Reginald
29th January 2004, 01:30 PM
I'm not absolutely sure this should be in this section, I see it as a political dilemma, however....
With the potential threat of Avian flu and more specifically the mutation that could occur to it, a thought crossed my mind.
If you were in power in a major power block country and you found yourself in a situation where there was the potential to lose a large percentage of your population. Would you do everything you could to confine the outbreak to your own territories or would you allow the infection to spread?
The immediate and selfless answer I first came up with was "yes, I would contain the disease and work with others to solve the problem". But thinking about it, and trying to put myself in the position of a leader of one of these countries, I started to wonder. Yes, there would obviously be less loss of life if it was contained in as small an area as possible, but it wouldn't stop the losses in my country.
These losses could be (and for the purposes of my thought experiment, would be) significant enough to completely undermine both the economy and it's ability to defend itself. I would, by taking the decision to contain the illness, effectively condemn my country to many years of turmoil, economic collapse and possible invasion. If on the other hand, some of my disease carrying citizens were to visit other countries, as widely as possible, I would not be alone in a)Trying to find a cure (Although I know WHO etc. exist) b) It would level the playing field economically and militarily.
I suspect that one day, some illness like this will come along.
Would you contain? Would you spread the problem?
With the potential threat of Avian flu and more specifically the mutation that could occur to it, a thought crossed my mind.
If you were in power in a major power block country and you found yourself in a situation where there was the potential to lose a large percentage of your population. Would you do everything you could to confine the outbreak to your own territories or would you allow the infection to spread?
The immediate and selfless answer I first came up with was "yes, I would contain the disease and work with others to solve the problem". But thinking about it, and trying to put myself in the position of a leader of one of these countries, I started to wonder. Yes, there would obviously be less loss of life if it was contained in as small an area as possible, but it wouldn't stop the losses in my country.
These losses could be (and for the purposes of my thought experiment, would be) significant enough to completely undermine both the economy and it's ability to defend itself. I would, by taking the decision to contain the illness, effectively condemn my country to many years of turmoil, economic collapse and possible invasion. If on the other hand, some of my disease carrying citizens were to visit other countries, as widely as possible, I would not be alone in a)Trying to find a cure (Although I know WHO etc. exist) b) It would level the playing field economically and militarily.
I suspect that one day, some illness like this will come along.
Would you contain? Would you spread the problem?