My answer is Professor Craig Venter and the cat is 'Synthia' the artificial bacterial life form he has developed. I believe that this finally destroyed any covenant we ever had with creation and is potentially the most devastating application of humankind's technological skill. Venter and his team claim that 'fail safe's' have been inbuilt to prevent this bacterium ever becoming a danger by removing DNA associated with such traits. The problem with this is that bacteria are nothing more than DNA and a few simple cell organelles and it's principal purpose is to reproduce it's DNA which it does very rapidly and each time it does the possibility for mutation arises. Venter claims with pride that this has already occur over a million times in 'Synthia's' case.
The 'Synthia' developers claim that it can only grow/reproduce in a particular Petri dish but the ubiquitous nature of DNA tells us that it's very purpose is to overcome limits to growth and as such it will sooner rather than not find a way to mutate to overcome any confines we apply to it.
Nature over 4 Billion years has found a way of marrying particular DNA constructs to balancing ecosystems which prevent the dominance of any given species but where mankind has interfered with this disaster has ensued in many cases, for example the introduction of Rabbits to Australia or the Grey Squirrel to the UK. This even occurs with plants, one only has to take the case of the Rhoddendron or Japanese Knotweed to see the disastrous consequences of our lack of understanding. In these cases it is fortunate that the organism are large enough and have a slow enough reproductive cycle to allow us to manage the impacts of their introduction. It should be noted however that to date in all cases eradication has proved impossible and at best it is a never ending damage limitation exercise.
This will not be so easy should 'Synthia' and her cousins get out of control and the likelihood is that sooner or later there will be massive pandemic or the emergence of drug resistant strains of existing bacterial infections. The rapid rate of reproduction and mutation associated with bacteria will make a managed response impossible.
As ever the technological hubris embedded in this kind of development beggars belief, somehow the likes of Venter need to be put firmly back in Pandora's box, if we are to avoid self-inflicted suffering on an unimaginable scale.
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
The Hypocracy of British Democracy
I struggle to understand how we can claim to be a democratic society whilst still running elections under the first past the post ward based counting system. As our current election round unfolds we are told that whilst Labour have significantly less support in the polls than both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats they could still under the current system win the largest number of seats. This is NOT democratic and suggests that every individual's vote has a different value based on both geography and history.
I can understand this system's approximation to democracy when people of similar backgrounds clustered around industries or business types but this is no longer the case. The advent of remote working and the near collapse of UK manufacturing, makes for a much more diverse and distributed society.
It is absolutely time to introduce full proportionate representation, any party that does not introduce this early in the next parliament cannot claim either to be democratic or servants of the people.
Politicians privilege is a thing of the past, it is time to listen and serve. Full PR is the only mechanism which supports this.
How democratic is the party you will be voting for? How much is your vote worth compared to your neighbours? How long will you tolerate and vote for such injustice?
There is no such thing as a wasted vote, if you'd like to vote for a party who has little chance of gaining a seat under the present system please don't just opt for a mainstream party to make your vote 'count', let your cross show how cross you are at being silenced. Let's get over 50% of the moral mandate out of the hands of the big three and then demand they change the legislation.
Let your voice be the change.......
I can understand this system's approximation to democracy when people of similar backgrounds clustered around industries or business types but this is no longer the case. The advent of remote working and the near collapse of UK manufacturing, makes for a much more diverse and distributed society.
It is absolutely time to introduce full proportionate representation, any party that does not introduce this early in the next parliament cannot claim either to be democratic or servants of the people.
Politicians privilege is a thing of the past, it is time to listen and serve. Full PR is the only mechanism which supports this.
How democratic is the party you will be voting for? How much is your vote worth compared to your neighbours? How long will you tolerate and vote for such injustice?
There is no such thing as a wasted vote, if you'd like to vote for a party who has little chance of gaining a seat under the present system please don't just opt for a mainstream party to make your vote 'count', let your cross show how cross you are at being silenced. Let's get over 50% of the moral mandate out of the hands of the big three and then demand they change the legislation.
Let your voice be the change.......
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
UK 2010 Election – Policies worth voting for
With a view towards the forthcoming election and my increasing frustration with the lack of substance and vision in the pre-election debate thus far, I thought I’d nail my colours to the mast. I am not a politician but feel that we are all being somewhat let down by the current incumbents and that we need to begin to shape the debate ourselves. With that in mind these are my thoughts, I hope that you will be engaged enough to comment and share your views. A dialogue is needed and this is my attempt to participate.......
1.Proportional representation
The first thing I would want any party to absolutely commit to would be the introduction of proportional representation, we currently have a system based on two major protagonists, a third voice and a plethora of voiceless others. Prior to the Internet it was very difficult to generate a political movement with traction without geographical proximity, this is no longer the case and as long as the more progressive thinkers remain isolated from the main debate, we can expect little more than much of the same. To think that 280,000 citizens can vote for a party as with the Greens yet they cannot get a seat in our parliament is frankly ridiculous.
