The text discusses the "ethic of caution" in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and its implications for post-pandemic society. The ethic of caution demands prudence in any individual action to avoid collective disasters and protect vulnerable individuals. This has led to a widespread consensus supporting it, from authorities to intellectuals, journalists, celebrities, and citizens.
The text argues that returning to 'normality' after the lockdown is both impossible and undesirable due to the persistence of the virus, the potential for new outbreaks, and the exacerbation of societal inequalities during the crisis. The unequal impact of the pandemic, particularly on marginalized communities, highlights the need for caution in a hyper-connected world where any contact could potentially lead to distant tragedies.
The ethic of caution is also tied to moral considerations regarding social, racial, gender, and class disparities. It calls for solidarity and increased awareness of oppressive structures like patriarchy and racism, which have made the health crisis especially deadly. However, the ethic of caution seems insufficient for bringing about significant change or building a future. It tends to curb forward progress and often lures people back to the status quo.
The text reflects on past experiences, such as the economic crisis of 2008 and the EU's cautious approach to conflict management and humanitarian crises, highlighting how these situations can lead to gradual adjustments and adaptation rather than transformative solutions. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the ethic of caution is shaping a gradual, uncertain future where we learn to coexist with the virus and adapt to a new normal.
However, the text questions whether this is the path we want to follow. It suggests that the ethic of caution might not offer solutions or transformations but rather help us adapt timidly and prepare for future crises. The post-COVID future is being written through prudence, fear, and collective paralysis, with a focus on survival rather than thriving. The author questions why, if we are alive, we would accept a post-mortem scenario.
