The University of Leeds has looked into inequality in 86 countries and found that the 10% richest consume 20 times more energy than the 10% poorest. They drive SUVs, jet and helicopter all over the world, have mansions to air-condition, and so on. As far as I can see this figure does not take into account the energy that goes into their excessive consumption: caviar and champagne flown over to wherever they find themselves, the first beaujolais rushingly brought to their table, designer clothing to be worn a couple of times and then thrown out...
And yet there is an idea that the world is overpopulated. It is, of course. There are nearly 8 billion of us, and we and our suffering domesticated animals have increased uncontrollably to take up almost all of the biomass of our planet and have left wildlife virtually no habitat. Population control would be a good thing, starting with the very rich, who after all use up a hugely disproportionate amount of the world's resources. But it does not look like that is going to happen.
From here it looks like the current coronavirus hype is being used to firstly control the workers and lower classes, taking away our right to movement and association, making us regard each other with great suspicion, making us terrified of others giving us germs, and giving us a false notion of passivity and lack of political nous as being patriotic. Once the hysteria has died down, no one will bother to tell us that life expectancy was NOT significantly reduced by the virus. Meanwhile there is a massive transfer of wealth going on upwards, as central banks print money, sorry "inject", that is going to the business sector, ie corporations that will, with interest rates at 0 or below, return to buying back their bonds, bolstering their stock price, and laying off workers.
There were some theories at the start of all this that China put the whole thing in motion in an attempt to cull its excessive population. Think about this. If you want to reduce your population there's no point killing old people. They are not going to have children and they are going to die soon anyway. If you wanted population control you would go for young people, who are incidentally those not particularly affected by the virus.
The current hysteria will only die down once the mainstream media stops scaremongering, and that will be once a vaccine is ready and once it has been imposed on all the world's population they can get their hands on. As a correlative fact, western populations, which are very widely vaccinated from birth, are not breeding well (this could actually be a good thing in the larger scheme of things). It may surprise you to hear this, but the fact that almost every corner in every city has an assisted reproduction centre is not a sign of good genetic health in the population. A new coronavirus vaccine will be produced, making Bill Gates and a few laboratories very rich, and people will rush to get it, despite coronaviruses being notorious for mutating, and despite this year's vaccine being useless against next year's virus. In any case, lots of people will want it, and illogically they will feel aggressive towards those that try not to be vaccinated. After all, if it works, why worry about those who do not get it?
The risk to old and infirm people that is inherent in most coronaviruses will be exchanged for a vaccine risk, however small, to everybody else, plus a huge reduction in young people's fertility, I believe. It seems to me that vaccination does reduce a population's fertility, and it seems to me that this particular vaccine will be allowed to skip any serious testing of its secondary effects, or may even have a birth control component built into it.
We have, after all, allowed Artificial Intelligence to make us almost redundant to the elite and they must be wondering if they actually need us any more. We have been distracted by this coronavirus from noticing that capitalism was crashing long before it arrived and that inequality and herd thinking are the biggest problem for human and planetary health.