2.Social equality
Social inequality continues to increase, the gap between rich and poor is ever widening. I do not support enforced equalisation more an ethics driven programme to encourage our society to want to make things more inclusive and fairer. The introduction of a minimum wage was a start, imposing a maximum may not be socially acceptable at present but certainly this should be the case in public service and private sector companies with widely disproportionate salary structures, should be registered publically as lacking in corporate social responsibility.
As individuals however we must take a close look at ourselves, there was a time when the aristocracy represented the obscenely rich but then the gap between the remainder of the people was not so great as to lead to significant social fragmentation and isolation. How times of changed and I believe that we the populous have had a significant hand in creating it. We chose on the one hand to support the notion of celebrity and then to vicariously associate ourselves with them, by following their every trial and tribulation through the media and even by altering our very personal appearance to mimic them, on the other we through share ownership, pension planning and home buying decided to give the bankers the license to do whatever they wanted with our money, so long as we believed that we were prospering as a consequence. We now chose to turn on the bankers because they can still make a profit, no matter what happens to our money. Furthermore the introduction of the national lottery and talent shows promising instant celebrity leaves many of us under the delusion that it could reasonably be considered as a possibility for any of us. It is difficult for our psychology to hold an abhorrence of excess whilst we dream of enjoying it for ourselves.
Citizenship brings with it responsibility as well as privilege, if we want a just society we must be prepared to make our contribution proportionally to our means. For political parties, consideration and leadership in this area must be a priority, irrespective of the more influential contributors or beneficiaries of their past political ideals.
3.Education
Our education system, which has changed little since its inception, was designed to produce a profile of skills and expectations which met society’s perceived requirements, since the industrial revolution this has focussed principally on those able to fill and manage factories, businesses, farms, government institutions and other corporations. These institutions in the main were based on hierarchies and as such, a competition, subject and ability based model was sufficient. This was in a time when the notion of ‘jobs for life’ existed and towns often grew up around industries or mining and the local family and social infrastructure was sustained by these expectations. No longer, the UK is unclear about it future competence and value add, unemployment in the young is disproportionately high and rising. People’s sense of security in society is diminishing; the use of recreational drugs, binge drinking and anti-social behaviour is rising. These are different times calling for a radically different approach.
I would support an education policy which until the age of ten focuses solely on the three R’s and the development of personal life and citizen skills. Then transitioning into a more diverse interest based approach from 12 onward. I would want every child to have the opportunity to find something they both enjoy and can excel at. In terms of ability, I would assess children simply to determine who needed more support than others, rather than fast tracking bright children, I would give them the skills to coach those who find things more difficult. Schools are the very cornerstone of the society we build for the future and must mirror inclusiveness, diversity and mutual support. In these dynamic times we do not know what skills and traits will be needed in the future and therefore we cannot afford to switch off or discount children who do not easily fit today’s paradigm.
4.Health
Whilst our health service is one of the best in the world it is increasingly proving to be out dated in design and practice. It would appear that this has been recognised for some time, as evidenced by the increased funding, building of new facilities and constant organisational change. This aside, if you talk to health professionals their dissatisfaction with the service and conditions they work under has never been higher. It seems to me we are asking too much of the organisation, principally it is a service designed to treat and where possible cure people who are ill but they are also being asked to focus attention on prevention rather than cure. Doctors are trained to diagnose and fix not manage well-being, in fact in most cases the ability to do both are mutually exclusive, one being about control the other freedom, choice and self-responsibility. Added to this the government and it’s hoards of external consultants have tried to introduce F.W.Taylor based organisational redesign and metrics to a system which ethically wants to save an individual life irrespective of cost or targets. Hospital managers now compete with each other for equipment, positive press and the like, this is very resource inefficient, health care must be first rate, independent of geography with resources distributed and shared to meet the needs of the constituent population. The split of commissioning from service provision, as a service improvement initiative, is naive at best and irresponsible at worst. Practitioners are now required to spend a disproportionate amount of their time justifying their capabilities rather than treating patients. Is it any wonder that despite massive investment, the patient experience is not improving significantly?
I believe that the health service should be broken into two distinct and separate organisations: a Medical service and a Well-being service. The medical service should focus on remedial curative work and the Well-being service preventative work, seeking to reduce the number of people needing to access the Medical service. The Medical service should be funded and commissioned nationally based on the constituent population and that the Well-being service should be funded centrally but should be commissioned locally using non-statutory providers under the personalisation model.
5.Public finances
Whilst we must improve our public finance position and reduce unnecessary expenditure this cannot be done as a ‘knee jerk’ programme, services need time to re-adjust and to plan to protect provision and employees need time to re-train or find alternative employment. There are probably a number of initiatives in some departments which could be cut without much detrimental fall out but in the larger organisations time will be needed to manage the transition, if excessive wasted time and money let alone service degradation is to be avoided.
