One seriously wonders, "What is it going to take for people to start thinking preventatively rather than reactively?" at least if one is someone who has been writing for years, as we have been, about the failure of the U.S. people to consider a scientific discovery of how to prevent harms and bring about something which is its opposite: harmony. It's not only the U.S. population that has failed to think proactively, but also people in numerous other countries. We've written to people in Canada, the Netherlands, and Britain, and we have yet to have someone in a position to distribute this message en masse take that opportunity to do so.
So, what we're left with is a reality that numerous lives which could have been saved were not and deaths which could have been prevented were not.
What the current dramatic events reveal is that people have no trouble seeing what can be done with tangible materials (e.g. masks and respirators) and what happens without them, but they have a lot of trouble seeing what can be done with intangible things such as planning, and care, and what happens without them.
Imagine a situation where for one reason or another someone sees a storm coming, and for one reason or another they build an ark, preparing for that storm. They cannot build an ark big enough to take everyone with them. They have limited resources. Maybe they tell the rulers, "You can prevent a flood that's coming which will destroy homes." Or, they tell the rulers, "You can build many arks to provide protection for millions." Yet, the rulers choose not to heed the warning.
And so, Noah gets into his ark with the rains having come and sails off, leaving numerous people behind to a sad and tragic fate, not at all happy about the gift he was given, but nevertheless sailing to live another day.
Well, this is a story to make a point.
It may be hard to believe, but somehow with all the resources that the United States has, this is the reality that many people, doctors and medical care workers experienced:
When there is a crisis, or before there is a crisis, people do not want - at least our experience has shown us this - to think of planning and preparation as "tools" as important as a mask or a respirator. Yet, planning and preparation is what would have provided the mask and the respirator.
Of course, it is not only planning and preparation, it is all these traits. All these traits are natural tools available to us all to help us to be in a position like Noah, instead of like those who are washed away in a flood.
It's not to blame those doctors and nurses and medical workers who counted on the companies and institutions they work for, though one might ask, "What would make them think the institutions they work for, and more to the point, the people they work for, who manage the institutions they work for, would actually be there for them?" "What would make them think that?" You might say, "What would make them think that they wouldn't be there for them?" Well, the give-away is that these are top-level hoarders.
That reminds me we wrote an article titled Howard Shultz and Hoarding the Dream?
If you're interested in learning about an example of how one leader hoards, you can check that article out. But back to our story here.
The people running these institutions, whether government, or large businesses are hoarders of the worst kind. They think nothing of hoarding money. By hoarding, we mean keeping it from flowing. We mean keeping it from being used to save lives, or prevent deaths.
This idea of hoarding money, as being wrong or problematic, is not one that many people would say bothers them. Yet, recently, even the conservative president, Donald Trump, expressed opposition to the idea that companies would take money from the government and use it to buy back stock. A buy back of stock is a way for a company to reduce the amount of shares in the market, giving remaining owners of shares a higher stake in the company. In other words, it's a way to enrich shareholders. It is not a way to get money flowing, at least not in the short run, and that's why we can consider it as being similar to hoarding of goods. Much as a consumer who stocks up on necessities is stocking up, a company that increases its ownership in its stock could be said to be "stocking up." This kind of stocking up is done all the time - in fact, it is what companies do as a matter of course. They try to own as much stock and have as much cash, combined, as they can - that is, they try to pay out as little as they can get away with. Limiting them in a time of crisis does not change the fact that companies already have cash and stock in their reserves (or in their accounts).
So, why don't companies and governments have masks and respirators stocked up? Well, it's because of what we said, already, they try to limit how much they have to give, or give out.
This is the American system. This is the capitalist system. It is, very much, a survival of the fittest system. But "fittest" is defined very narrowly to mean fit to do very particular things. For example, if someone like Nick Hanauer invests in Amazon, as he did, early in Amazon's history, and profits immensely, this is considered "good." Why is it good? Well, it's good because Amazon becomes a huge success. Is it good that Amazon put out of business a lot of businesses? Well, yes, according to the system. Let's say someone sees that there is a storm coming, because they're paying attention to what is going on in the world; they see in January that China is locking up its citizens and shutting down, and they see that citizens are wearing masks. So they go out and buy toilet paper and groceries and masks and hand sanitizer and hand soap to cover themselves for a lockdown. They have the vision - they see this before others, so they are prepared. They're planning for the worst and hoping for the best. They simultaneously are trying to alert others - "Hey, get prepared," they say. "There is a way to be more prepared. People put greater value on life's essentials," they shout, but people don't listen.
Well, think about this. How is it that the heads of Yale and the heads of the top institutions, hospitals with billions of dollars, or even multi-millions of dollars at their disposal, with supposedly the smartest employees from the top schools cannot be prepared, even when they have scenes coming out of China as far back as early February, such as this one?
So, let's see if we have this straight? It's okay for people to play in the financial markets with an everyman out for themselves approach. But when a consumer buys enough life's essentials for their family to hold them over for three months, that's considered wrongful hoarding.
