How long can Rome survive without circuses?
In ancient Rome it was determined that political success could be attained by keeping the common people happy, which meant meeting their immediate demands, which meant "bread and circuses".
Now, for the sake of argument, consider the following:
Rome = Society
Bread = Physical Needs (food & shelter for sure, healthcare and education are less immediate but could also be seen as requirements in this area - and responding to pandemics seems to fit here)
Circuses = Beyond physical needs (entertainment)
Currently, the coronavirus has stopped the majority of sporting events and has led to governments urging people to stay home. However, the "bread" still flows as global shipping and grocery stores are still in business.
My question is, how long will people be happy to live with "bread" but no "circuses"? Let's assume we could keep the economy going well enough that everyone has their survival needs met (yes, yes, we Americans couldn't even do that before the coronavirus, but let's ignore that for now), but we continue to further restrict "non-essentials". If it is worth cancelling sports (not just empty stadiums, but fully cancelled), then movies, tv, and every other form of entertainment that requires people to come together for creation is similarly problematic. How long will people be happy watching netflix and hulu with no new content?
I would think that after a year, people will demand circuses even at the risk of half the world dying. What does everyone else think?
Now, for the sake of argument, consider the following:
Rome = Society
Bread = Physical Needs (food & shelter for sure, healthcare and education are less immediate but could also be seen as requirements in this area - and responding to pandemics seems to fit here)
Circuses = Beyond physical needs (entertainment)
Currently, the coronavirus has stopped the majority of sporting events and has led to governments urging people to stay home. However, the "bread" still flows as global shipping and grocery stores are still in business.
My question is, how long will people be happy to live with "bread" but no "circuses"? Let's assume we could keep the economy going well enough that everyone has their survival needs met (yes, yes, we Americans couldn't even do that before the coronavirus, but let's ignore that for now), but we continue to further restrict "non-essentials". If it is worth cancelling sports (not just empty stadiums, but fully cancelled), then movies, tv, and every other form of entertainment that requires people to come together for creation is similarly problematic. How long will people be happy watching netflix and hulu with no new content?
I would think that after a year, people will demand circuses even at the risk of half the world dying. What does everyone else think?
Comments (52)
"Let them eat cake" will become "let them watch football" when "they" (the poor saps) are completely fed up by ceaselessly watching Little Rascals and Brady Bunch reruns in their free time. There will be no football to watch; revolution will break out.
In other words, (for the meeker in spirit) : do hooking and selling street drugs still continue under the new rules?
I would venture 98% of the world will die not of the Covid-19 infections.
According to your estimate, Greg, 50% of all people alive today will never die.
I believe you are correct. This thread was inspired by the coronavirus, but it is not about the coronavirus (although the coronavirus is a great current example to use for analysis).
I used the "half" number to suggest that even if half the world's population would die, I am not thoroughly convinced that life will just go on without "circuses".
I have my doubts about this. People do many things that hinder their long-term survival (I don't mean species long term, I mean individually - people will take strides to ensure their survival TODAY, they will do very little to help their survival in 20 years).
Quoting god must be atheist
I feel the cat is out of the bag for entertainment. We don't need to see rich people having what we don't, WE HAD IT last week. I am not convinced that the world will just go on more walks and have more sex and that will solve that. Undeveloped nations will have fewer problems as people are already used to similar entertainment conditions. Also, anyone who has to struggle to survive is less likely to feel bored.
Quoting god must be atheist
Hahaha. Nice comparison :grin:
Quoting god must be atheist
I agree. But, when "it gets a chance" is very much the question right now...it seems the chance won't exist until the vaccine does, but if that is 1-2 years away, I am not sure the developed world will maintain order for that long.
Quoting god must be atheist
I would definitely expect the black market circuses to grow significantly in the absence of state condoned circuses.
Indeed. Unfortunately, they can only be viewed by the four people that can fit in the room at any time given appropriate social distancing.