To this end, I would support an approach which involved a two year detailed review and re-alignment of public expenditure. This is not to say we should not cut expenditure immediately a suitable opportunity is identified but that we should take a longer term view. In addition, I would change the budgeting cycle for essential frontline services to provide minimum guaranteed funding levels over a five year period to allow managers to plan service development over a sensible timeframe. This should then be reviewed annually to identify supplementary needss or significant changes in service requirements. These five year plan minimum commitments should be legally binding irrespective of changes in government or policy. If we cannot take a five year view of the development of our social infrastructure what hope do we have? I would suggest that 80% of the available budget be allocated in this way and that 20% be retained centrally for situational flexibility.
To buy the necessary time, I would support a two year freeze on all service budgets at a maximum of today’s levels, a freeze on all public sector pay for the same period and a cap on staffing at today’s levels. With regards to staffing, as departments are downsized I would want to see, where possible staff re-trained and moved between departments to fill any vacancies arising through natural staff turnover. In addition, I would encourage the imposition of a maximum salary limit for any public sector employee.
It is time that the public service is seen as single ‘service’ organisation, we cannot afford for departmental chiefs to be vying for increased personal power due to departmental size or budget. The service must work in an integrated way to best serve our nation. I would advocate for a Head of Public Services who can be held accountable for the end to end performance of all departments.
6.The armed forces
I think it is time we recognised that our exploitative colonial days are over; we are a nation of 60 Million in a world of 7 Billion, what makes us still believe we are the arbiters of right and wrong and that we should use force to impose it on others? I posit that it is purely historical longing; it is time for us to draw back from our aggressively assertive ways. If I were a cynic, I’d say the last four wars we have been involved in were simply because a political party either wanted to be re-elected or curry favour with the Americans.
I believe we should totally revolutionise not only our armed forces but the purpose they serve. We should never enter a full scale military conflict again unless as a part of a UN deployment. I suggest that we should combine all our armed services and then split them into two distinct organisations with a different purpose. One should be a fully integrated traditional fighting force ready to be deployed in the world when the UN deems it necessary and the other a dedicated multi service corps specialised in anti-terrorist/insurgency operations which acts to surgically deal with immediate or potential threat in a way which minimises collateral damage.
Were we to do this, over time, I believe could cut our military expenditure by at least 50%, redeploying both personnel and financial resource towards the Police and the Secret services to better tackle both organised crime and any residual terrorist threat.
I believe that we would reduce the extent of the threat of terrorist action, if we stopped acting outside a mandated UN operation. I recognise this would require the UN to take a more active role in protecting the World’s citizens and their rights but this I feel is the only way to build a global consensus of what it is or is not acceptable to inflict upon one’s neighbours or citizens. It would also de-politicise and I hope eventually, remove the cause for war.
In the hope that our troops are seldom deployed on active duty, I would also use them to manage and deliver eco/social projects whilst offering training opportunities to the unemployed. In essence, we need a modern army for a modern society, peace and protection should be our watch words.
Finally, I would immediately and unilaterally decommission our entire nuclear capability.
7.Banking
There must be a radical overhaul of the banking system, in a sense we need to get back to the original banking ethos. Banks do not create wealth they simply redistribute it based on information and opinion. As such they will never solve a problem but have a valuable role in identifying and supporting those which can. Banks should be there to serve the public and the world at large, they should be experts in financial analysis, risk management and contingency planning, it must become a profession once again perhaps even a vocation. There is no place for an entrepreneurial bank striving to maximise profits for its shareholders, in so doing they are simply taking money off the top without contributing to the general social good. Banking is not an industry, it is a management discipline.
The UK has a lot to answer for, we claim that we were victims of the recent financial crisis based on American mismanagement, this is laughable, we created the model for the system and the Americans simply took it a little further along its trajectory. We protected and de-regulated it because it was our largest contributor to GDP, all political parties courted their key players, we the people believe that although our national production was falling and our trade deficit increasing that somehow we were special because we knew how to work the global finance system, wrong! There is latency in everything; we were simply living on borrowed time. Ask yourself this, after what we are told has been an unparalleled period of economic prosperity, what does this country do better than any other? I would answer nothing, my hope is that we acknowledge this and decide to pull together to redefine and deliver our value, in a way that contributes to the good of all.
Whilst all else is transitioning around us, we need to work across all the nations of the world to develop a global banking system which can be relied upon to fairly attribute value and protect us all as best can be, until we work out a better way of co-existing with Earth’s system.
8.Energy security
I believe that the UK could become the world leader in clean energy sustainability; the human imprint on this planet has principally been built on ‘borrowed sunlight’, namely fossil fuels. It is only in the last 250 years that we have used oil and coal in vast quantities to provide the power source for the industrial revolution. These fossil fuels have been formed by the decay of living organisms over 4 Billion years, over 99.999% of the energy which supported the growth of these organisms came from the sunlight falling on the planet over this period. The first industrial oil well was sunk in 1859, now 150 years later we are probably past peak oil which means we have consumed not only 50% there is to be consumed but also the 50% most easily accessed. In simple terms, in 150 years we have consumed 2 Billion years worth of sunlight; that scares me. Not to mention the impact that burning these fossil fuels has and more importantly will have, on climate change.
