them are older than me. Nobody was masked, one person sort of speaking for the group said they feel protected enough by the vaccine. I belatedly had the thought also that it might be they felt protected because they have good healthcare access.

And of course there are times when I take my life into my hands willingly, to go see a film be in a social situation. It’s a bit crazy, navigating all this.

I do think my immune system recently got better after I dealt with some long-term emotional junk that had been weighing on me.

I don’t like that people who mask and practice distancing are labeled the weirdos. I hated watching things get back to normal because it seemed like such a blatant ploy to restore consumer spending and prop up office real-estate.

One of the most generally conscientious people I know, who recognizes & acknowledges the situation re communicable diseases (as well as various other situations in the world), said to me, “I’m just tired of thinking about it.”

That made me draw a sharp breath.

And boy, once people who are cushioned by wealth and social status get tired of thinking about something, that’s just that. Don’t look up.

And I realized how many things that’s true for, including the signs of biospheric collapse. That even people who share a common recognition, many of them are just plain “tired of thinking about it.” And for whatever reason, they don’t have to think about it if they don’t want to.

Nobody is pretending the shutdowns were a glorious good time. but they had some unexpected silver linings, both ecologically and socially. I mean in terms of social movements but also maybe even in terms of prodding us to find ways to deepen our social connections even while we were physically constrained from gathering.

One thing for sure, the rise of widespread teleconferencing enabled activists from around the world to participate in conferences that we never would have been able to afford to participate in person, and maybe wouldn’t even have been invited to or otherwise had access to (even if we had been able to justify the eco-footprint, which I would not have).

BTW I lived in Japan for five years in the 1990s, it was a revelation to me at the time that people would choose to wear masks in public simply to protect others from catching a cold etc. How refreshing to have lived in a culture where it was normal to be so considerate of others.

On a related note, a recent article in I believe it was The Guardian highlighted a study showing that people will take more action on climate if they believe that others care as well. Makes sense. Behavioral contagion (or at least attitudinal contagion even when people in this consumerism-infected society struggle to find ways of matching their behavior to their beliefs) does matter.

Yes, here you go, it was in The Guardian. Spiral of silence: climate action is very popular, so why don’t more people realise it? By Damian Carrington.

Due process

To the people saying that migrants don’t deserve due process if it turns out they got in illegally:

1) In order to determine whether they are here illegally, there has to be an investigation; we don’t get to just grab people off the streets and throw them onto airplanes and send them to prisons.

2) Let’s say they do turn out to be here illegally, and/or have committed a crime etc.. They still have rights.

If criminals don’t have rights, then all the government has to do is find some excuse to label people as criminals, and voilà, those people will no longer have rights.

It’s what every tyrannical government in all of history has done. This is why people who break the law still need to have due process.

Due process may sound messy and inconvenient, and may even sound wrong. But think about it.

Due process FOR ALL protects all of us against capricious and tyrannical government — the kind of tyranny that our founding fathers set out to safeguard against. Which is why due process FOR ALL is enshrined in the Constitution.

(And yes, other administrations have done wrong with immigration policy as well. Just because we criticize the current measures does not mean we don’t and didn’t criticize previous administrations.)

(Yes, in case you might be wondering, this is still an environmentally focused blog. The environment is not something that can just be picked out as a separate issue. Tyranny and the carceral industrial complex have an unacceptably high ecological cost on top of the other problematic aspects.)

PS. Regarding the political climate in general — I actually think things have been taking a downward turn at least since 911. People in the USA started to be willing to trade liberties for what they perceived as “security.” We got beefed-up militarization and policing. I don’t feel more secure, and I think probably a lot of other people don’t either.

On Staying

Sharon Astyk just posted a great piece. “On Staying.”

Sharon’s whole post is great, but her point #4 is my favorite:

“THIS IS MY COUNTRY. THIS IS MY HOME. There is nothing wrong with leaving when things are unsafe, but there is also every reason to try and protect your home, your neighbors, your community and the wealth of mutual support. My ancestors helped colonize this place, helped take land and resources from people who deserved to have them.”

This. Me too. I’m staying. Not only because no country would want me nor would I qualify, but also because I simply do not want to leave. My work is here. I’ve talked about this extensively on this blog, on my social pages, and in my talks.

Fun tip for “lefty’s”: Start calling yourself a centrist

Love this post on Facebook. Basically it’s about moving the Overton window by redefining what’s centrist versus radical left.

“Going to start calling myself a centrist and then listing my leftist views as proof …” the post from Maura Quint on BlueSky starts out.

(I’m not actually on blue sky, but a lot of people on Facebook are cross-sharing across platforms these days. It’s a great thing. Amplifying wholesome ideas.)

My version for example: “I’m just into those centrist ideas such as healthcare for all, abolishing prisons, ICE, and wars, guaranteeing food and basic housing for everyone…”

Great idea! And this is also giving me ideas regarding my environmental/climate action communication.

“I’m just a very mild, middle-of-the-road when it comes to practicing water conservation, household thrift, retrofitting a basic urban dwelling to be free of dependency on electricity and city water (while still being fully on grid and supporting the grid), mutual aid, and basic Degrowth principles, land back, decolonization, & all that basic middle-of-the road stuff …”

Too many people tell me I’m the most radical environmentalist they know. They need to meet lots more people! I keep sharing the pages of those “lots more people”!

I guess I also need to publicly promote myself as a very mild centrist sort of eco-social activist.

On a similar note, I have taken to speaking to my fellow Boomers in an age-focused way — I’ll say things like “Well, you know, me being in my 60s, I just didn’t grow up with all this single-use plastic.”

Or me being the age I am, we just didn’t grow up with air conditioning.

Or, we just didn’t have this concept of water being sold in plastic bottles when I was growing up; we drank tapwater.

We didn’t have straws unless we were in the hospital.

Or, we just didn’t have these huge houses with more bathrooms than people, I never got comfortable with that. Etc.

Since I’m on the young end of the Boomer generation, most of the people I’m saying this to are older than I am, so my words might have some potential to prompt reflection. I’ve seen a few times where that seemed to happen.

Having a smartphone is not being a hypocrite

Very very important! This is something I see a lot of in the doomer/collapse groups. Having a small communication device, particularly when we’re not constantly buying the new model, is not being a hypocrite. These tools have actually helped promote beneficial movements.

There’s no contradiction between striving to minimize unnecessary consumption, and having a phone. In fact, if we really use the technology in the many & diverse great ways it offers, we can avoid burning a lot of fuel and money by making best use of phones, telecommunication, teleconferencing, electronic documents.

I agree 100% with what UPP US has to say about this. Having a smartphone doesn’t make us capitalist sellouts.

We don’t need to make more babies

No, I am not one of these hard-core “zero population growth” people who believe that we will solve all the human problems by ceasing to have children. And I don’t get mad at people who have children. Some people in the various eco circles think that nobody should have any children, which is not a viable plan.

In any society, there are some people who naturally want to have children, and some who do not.

That said …

We don’t need to go out of our way to make more babies. We don’t need the government to incentivize people to have more babies in order to shore up the consumer economy, Social Security, and so on.

In case I haven’t made it clear here and on my other channels, as an eco activist I am in favor of Global North countries allowing a steady flow of immigration to maintain a vibrant population while supporting climate refugees.

As opposed to each Global North country trying to maintain a vibrant population by prodding its existing citizens to make more babies. The planet doesn’t need for countries to be thinking individualistically like this.

If you haven’t heard about the “pro-natalist” movement and policy proposals, it’s something we need to keep an eye on and speak up about.