I am being snarky, but trying to point out that these new forms of art would need to entertain the masses, not just a few people.
Nah.
In truth it's called simply cabin fever: "Cabin fever refers to the distressing claustrophobic irritability or restlessness experienced when a person, or group, is stuck at an isolated location or in confined quarters for an extended period of time."
Perhaps one problem will be that we will learn "social distancing". We'll adapt things just like with medical personnel (even before the pandemic) that you don't shake hands. Shaking hands can become something rude or an issue you don't do with strangers. And your personal distance kept is longer.
I can buy "cabin fever" for a couple weeks (not so much for a year or two). However, if I recall, the term "cabin fever" arose because people do some crazy ass shit in those conditions (like suicide or just walking out into a blizzard). So that seems to be a little support for my position.
Quoting ssu
So we just use personal distancing and stop shaking hands? When do we stop all the current shutdowns and JUST do that? Because now, many things are just closed. Are you suggesting the current quickness to shut everything down will go away?
Heavy question. Only possible TRUE answer would either attract 7 billion responses, or else one or more mind-readers.
I think the "circuses" part of this equation is really the least vulnerable. It's the "bread" part that's in jeopardy, as restaurants and other public venues shut down, tons of bottom-rung employees that staff those customer service positions get sent home or hours-reduced or laid off, and then they have less money to spent, leaving them not only without "bread" (figuratively and literally) for their own consumption, but without "bread" (figuratively) to spend, leaving other less-vulnerable businesses that could have continued operating just fine despite the pandemic suddenly with far fewer customers, so they have to reduce their staff as well, so even more people have less money to meet their own needs by patronizing other businesses who then have fewer customers so have to lay off more people and so on and so on.
I just hope that the rich people at the top of the pyramid realize that that entire pyramid they're sitting on top of is going to crumble unless they do something about it, like implement a universal basic income (even temporarily!) so that people who have to stay home from work for public safety can keep spending money, not only to continue to meet their own needs, but so that other people who otherwise wouldn't have to stop working for public safety can keep their jobs, and keep meeting their needs by spending more money on other businesses and so on. Because if not, then all those businesses whose stocks you rich fuckers are living off of are going to go broke, all those mortgage and rent checks you're collecting will stop coming, and you'll end up the undisputed kings of a worthless pile of rubble filled with the carcasses us what used to be the working people. You guys have all the power, so it's your call: pay up to postpone collapse long enough for things to go back to normal, or lose everything along with everyone else.
What on earth makes you think they'll be closed down indefinitely?
I'm not suggesting anything here and likely diseases won't go away. What I'm just saying that precautions can have some effect on our manners, which I think has also negative consequences.
Because IF the closures are to "stop the spread" (that is what I seem to be hearing), it seems they can only be stopped when there is a vaccine, which is supposedly a year away...so we may need to consider the long term effects.
So we don't need to wait until there's a vaccine before things can go back to normal, just until we get over the hump of the curve. Once the number of new cases starts going down (even if just because there are fewer people who haven't gotten sick yet left), we don't have to worry about slowing its increase anymore, and can go back to normal knowing that the medical system won't be overwhelmed by those who depend on it.
Well I was typing out a long response to your previous post in this thread, but this paragraph gets right to the stuff I have been thinking about a lot...so I won't bother you with the rest of my ramblings.
"Getting over the hump" seems like it would take a good deal more than a year or two? When you say "even if just because there are fewer people who haven't gotten sick yet left"...won't it take years for most of earth's population to catch it? Especially since measures are being taken to slow the spread?
Well that all makes sense. but to flip perspectives, as someone who is often uncomfortable in social situations and definitely has some personal space issues, "social distancing" just means I am no longer rude when I step back from a close talker :smile:
Seems inevitable if the next 6 months is similar to the last 6 days.
From what I understand, China is already over the hump locally, and it's only been like three months, and they didn't take the drastic measures we are.
I am curious to hear what your reply to my earlier post was going to be, too.