In the UK we are fortunate to live on an island surrounded by a sea with active tides; we enjoy lively weather systems with their consequent winds and moderate levels of sunlight, all of which can be harnessed to produce sustainable energy. This is something we must fully embrace and embrace now, we cannot afford to be protectionist about our own particular area of countryside, wherever we can harness maximum energy we must do it, yes we need to be sympathetic to aesthetics wherever possible but not at the expense of generating the energy we need. The way we produce energy today is doing far more damage than the any blot on a landscape a wind farm may appear to some. In parallel with finding alternative sources of energy we need to drastically cut our overall energy consumption. This should include a national programme for the development and support of domestic sustainable energy installation and energy loss measures. In addition, a far more radical review of where we expend energy and how to mitigate this must be undertaken, I would envisage this would include reducing the amount of travelling each of us does particularly in relation to our work, increased localisation of food and goods production, reduction in the working week, increased co-operation across diverse industries involving the sharing of energy resources and material transportation.
9.Food surety
As global food availability continues to be increasingly outstripped by demand, as a nation we must work towards a goal off being food self-sufficient. Considering that on average we throw away 35% of the food that we purchase there is a vast contribution to this goal to be made by responsible planning of our individual use of food. Over and above this many of the foods we choose to import can be grown here both in and out of season by using waste heat energy from our industrial processes. The supermarket revolution has also led us to believe that food is an ever present an abundant resource in the world, nothing could be further from the truth. We no longer relate to and respect our food as we once did, this trend must be reversed. Vegetables in season, meat and fish in moderation would go a long way to contributing to the required solution. Becoming both food and energy self sufficient would help us in terms of GNP and sustainability, I for one would welcome the UK being recognised as front runners in the transition towards sustainability and ecological balance.
10.Commerce
As previously mentioned, I believe we need to bring in policies which promote cross industry co-operation in the use and management of both resource and waste; often one business’s waste can be another’s resource. I also believe that we need to reduce competitive pressure in our economy. If you take a step back to consider things, the net output of most industries remains much the same independent of the level of competition but the more competition there is the more effort or resource is expended for the same end result, consumption not being increased by competitive pressure. Whilst competition can occasionally result in an innovative leap which shifts the very ground of the industry, more often than not there are small increases in efficiencies due to price pressure. Whilst this may make sense for an individual company, it does not at the level of the industry when available resources are being depleted at a greater rate than that of efficiency gains. For this reason I would support policies which seek to increase the term of any contract, based on fixed pricing and service level agreements, allowing companies to work on future innovation which delivers increased sustainability rather than worrying about investment risk and constant competition. This would not reduce competitive innovation simply reduce waste and encourage business to take a longer view whilst providing more workforce and market stability. I also believe that should the frequency of competitive activity be reduced and the timescale for planning increased then the hours people would have to work would be significantly reduced without any economic loss.
11.Asset and infrastructure management
It is an absolute priority that we develop an integrated transportation strategy which optimises the use of infrastructure and minimise energy consumption. This cannot be looked at in isolation, if the information infrastructure is the nervous system of our country; transportation is both the blood and endocrine system. Without understanding the optimum organisation of the body and its behaviour in its environment, how can we hope to design the system required to support its operation?
One of the biggest issues we face is the concentration of employment and opportunity in a few key cities whilst our population is far more diversely spread. We are already the most densely populated country in Europe and it is imperative that we begin a process of redistributing wealth creating activities to the regions. London’s effective suburbs now stretch out to a circumference of over 100 miles from its centre, why is this? Perhaps because it was only 30 years or so ago that we began sending telexes and we psychologically cannot change as fast as the technology we develop can enable us. If you consider how easy it now is to relocate a non manufacturing business, without necessarily moving employees who can work in satellites or remotely, surely it makes sense to cut out so much unnecessary travelling from the perspectives of energy conservation, carbon emission reduction and work/life balance. We also need to reconsider road utilisation, rather than building new roads to increase capacity more thought should go into to how they are used. I see no reason why road haulage could not be restricted to between 8pm and 6am; this would significantly improve traffic flows and reduce emissions without the need to further impact the countryside.
Under no circumstances would I support the building of any new airport or expansions of the same, if we redistribute our commercial spread then there is more than enough capacity in regional airports which would also facilitate travel options for the non business traveller, whilst reducing demand on London’s airports.
Housing and planning policy must also change, I believe there should be an absolute moratorium on green field development, enough is enough. We have not only the technology but also duty to clean up disused brown field sites; we should regenerate urban conurbations making them once again attractive to a diverse range of people. The present government intended to build around 235,000 new homes a year from 2007 to 2013 why? So far they are achieving half that number which suggests there are currently over 800,000 homeless people, which is blatantly not the case. We cannot prop up our economy by simply building more, eventually housing will be near worthless, we will have no building trade and no countryside left to feed us. Let’s improve the existing housing stock, we must also address our society’s issues which results in so many single people needing accommodation. We should discourage out off town shopping complexes these homogenise our sense of place, reduce the opportunity for local enterprise and turn town centres into a series of franchise fast food and drinking outlets. Britain was once admired for its heritage and regional diversity; it is rapidly becoming a theme park recreation of American excess.
