A Self-serving Malady

Have you ever been stood up? Left to dangle at the end of an appointment? Felt like your calendar lied to you or like you missed the memo? Dastard of feeling, innit. A prickly one, poised to pop all your delusions of importance and relevance. Leaving you feeling more defeat than if you’d caught a bullet in a duel.

It’s high time we spoke about… time. And egocentrism. The subconscious idea that the world revolves around you. Where the people around you are stage hands in a you-production. The ideological extreme of individualism and egoism. The ideas that your personal integrity is important, and that you should put yourself first. Individualism has been a perspective-of-choice for people since the coming of market economics. Where the collective is a morass that the individual has to successfully navigate, and that the morass has to respect the individual’s journey. Enter; egoism. That tells us that it is not only okay to prioritize your own well being, but that it is a necessary defence against those in the morass you care for that would drag you down. When an aeroplane loses cabin pressure, we are subject to instructions to put on our own oxygen masks before helping others. For what good help can you afford other people if you’ve fainted due to hypoxia? Self-help guides and feel-good mummers often cite egoism as a form of self-preservation in relationships with other people. To protect your from being cannibalized by toxic friends or lovers. Egoism doesn’t preclude that you think about the welfare of others; simply that you prioritize yours first.

Sounds reasonable, non…

Which brings about egocentrism. Where not only your integrity, your preservation, and your ascent through the morass of the collective come first, but the people around you are there for your benefit or hindrance. That the people around you are a function of you, and not independent bodies on their way through the marshes. That their resources are taps and handholds which are there for you to take advantage of.

And what resource do we hunger more for in our private, privileged, western society lives than time?

As mentioned in previous columns, we have been told that we can do everything. We can work, we can advance, we can marry, we can build houses, we can breed children, we can pursue hobbies, we can be artists, we can party, we can cultivate a garden of friends, we can Netflix and chill, we can do lazy Sunday brunches, we can walk on the moon, we can become presidents. We are supposed to be able to do whatever we want to do. That is what we were promised, non?

But the advertisements never mentioned that if we don’t limit our scopes, we’ll fail at everything. There’s simply not enough hours in a day for it all. Which is what makes time so important to us. Prioritization got lost in translation, and now we’re meant to do everything and we find that we don’t have enough minutes to do it in.

Which brings us back to missed appointments. Because how can you be expected to drop everything, from life partner chores to house construction near-misses, just because another person is waiting for you at the drop of a clock? How can you prioritise that another person is waiting for you when your job has a project deadline that a customer is waiting for? Why should an employer respect that their employees have preceding engagements when they’re to fix your shit for you? How can any single one prior commitment take priority when you have so many others clamouring for your attention? You; the star of the show.

These dismissals are a natural evolution of individualistic performance standards in a world without potential limits. As far as philosophical diversions and perversions go, the slip from stoic egoism to panicked egocentrism was a statistical inevitability. It is a thin line between putting your time and your ambitions first but allowing for the importance of someone else’s, and casually forgetting that other people live under the same constraints of inhumane potentials and promises as you do.

But inevitable doesn’t mean acceptable. It simply means that we have to put in an effort to oppose it. To put in the work so that the pursuit of our goals does not turn into a casual disregard for others’. That the optimization of our own time does not take liberties with the time of those around us. That we do not, through disregard or carelessness, become a nuisance to the other people struggling through the swamps.

It’s a balancing act. One of increasing difficulty the more we pursue the potentials of privilege. Which means we have to take off our blinkers every once in a while, step out of our bubbles of the ego, and look and behold at what we have wrought around us.

/Sebastian Lindberg 21/9-2021

Offended By Science

“I didn’t recognize myself in their depiction of 70-year olds”, the poor victim on the radio show explains. “I felt offended. So it was my right to sue them.”

Them, in this case, being the Swedish Public Health Ministry (Folkhälsomyndigheten). Because according to the Ministry, 70-year olds should sequester themselves away from social interactions to prevent Covid-19 infection, seeing as the elderly are particularly sensitive to the effects and complications that the Wuhan Virus can cause.

According to this 70-year-plus old psychologist, the Public Health Ministry have discriminated against him and his peers. Stigmatized them. The internationally controversial Swedish Public Health Ministry, which has earned global ire for the country’s lax Covid restrictions and high number of deaths at elderly homes, have treated them unfairly.

Imagine the brass balls of privilege of this Boomer, to initiate legal action against the public agency whose job it is to keep him alive and healthy, for doing that very job. We have seen this sort of behaviour in the US, with violent protests against stay-at-home orders and mandatory masks. There, we have seen people take up arms and threaten violent insurrection just because the state doesn’t want them to die and spread a deadly and degenerative malady. We have even seen the US federal authority on infectious disease, Doctor Anthony Fauci, receive death threats, because he has prioritised fighting a deadly virus over pandering to malcontents with the cognitive capacity of angry muppets.

Naturally, the US is worse. Big surprise. But I did not expect to hear from this sort of querulant in placid, passive lil’ old Sweden.

I get disagreeing with restrictions. Or the lack thereof, as Sweden has been accosted for by neighbouring countries. I have also said my piece on the mandate of masks among the public. Fact is we won’t know the “right” way of dealing with Covid until we’re done with it. Probably not even then. By contrast, I also understand the introduction of restrictions on the market economy to avoid catastrophic spread. Depends on whether you value economic growth or human lives, really. It’s a matter of priority, and I know very well that some prefer their stock portfolio’s over the health of random schmucks. The 1%, and those that desperately want to belong to it, didn’t go away just because a plague erupted.

What I do not understand is how you can claim that statistically relevant biological information can be construed as discriminatory. What kind of ass-ward pageantry is that?! How can you argue with any sliver of intellectual honesty that doctors discriminate against you when you’re part of a demographic that suffers particularly from the new influenza strain? It is factual, statistical truth that the elderly suffer the worst. We saw that back in March and April. The intensive care units around the world were filled to the brim with people around the age of 70.

Imagine being so privileged, so belligerently entitled, that you think that the scientific field of epidemiology is assaulting you. Personally. With science and statistical analysis. It’s like a fat person seeking judicial arbitration against Newton for formalizing the theory of gravity. I’m not saying a Boomer is the only creature that in its natural habitat can accumulate this amount of egocentrism, but… ‘lo and behold. Now, most of the elderly that I’ve spoken to or observed following the restrictions either can’t mentally adjust to them, or blatantly don’t care whether they live or die. But as of yet, I hadn’t encountered anyone that would even conceive of screaming “unfair!” at the face of a pandemic response figures.

And yet, here we are. With the government agency tasked with safeguarding the citizenry and society in the face of a pervasive new bug. They labour without a national stockpile of protective equipment, against market forces that have hollowed out the healthcare industry to its bare skeletal structure, against a public that is desperate for things to go back to a normal that was intrinsically unstable. And whether they’ve been right or wrong in their labours, whether they’re failing or succeeding, I do not believe for a minute that the Swedish Public Health Ministry is “out to get” the elderly or infirm. Yet, they have to receive, react to, and handle egocentric complaints like this.

Speaking of “unfair”…

/Sebastian Lindberg 24/11-2020