Blame the media for not shutting their materialist faces
See, I am not sure I even understand what that means. Just because most people in one area have already had the disease, doesn't mean one person can't just start up a new epidemic in the next town.
Please fill me in on what I am missing, but logically, the disease is still super contagious, and it still exists in china, and over a billion chinese people still have not had the disease, so if we (they) stop the measures to reduce the spread, it will just explode again...right?
I really feel stupid on this topic, because each time I hear an explanation from a smart person (yes, you and most people on this site count), it seems incomplete or ignoring some elephant in the room.
Hahaha. Seems fair.
You're right that a neighboring area that has had no exposure can still catch it, and that area is then at the start of their own hump and has to take measures to flatten it out, but the places that already had it spreading through their community before can go back to normal themselves once they've gotten over that hump locally.
So whatever your community is, it's pretty much inevitably that eventually most people there will have had COVID19 at some point or another, but once enough people have had it and gotten over it, and the number of new cases is declining instead of increasing, there's no more risk of having too many cases at once and so people can go back to normal and whoever's left can get it and get it over with.
I saw a pretty good video about it yesterday that you might like:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgBla7RepXU&t=0s[/video]
Well, social distancing is the trendy cordial thing to do.
For us Finns this is very easy to do. Our way to greet has only been a handshake before and at times like this it's normal and very easy to avoid that. Societies where cheek kissing is normal it would sad if the way fades away. Or in the Catholic Church in the sermon of shaking hands with people next to you. Asians do have the nice gesture of bowing, but that unlikely won't be used or become anytime popular (it would be that ugly cultural appropriation).
The likely outcome is that we are simply even more rude than now.
That missing handshake actual does make a difference. If every interaction with a service personnel, in a bank or office will be done with a person behind a glass window and speaking to microphone, at least I am usually not as friendly with those people and keep it to the bare minimum. Now it's the border guard or the public transport ticket seller who is confined like that and it's obvious that the situation isn't intended for any small talk, but rapid transfer of masses of people. I'd never have any tolerance to listen someone giving a sales pitch like that. And it's no surprise that one of the most hated and least respected jobs in the World is a telemarketer.
Isn't it more likely that the population will develop natural resistance and immunity to coronavirus before we run out of new circuses?
Meanwhile, there are plenty of ways to produce content from home, not only alone but also in virtual teams. Like the team of chatterboxes cooperating in this circus.
I remember a long time ago I was under the impression that health was simply an absence of disease. This negative definition of health became outmoded and a positive definition was formulated which, although retaining the essence of the earlier definition, included wellbeing, a significant aspect of which involves entertainment.
The cancellation of sports and other entertainment that require large gatherings of people are instances of needs being sacrificed and not, as you seem to be saying, forgoing luxuries that are "beyond physical needs".
How long will Rome survive?
Until the the day Romans realize that what was presented to them as a luxury item is actually an essential item.
If you slow the spread, the wait to reach the hump will be longer. They are inversely proportional:
Time to wait out the hump = 1/speed of spread.
This means that though the spread will be elongated, it can and will take a long time to reach the passing of the hump.
I think the quaranteening movement actually can stop the virus from spreading. If all people who have got it are quaranteened for three weeks, the virus will die in them. Some will die with the virus, but the virus in the survivors also will die.
If some of the carriers pass it on, in the next generation of virus infections there will be fewer people infected.
And in the next, even fewer.
Depending on how stringently we do the quaranteening, and the contact avoidance, thus the spread avoidance, the stoppage of the spread and the killling of all viruses will be inversely proportional in time and in number of generations with the stringency and success of quaranteening
Better quaranteening = fewer generations of infections, shorter diesease time before the virus dies out (becomes extinct.)
Thanks for the info. I have read enough similar articles to mostly understand what you are saying. I am now totally fine with shutdowns lasting until August/September. However, if schools do not re-open then (implying that much of the economy is still shut down), I would bet that the massive economic impact is too much. We would be happy with only 10 million dead at that point. I think a 2-5 month shutdown could be survived with 4-10 trillion of created money injected into the economy to keep it alive. I don't see it surviving a year of shutdowns (none of the shutdowns are calling for that long...but they seem quite unsure of the end date).