12.Taxation
I would like to see VAT remain at its current level and introduce and Environmental Impact Tax (EIT) for goods which cannot demonstrate that they are entirely sustainable. This I suggest should initially have three bands at 2.5%, 5% and 10% depending on the environmental impact and availability of a sustainable alternative. I would hope that this tax would be used to pay additional subsidies on a means tested basis to the unemployed, those on income support, pensioners and people receiving tax credits to ensure that they are able to meet the increased cost of living this will create.
I would support an increase in the level of income tax increasing from the current threshold for 40% taxation at a rate of 1% for every additional £10,000 of income to a maximum of 60%.
I would hold National insurance at today’s levels using the income tax increases to cover any deficit whilst total government spending was reduced during the two year review mentioned earlier.
13.Social security
My belief is that we must take a greater degree of collective responsibility for our entire society, it is not acceptable to see those who cannot work or do not work as worthless spongers. Some people because of ill health cannot work but can still contribute, some people because they have in some way been failed do not fit into the work ethic and some people have family to care for, be they children, partners or parents making them unavailable to work. I believe we should call it the Social support system; the aim should be to help people live a happy and contributory life. There are many who with the right support can find employment and would feel much better for it but this takes time, encouragement, support and respect. Too often we brand the faceless unemployed as lazy, when it is probably closer to the truth that they have been under privileged all their lives and have not had the support and encouragement that many of us have taken for granted.
Research shows that people who work are happier, have a better quality of life and make and sustain better relationships. Being unemployed is seldom a choice, despite what the Daily Mail might say, more often than not, it’s due to lack of opportunity, confidence, competence, social expectation or a combination of some or all of these. We must find ways of bring these disenfranchised people back into the fold. All those who can work, through good support and a re-organisation of our national working practice can be found jobs, those who have caring responsibilities should be valued and rewarded fairly for that and those who are unable to work due to ill health should not only be well cared for but also made to feel an equal in society.
I hope you find the above thought provoking, if so please share them...
1.Proportional representation
The first thing I would want any party to absolutely commit to would be the introduction of proportional representation, we currently have a system based on two major protagonists, a third voice and a plethora of voiceless others. Prior to the Internet it was very difficult to generate a political movement with traction without geographical proximity, this is no longer the case and as long as the more progressive thinkers remain isolated from the main debate, we can expect little more than much of the same. To think that 280,000 citizens can vote for a party as with the Greens yet they cannot get a seat in our parliament is frankly ridiculous.
2.Social equality
Social inequality continues to increase, the gap between rich and poor is ever widening. I do not support enforced equalisation more an ethics driven programme to encourage our society to want to make things more inclusive and fairer. The introduction of a minimum wage was a start, imposing a maximum may not be socially acceptable at present but certainly this should be the case in public service and private sector companies with widely disproportionate salary structures, should be registered publically as lacking in corporate social responsibility.
As individuals however we must take a close look at ourselves, there was a time when the aristocracy represented the obscenely rich but then the gap between the remainder of the people was not so great as to lead to significant social fragmentation and isolation. How times of changed and I believe that we the populous have had a significant hand in creating it. We chose on the one hand to support the notion of celebrity and then to vicariously associate ourselves with them, by following their every trial and tribulation through the media and even by altering our very personal appearance to mimic them, on the other we through share ownership, pension planning and home buying decided to give the bankers the license to do whatever they wanted with our money, so long as we believed that we were prospering as a consequence. We now chose to turn on the bankers because they can still make a profit, no matter what happens to our money. Furthermore the introduction of the national lottery and talent shows promising instant celebrity leaves many of us under the delusion that it could reasonably be considered as a possibility for any of us. It is difficult for our psychology to hold an abhorrence of excess whilst we dream of enjoying it for ourselves.
Citizenship brings with it responsibility as well as privilege, if we want a just society we must be prepared to make our contribution proportionally to our means. For political parties, consideration and leadership in this area must be a priority, irrespective of the more influential contributors or beneficiaries of their past political ideals.
3.Education
Our education system, which has changed little since its inception, was designed to produce a profile of skills and expectations which met society’s perceived requirements, since the industrial revolution this has focussed principally on those able to fill and manage factories, businesses, farms, government institutions and other corporations. These institutions in the main were based on hierarchies and as such, a competition, subject and ability based model was sufficient. This was in a time when the notion of ‘jobs for life’ existed and towns often grew up around industries or mining and the local family and social infrastructure was sustained by these expectations. No longer, the UK is unclear about it future competence and value add, unemployment in the young is disproportionately high and rising. People’s sense of security in society is diminishing; the use of recreational drugs, binge drinking and anti-social behaviour is rising. These are different times calling for a radically different approach.
