Is my ebola plan to cold and calculating?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, it does involve treating everyone as if they're infected. But that's what you have to do when you don't know who is infected or not. Once you know, you can let people move again. If there's a house on fire, sometimes you have to tear down the houses next door that aren't on fire, so that the fire can be contained. Hence, quarantining the infected with the may be infected, so the infection can't spread. Or putting a tourniquet on a leg that's been bitten by a snake, to minimise the venoms spread - you don't leave it there, but you only take it off once the antivenom is delivered.

Honestly, I would much prefer if we didn't have to. But there's only two ways humanity can deal with threats, and that's to have a dictator who does whatever is necessary, or an extremaly decentralised networked society that can handle massive shocks and route around damage. I really want the latter, but it appears most people would rather have a king.

I don't want a king. No one person can consistently make the right decisions. The best system uses input from many people at varying times in accordance with the persons' greatest periods of productivity.

Well, they want a state, which is king by commitee...