Not to mention that after about 3 months, cabin fever could lead to some crazy ass behavior.
Yes! that is actually part of my point (obviously not a very clear part, haha). I labelled food, shelter, etc as physical needs not to separate them from circuses as "needs", but to separate them as physical. Circuses satisfy emotional needs. But I agree with you that they are needs. And I worry about how people will begin to act when their emotional needs are neglected.
They'll start going into existential crisis and say "What's the point of anything?". A fish in a bowl swims around, eats, swims a bit more, checks out the castle, swims, swims through the plant, etc.
I recall hearing that, there's a difference between not dying and living and in the spirit of this sentence, the priority now is not living but not dying and given that this restructuring of our priorities is a global phenomenon, you're right in saying that entertainment (circuses) isn't really a need. In a sense then we were under the delusion that entertainment was/is a necessity insofar as not dying is our concern.
It just shows how powerful the coronavirus, and for that matter any infectious pathogen, is; it has literally, in the span of a mere two years, sent the so-called modern world of 21st century back to the stone age and we've become like our ancestors, primarily concerned with not dying.
Well we already know people start asking that question more when their basic physical needs no longer need much effort to take care of. I am suggesting that entertainment has eased this crisis, and a whole chunk of entertainment options has been removed...so how will people react?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I believe the same thing that allows us to choose not to have kids (for example), causes us to be unsatisfied just swimming around the bowl...although I do largely agree, there isn't really more to life than that.
First, I think you have pointed out an interesting and potentially important distinction between "living" and "not dying". I mostly agreed, but may have minor contentions...
When not dying is a challenge, circuses aren't needed. But if we look at the current crisis, no one is struggling to not die. It is constantly on the brain RIGHT NOW, so people are not yet bored. But this will not last. People will get bored. It is not like they have to do anything to not die...in fact, everyone needs to largely stop doing stuff. I think they will get bored eventually.
If schools are back in session in the fall, I think there will be no major problems. If they are not, implying that there is at least one more year of this stuff, I think we will see the results of people getting bored.
I wonder what could be more interesting than not dying? :chin: :mask:
You mean what is more interesting than doing nothing?
Not dying is not necessarily an action, is my point. In the jungle, not dying means running away from the tiger. For the coronavirus, not dying means sitting in my house.
Just as running from the tiger is "interesting", so is sitting in the house, if your life is on the line.
I find that hard to believe (I know it is 100% false for me personally, but that says exactly nothing about the population as a whole). It is not like it is the zombie apocalypse out there. We will see in a few months I suppose.
:ok:
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Yes, my point is maybe people will start realizing that there is really not much we are doing except trying to survive, maintain our comfort levels (cleaning, temperature adjustments, doing laundry, etc.), and then getting our brains "hooked" on something (I call it entertainment, but anything falls under entertainment such as religion, Netflix, board games, video games, reading, studying up on a topic you're interested in, taking care of a pet, tinkering with that old car, exercising for pleasure, knitting, thinking of a new business, inventing, etc. etc. etc.).
The existential crisis comes in when the brain is "unhooked", it doesn't have something that makes the time go by unto the next day. This is where "Existence" (with a capital E) is "felt". It is a profound boredom with EVERYTHING. This is akin to "the absurd" discussed so often. It is like walking past a house full of drama and yelling from the family inside.. It seems so trivial, yet it is very important to them. But it isn't in the grand scheme of Existence. We are all filling up our time and when we go long stretches with not much to make the time go by faster, THAT is what we should really capture as the essence of existence. THAT is what we should realize life is. It is simply surviving, maintaining (not getting sick, or getting better from illness falls under that), and entertainment, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat. This is absurd, yet we throw more people into the world to experience this anyways.