Global Times provides an alternative perspective on the UK chief science adviser’s recent suggestion that it is better to let the virus spread so people can develop an immunity rather than take a totalitarian approach to containment efforts.
“Chen Fengying, a research fellow at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations in Beijing, told the Global Times, “maybe the UK government believed this was a responsible approach as it can save money for their taxpayers and prevent the NHS (National Health Service) from collapsing, but from a Chinese perspective, this is truly inhuman.” Read more
This is a great example of China’s altruistic totalitarianism viewpoint that drives many of their seemingly draconian policies on censorship and surveillance. In their eyes, it is for the good of the people, and in this particular case, they may very well be correct.
But in most cases, like for instance their unwavering approach to censorship and their Orwellian social credit score, you could make a strong argument that this viewpoint hinders their population, and is more likely to be used by a small group of wealthy hereditary elites to control their population for the purpose of maintaining the status quo — irregardless of the damage this can have on culture, art, human expression, and innovation.
What is truly inhuman is suspending Law professors because they express an alternative viewpoint, but this is what happens in China. What is truly inhuman is ruining someones life simply because they were caught j-walking 3 times, but this is also what happens in China. Nevertheless, it is still interesting to consider their perspective — something that is luckily still allowed in the western world; unlike in China, where contrarian viewpoints are usually banned from publication.