I would support an education policy which until the age of ten focuses solely on the three R’s and the development of personal life and citizen skills. Then transitioning into a more diverse interest based approach from 12 onward. I would want every child to have the opportunity to find something they both enjoy and can excel at. In terms of ability, I would assess children simply to determine who needed more support than others, rather than fast tracking bright children, I would give them the skills to coach those who find things more difficult. Schools are the very cornerstone of the society we build for the future and must mirror inclusiveness, diversity and mutual support. In these dynamic times we do not know what skills and traits will be needed in the future and therefore we cannot afford to switch off or discount children who do not easily fit today’s paradigm.
4.Health
Whilst our health service is one of the best in the world it is increasingly proving to be out dated in design and practice. It would appear that this has been recognised for some time, as evidenced by the increased funding, building of new facilities and constant organisational change. This aside, if you talk to health professionals their dissatisfaction with the service and conditions they work under has never been higher. It seems to me we are asking too much of the organisation, principally it is a service designed to treat and where possible cure people who are ill but they are also being asked to focus attention on prevention rather than cure. Doctors are trained to diagnose and fix not manage well-being, in fact in most cases the ability to do both are mutually exclusive, one being about control the other freedom, choice and self-responsibility. Added to this the government and it’s hoards of external consultants have tried to introduce F.W.Taylor based organisational redesign and metrics to a system which ethically wants to save an individual life irrespective of cost or targets. Hospital managers now compete with each other for equipment, positive press and the like, this is very resource inefficient, health care must be first rate, independent of geography with resources distributed and shared to meet the needs of the constituent population. The split of commissioning from service provision, as a service improvement initiative, is naive at best and irresponsible at worst. Practitioners are now required to spend a disproportionate amount of their time justifying their capabilities rather than treating patients. Is it any wonder that despite massive investment, the patient experience is not improving significantly?
I believe that the health service should be broken into two distinct and separate organisations: a Medical service and a Well-being service. The medical service should focus on remedial curative work and the Well-being service preventative work, seeking to reduce the number of people needing to access the Medical service. The Medical service should be funded and commissioned nationally based on the constituent population and that the Well-being service should be funded centrally but should be commissioned locally using non-statutory providers under the personalisation model.
5.Public finances
Whilst we must improve our public finance position and reduce unnecessary expenditure this cannot be done as a ‘knee jerk’ programme, services need time to re-adjust and to plan to protect provision and employees need time to re-train or find alternative employment. There are probably a number of initiatives in some departments which could be cut without much detrimental fall out but in the larger organisations time will be needed to manage the transition, if excessive wasted time and money let alone service degradation is to be avoided.
To this end, I would support an approach which involved a two year detailed review and re-alignment of public expenditure. This is not to say we should not cut expenditure immediately a suitable opportunity is identified but that we should take a longer term view. In addition, I would change the budgeting cycle for essential frontline services to provide minimum guaranteed funding levels over a five year period to allow managers to plan service development over a sensible timeframe. This should then be reviewed annually to identify supplementary needss or significant changes in service requirements. These five year plan minimum commitments should be legally binding irrespective of changes in government or policy. If we cannot take a five year view of the development of our social infrastructure what hope do we have? I would suggest that 80% of the available budget be allocated in this way and that 20% be retained centrally for situational flexibility.
To buy the necessary time, I would support a two year freeze on all service budgets at a maximum of today’s levels, a freeze on all public sector pay for the same period and a cap on staffing at today’s levels. With regards to staffing, as departments are downsized I would want to see, where possible staff re-trained and moved between departments to fill any vacancies arising through natural staff turnover. In addition, I would encourage the imposition of a maximum salary limit for any public sector employee.
It is time that the public service is seen as single ‘service’ organisation, we cannot afford for departmental chiefs to be vying for increased personal power due to departmental size or budget. The service must work in an integrated way to best serve our nation. I would advocate for a Head of Public Services who can be held accountable for the end to end performance of all departments.
6.The armed forces
I think it is time we recognised that our exploitative colonial days are over; we are a nation of 60 Million in a world of 7 Billion, what makes us still believe we are the arbiters of right and wrong and that we should use force to impose it on others? I posit that it is purely historical longing; it is time for us to draw back from our aggressively assertive ways. If I were a cynic, I’d say the last four wars we have been involved in were simply because a political party either wanted to be re-elected or curry favour with the Americans.
I believe we should totally revolutionise not only our armed forces but the purpose they serve. We should never enter a full scale military conflict again unless as a part of a UN deployment. I suggest that we should combine all our armed services and then split them into two distinct organisations with a different purpose. One should be a fully integrated traditional fighting force ready to be deployed in the world when the UN deems it necessary and the other a dedicated multi service corps specialised in anti-terrorist/insurgency operations which acts to surgically deal with immediate or potential threat in a way which minimises collateral damage.
