Life is risky, and it was a lot more at the once upon a time.


This is a matter of free-of-day. Sign up now and get access to unlimited.$ 0.99 1st month

If the current generation could pass a single decree as the emperor began, in the arroubo of a God complex, and I believe that the decree would be: “it is forbidden to die.” The offspring of Prometheus to steal the divine fire, to change this configuration, “perfect”, which requires the finiteness of our small, but of the holy ones. This is why so many flirt along with the search for immortality through technology (tadinhos).

I had this thought because of the coronavirus, of course, the reaction to the hiv pandemic has created. I understand the fear, of course. But I get the distinct feeling that many of you hate the most is the fact that to live is to take risks. And it was a lot more at the once upon a time. However, the new generations will always find that face the greatest challenges of human existence. We need only think of Greta Thunberg, and in the hysteria of the “global warming”.

The Black death, also known as the Bubonic Plague was the most devastating pandemic recorded in history, resulting in the deaths of 75 to 200 million people when the world population was a tiny fraction of the current one.

The Spanish flu, also known as the flu of 1918 was a pandemic of the influenza a virus. In January of 1918 to December of 1920, it infected 500 million people, or about one-fourth of the world’s population at the time. It is estimated that the number of people killed is between the ages of 17 and 50 million, but some of the calculations to arrive at 100 million or so. The population is only one-sixth of the current.

It is not the case in the light of the covid-19 and, of course, that’s not a “gripezinha”. But, as I said, the generations have a modern feel where they face the greatest challenges in the world. Their great-grandparents did not have a vaccine for many diseases that are now trivial. They went out of the house, though, lived on, with all the risks that it imposes.

What I seek on here is a bit of a sense of proportion, to put it in perspective, how the life has improved over time, especially in countries that are capitalist and free. But I’ll be free from the risk of death. And that’s not for us to halt in the killing of life. It was in this context that I understand the concerns of the Adrilles:

Unfortunately, my colleagues here at the Gazette, as Razzo and Quintela, and saw that the message is a defense of the new. It’s not about that! It is not a proposal for a physician-assisted suicide, for example, at the very least I don’t I saw as well. This is a warning to those who you can to live, to accept the risks inherent in such a life, and choose if the putting out of fear of death.

To die for, as the saying goes, you have to be alive. We don’t need to speed up the encounter of an inevitable death, and, of course, nor preach, conduct Sunday. But I will never understand how someone can have a goal in life, for the sole purpose of extending life. It is always crucial to ask: what is life?