Many people would say that people-pleasing is just a stupid thing to do. Most of the time, you cannot please the majority of people. Ideas can be either very niche or, on the other end of the spectrum, heroic.
Preventing viral pandemics is heroic, mainly when book-written inventions can unite countries and challenge nature.
Say, for argument’s sake, you say something like, “The Government makes us scared of COVID-19; we should not fear viruses”. Okay, but you know that more people don’t want to deal with the plethora of outcomes of a pandemic; more people suffer than thrive during a pandemic. Do you also know that no one is going to an African cave to sit there and be shat on by millions of departing bats that’ll diagnose them with a hemorrhagic virus with a higher mortality rate of around 40% to 90% because there has been no licenses vaccine manufactured for Ebola or the Filoviradae family since 1970s because it’s mutation rate is undeterminable by modern genome systems? Selling unlicensed vaccines in first and third-world countries is illegal because how one would prefer to die is always subjective. For example:
(Weissmann, 2003, p. 134 -135)
Ethically, a large population of tribes in Africa have had to stop washing their deceased loved ones because it’s too much for healthcare/frontline workers to contain. Not only are highly populated countries hard to control for viruses but there isn’t enough education on the nature of viruses.
If you agree that people should die alone in isolation units, then you’ve decided that (in Jordan Petersons’ words) that would be your God. Or perhaps you’ve morally selected the fate of others who are more vulnerable than you for, let’s say, a 1.2% – 2% mortality rate virus, or perhaps you have decided that “Oh well if it’s a 50% mortality rate virus, who cares who it kills”. Who are you to decide the fate of others’ deaths?
Let’s talk about religion and Ebola victims; if you were to die like the man below. You would become like Esther Awete. Would it be practical if your family were to perform religious rituals on your open wounds when every droplet of blood (once infected) contains one million strains of a virus? Do you know how hard it is for people to sacrifice their culture or religion?
So you understand that if technology can ethically prevent one country’s problem from becoming others—that is far more agreeable and logical not on a subjective scale but in measuring the social implications of meritocracy, to not let these phenomenons happen at all.
In addition as the saying goes, “Men designed technology to challenge nature” (Samuels, 2022) makes it much more ethical to prevent global disruption rather than ‘deciding the fate of everyone’. Particularly when viruses do not care about your moral beliefs or economy.