Were we to do this, over time, I believe could cut our military expenditure by at least 50%, redeploying both personnel and financial resource towards the Police and the Secret services to better tackle both organised crime and any residual terrorist threat.
I believe that we would reduce the extent of the threat of terrorist action, if we stopped acting outside a mandated UN operation. I recognise this would require the UN to take a more active role in protecting the World’s citizens and their rights but this I feel is the only way to build a global consensus of what it is or is not acceptable to inflict upon one’s neighbours or citizens. It would also de-politicise and I hope eventually, remove the cause for war.
In the hope that our troops are seldom deployed on active duty, I would also use them to manage and deliver eco/social projects whilst offering training opportunities to the unemployed. In essence, we need a modern army for a modern society, peace and protection should be our watch words.
Finally, I would immediately and unilaterally decommission our entire nuclear capability.
7.Banking
There must be a radical overhaul of the banking system, in a sense we need to get back to the original banking ethos. Banks do not create wealth they simply redistribute it based on information and opinion. As such they will never solve a problem but have a valuable role in identifying and supporting those which can. Banks should be there to serve the public and the world at large, they should be experts in financial analysis, risk management and contingency planning, it must become a profession once again perhaps even a vocation. There is no place for an entrepreneurial bank striving to maximise profits for its shareholders, in so doing they are simply taking money off the top without contributing to the general social good. Banking is not an industry, it is a management discipline.
The UK has a lot to answer for, we claim that we were victims of the recent financial crisis based on American mismanagement, this is laughable, we created the model for the system and the Americans simply took it a little further along its trajectory. We protected and de-regulated it because it was our largest contributor to GDP, all political parties courted their key players, we the people believe that although our national production was falling and our trade deficit increasing that somehow we were special because we knew how to work the global finance system, wrong! There is latency in everything; we were simply living on borrowed time. Ask yourself this, after what we are told has been an unparalleled period of economic prosperity, what does this country do better than any other? I would answer nothing, my hope is that we acknowledge this and decide to pull together to redefine and deliver our value, in a way that contributes to the good of all.
Whilst all else is transitioning around us, we need to work across all the nations of the world to develop a global banking system which can be relied upon to fairly attribute value and protect us all as best can be, until we work out a better way of co-existing with Earth’s system.
8.Energy security
I believe that the UK could become the world leader in clean energy sustainability; the human imprint on this planet has principally been built on ‘borrowed sunlight’, namely fossil fuels. It is only in the last 250 years that we have used oil and coal in vast quantities to provide the power source for the industrial revolution. These fossil fuels have been formed by the decay of living organisms over 4 Billion years, over 99.999% of the energy which supported the growth of these organisms came from the sunlight falling on the planet over this period. The first industrial oil well was sunk in 1859, now 150 years later we are probably past peak oil which means we have consumed not only 50% there is to be consumed but also the 50% most easily accessed. In simple terms, in 150 years we have consumed 2 Billion years worth of sunlight; that scares me. Not to mention the impact that burning these fossil fuels has and more importantly will have, on climate change.
In the UK we are fortunate to live on an island surrounded by a sea with active tides; we enjoy lively weather systems with their consequent winds and moderate levels of sunlight, all of which can be harnessed to produce sustainable energy. This is something we must fully embrace and embrace now, we cannot afford to be protectionist about our own particular area of countryside, wherever we can harness maximum energy we must do it, yes we need to be sympathetic to aesthetics wherever possible but not at the expense of generating the energy we need. The way we produce energy today is doing far more damage than the any blot on a landscape a wind farm may appear to some. In parallel with finding alternative sources of energy we need to drastically cut our overall energy consumption. This should include a national programme for the development and support of domestic sustainable energy installation and energy loss measures. In addition, a far more radical review of where we expend energy and how to mitigate this must be undertaken, I would envisage this would include reducing the amount of travelling each of us does particularly in relation to our work, increased localisation of food and goods production, reduction in the working week, increased co-operation across diverse industries involving the sharing of energy resources and material transportation.
9.Food surety
As global food availability continues to be increasingly outstripped by demand, as a nation we must work towards a goal off being food self-sufficient. Considering that on average we throw away 35% of the food that we purchase there is a vast contribution to this goal to be made by responsible planning of our individual use of food. Over and above this many of the foods we choose to import can be grown here both in and out of season by using waste heat energy from our industrial processes. The supermarket revolution has also led us to believe that food is an ever present an abundant resource in the world, nothing could be further from the truth. We no longer relate to and respect our food as we once did, this trend must be reversed. Vegetables in season, meat and fish in moderation would go a long way to contributing to the required solution. Becoming both food and energy self sufficient would help us in terms of GNP and sustainability, I for one would welcome the UK being recognised as front runners in the transition towards sustainability and ecological balance.
