A rambling entry to my daily journal, cir March 2020:

In as far as this conversation is concerned, there is no difference between a state of human existence with or without this virus. In the ridiculous extreme, it will kill all humans and none of us will be left to combat against its spread; life without it means we live as we did yesterday; as life exists with it now, we make decisions dependent upon avoiding its contraction. But in all cases the outcomes are the same at the very end.

However, in yesterday’s entry I meant to explore the idea of stopping a natural evolutionary process. Isn’t that what the expansion of a virus is, the proliferation of another life form, granted it threatens us in some way? I don’t say that as a judgment of our value against its value because I don’t believe that is even something to be considered — neither of our species has inherent value. No, I’m considering the issue on a more existential level: I think we’re making all the political and functional changes only to maintain a status quo, or, if you will, a normal way of life, when simple adaptation would better serve us.

We are vainly attempting to make our future consistent with our present — that is really the only point of battling against such an illness like this virus. So, on an abstract level, today human society is only attempting to prevent change from an arbitrary state of existence.

For instance: I should rehash my social and philosophical values, which is to say I really have none, other than those holding up the atmosphere to sustain my life. Meaning I only care about social values or interactions in as far as the rules existing that minimize the probability someone will walk through our front door and kill us all. Outside of that, my values are nil. Because overall, I think human existence has no value: if I circle the system within which over all time humans exist, not only is it so fucking small that it doesn’t matter to the universe, but also we add no value to it.

That being said, there is an incentive to living consistently. But, despite its false nature, the comfort fools us into a sense of security. We come to believe that because we survived yesterday using some method, using it tomorrow means we will survive then, too, but that is a very short-sighted approach to living. First of all, it doesn’t consider all available variables (but then, what method of living can) — it probably doesn’t even consider many of the plausible dangers in life. Secondly, clinging to anything is an emotional detriment to us because, by consistently denying our fragility, we are stagnate against threat and thus we become weak: socially, physically, and emotionally. We are fooling ourselves into a life routine that boxes us in and leaves us unprepared for change.

At the highest level, no matter what happens our lifestyle is changing — the only question is by how much. Because we are all self-interested and truly we don’t give a shit about systemic problems, in the case of this virus I consider the immediate objective is to minimize the disruption to our lives. Yet I’m arguing that the objective is totally illogical since, by the introduction of a new living routine, life has by definition already changed. But I don’t believe that is a bad thing because, as I see it, all forms of life are equal, anyway.

The only remaining definition is about my use of the words “to battle against,” which I suppose is the other necessary leg to this discussion because without it I have no point. As a matter of philosophy, I could address an infinite number of nuances between an infinite number of realities, but in this discourse I’m thinking of the environment outside the household, and I’m relating to all the changes in lifestyle people are making in an effort of unknown efficacy to slow the spread of this virus. You could make the argument that the point of all this hype is to minimize a systemic problem resulting from the “need” (whatever that truly means) to treat patients who catch the virus, but I’d say a few things about that.

If you’re familiar with my writing, then I’m not sure I really need to explain my thoughts on the nature of our arbitrary existence, but for the sake of this conversation I will because it is the key to my argument. Mainly my point is that all outcomes are arbitrary. We tend to think of our lives as a result of our free will, but that only describes part of the issue — we live deliberately with the sense that we each make decisions and the outcomes are manifest to some degree, but after we are gone none of those decisions will matter and they will all therefore have the same value: none.

Yes, I realize there many philosophical debates available on the nuances of this subject, but by and large I don’t care about them. You can debate on the nuances all you want.