Who is in charge of how much is being made? The capitalists, right? The capitalists and corporatism (government working with business) decides how much of what products and services to make. And, also, supposedly consumers are supposed to drive what gets made. A health care worker, who works in a hospital, back in late January, early February, sees the possible risks, and so she or he goes to the local CVS and buys three months' worth of masks - she's not supposed to do that? Yet, it's acceptable that she has to put her life on the line because the billionaire entity she works for didn't care enough to think about her - instead they thought about their bottom line. How about the fireman? He's not allowed to plan ahead and buy three months' worth of masks? Do you know what they say an average person is supposed to have saved? Six months income. Enough income to protect them for six months if something were to happen. That's what they recommend. Now, nearly 40% of Americans could not handle an unexpected bill of $400. So, imagine a person in that group of people, a person who could not handle an unexpected bill of $400, imagine they bought enough toilet paper and enough masks to last them three months - they have so little already, it's the only planning and preparation they can afford - they go out and do it. And they are told they're doing something wrong because medical professionals don't have enough equipment - no mention by these public officials that the reason those medical professionals don't have enough is that they, the public officials, chose to hoard money and resources for other purposes and people.
Consider the public officials that sold stock ahead of the news.
It really does not matter whether they will be punished for what they did, what matters is many people have lost faith in government's ability to care for its citizens.
Imagine you work tirelessly trying to help a world by sharing a discovery of a scientific law of nature, and you share it to help prevent death from harms like the coronavirus; you tell people that if we promoted, in schools, and in communities, the values of life (and life's essentials), liberty and happiness for all, and if we taught behavioral traits that could help us bring them about, we would make more meaningful products and services and be in a better position to save lives; you even write a children's series called Save the World Dog and the Ucadoo Crew to help bring the message in a playful way. Imagine your argument is not based on some subjective opinions but rather on objective truths and ones that are provable or disprovable. They are subject to objective validation. Imagine that you, at great effort and expense, do this - write dozens of books to help save lives - and the world comes back at you and says, "No, no, you have it all wrong, it's every man out for themselves, join us. Your ideas that we, the leaders, we, the followers, should embrace your ideas of survival of the all are wrong. Your ideas that we, the leaders or we, the followers, should embrace or even try to learn about a discovery relating to harmonizing is just wrong. Join us in survival of the fittest. But remember, when it comes to our survival versus yours, we'll tell you how you can protect our lives and who we want you to protect." Well, back to them, I'd say, "We're trying to live long enough to get this message to the world. How many lives can be saved by a scientific discovery of a law of nature? Countless millions. That is what is at stake. Countless millions of lives can be saved by a discovery of a scientific law of nature. So, that's what we're working to bring to the world." Others may not yet see how this scientific law of nature can save millions of lives. It's an intangible tool, more powerful than a respirator, more powerful than a mask, more powerful than hundreds of thousands of respirators, more powerful than hundreds of thousands of masks. Yet, it will take a small number of people to understand the power of this intangible tool and then for them to begin to use it themselves (in their daily actions). Once they do, major shifts will begin to happen.
It does not seem like an ark full of animals and a small group of humans would be much good in a flood that takes out the rest of humanity. Yet... that's how the story goes. To some, that is historical fact, to others it is not. Whether it is or not, the point being aimed at is that there are some tools and some leaders who might just be able to change, significantly, the course of humanity. There's no guarantee that those leaders will be received and embraced. Our sense is, from looking at the past, often things have to get pretty bad before people are willing to try something new and different. Writer, Rita Mae Brown said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result." At some point, people may just be willing to try learning about a scientific law of nature that shows how we can harmonize. Perhaps, so much harm will have to occur before people will open to the possibility that there is a better way.
One thing, we can pretty surely say, if we were running the country, we would be sure that there were enough masks, other protective equipment and respirators for all who needed them. Well, we're not running the country, and you cannot help us to do that, however, you can help us get the message out about a scientific law of nature. You can get one of the books, read the message and share it with others.
We talk about these ideas in The ABCs of Running for President. We talk about why we need to go beyond offering monthly checks in What's Good? For a Healthy Society, Human Centered Capitalism and Universal Basic Income. Now, there are a lot of people talking about offering $1,000, or more, per month, to people during this coronavirus crisis. And they're talking about how to bring life's essentials (masks, respirators, and other life-saving tools and equipment and resources to people). Well, that's exactly what we explain in those books. We explain how we need not only to bring people the money they need to live, but also, we need to bring them life's essentials. More than that though, we also explain that we need to bring them a set of behaviors and values that fit together like parts. Once people understand that harmonizing is something we do by bringing parts to our lives, actions and decisions, we will prevent so many more harms. It's time with the coronavirus to embrace the idea that there is a discovery, a scientific discovery, that shows us how to prevent harms, and bring about harmony. And it's a scientific discovery that's compatible with spirit and the highest ideals of humanity. The more you learn about the scientific discovery, the more you see that the golden rule and precepts related to it are intertwined with science and provable aspects of the way nature works.