10.Commerce
As previously mentioned, I believe we need to bring in policies which promote cross industry co-operation in the use and management of both resource and waste; often one business’s waste can be another’s resource. I also believe that we need to reduce competitive pressure in our economy. If you take a step back to consider things, the net output of most industries remains much the same independent of the level of competition but the more competition there is the more effort or resource is expended for the same end result, consumption not being increased by competitive pressure. Whilst competition can occasionally result in an innovative leap which shifts the very ground of the industry, more often than not there are small increases in efficiencies due to price pressure. Whilst this may make sense for an individual company, it does not at the level of the industry when available resources are being depleted at a greater rate than that of efficiency gains. For this reason I would support policies which seek to increase the term of any contract, based on fixed pricing and service level agreements, allowing companies to work on future innovation which delivers increased sustainability rather than worrying about investment risk and constant competition. This would not reduce competitive innovation simply reduce waste and encourage business to take a longer view whilst providing more workforce and market stability. I also believe that should the frequency of competitive activity be reduced and the timescale for planning increased then the hours people would have to work would be significantly reduced without any economic loss.
11.Asset and infrastructure management
It is an absolute priority that we develop an integrated transportation strategy which optimises the use of infrastructure and minimise energy consumption. This cannot be looked at in isolation, if the information infrastructure is the nervous system of our country; transportation is both the blood and endocrine system. Without understanding the optimum organisation of the body and its behaviour in its environment, how can we hope to design the system required to support its operation?
One of the biggest issues we face is the concentration of employment and opportunity in a few key cities whilst our population is far more diversely spread. We are already the most densely populated country in Europe and it is imperative that we begin a process of redistributing wealth creating activities to the regions. London’s effective suburbs now stretch out to a circumference of over 100 miles from its centre, why is this? Perhaps because it was only 30 years or so ago that we began sending telexes and we psychologically cannot change as fast as the technology we develop can enable us. If you consider how easy it now is to relocate a non manufacturing business, without necessarily moving employees who can work in satellites or remotely, surely it makes sense to cut out so much unnecessary travelling from the perspectives of energy conservation, carbon emission reduction and work/life balance. We also need to reconsider road utilisation, rather than building new roads to increase capacity more thought should go into to how they are used. I see no reason why road haulage could not be restricted to between 8pm and 6am; this would significantly improve traffic flows and reduce emissions without the need to further impact the countryside.
Under no circumstances would I support the building of any new airport or expansions of the same, if we redistribute our commercial spread then there is more than enough capacity in regional airports which would also facilitate travel options for the non business traveller, whilst reducing demand on London’s airports.
Housing and planning policy must also change, I believe there should be an absolute moratorium on green field development, enough is enough. We have not only the technology but also duty to clean up disused brown field sites; we should regenerate urban conurbations making them once again attractive to a diverse range of people. The present government intended to build around 235,000 new homes a year from 2007 to 2013 why? So far they are achieving half that number which suggests there are currently over 800,000 homeless people, which is blatantly not the case. We cannot prop up our economy by simply building more, eventually housing will be near worthless, we will have no building trade and no countryside left to feed us. Let’s improve the existing housing stock, we must also address our society’s issues which results in so many single people needing accommodation. We should discourage out off town shopping complexes these homogenise our sense of place, reduce the opportunity for local enterprise and turn town centres into a series of franchise fast food and drinking outlets. Britain was once admired for its heritage and regional diversity; it is rapidly becoming a theme park recreation of American excess.
12.Taxation
I would like to see VAT remain at its current level and introduce and Environmental Impact Tax (EIT) for goods which cannot demonstrate that they are entirely sustainable. This I suggest should initially have three bands at 2.5%, 5% and 10% depending on the environmental impact and availability of a sustainable alternative. I would hope that this tax would be used to pay additional subsidies on a means tested basis to the unemployed, those on income support, pensioners and people receiving tax credits to ensure that they are able to meet the increased cost of living this will create.
I would support an increase in the level of income tax increasing from the current threshold for 40% taxation at a rate of 1% for every additional £10,000 of income to a maximum of 60%.
I would hold National insurance at today’s levels using the income tax increases to cover any deficit whilst total government spending was reduced during the two year review mentioned earlier.
13.Social security
My belief is that we must take a greater degree of collective responsibility for our entire society, it is not acceptable to see those who cannot work or do not work as worthless spongers. Some people because of ill health cannot work but can still contribute, some people because they have in some way been failed do not fit into the work ethic and some people have family to care for, be they children, partners or parents making them unavailable to work. I believe we should call it the Social support system; the aim should be to help people live a happy and contributory life. There are many who with the right support can find employment and would feel much better for it but this takes time, encouragement, support and respect. Too often we brand the faceless unemployed as lazy, when it is probably closer to the truth that they have been under privileged all their lives and have not had the support and encouragement that many of us have taken for granted.
Research shows that people who work are happier, have a better quality of life and make and sustain better relationships. Being unemployed is seldom a choice, despite what the Daily Mail might say, more often than not, it’s due to lack of opportunity, confidence, competence, social expectation or a combination of some or all of these. We must find ways of bring these disenfranchised people back into the fold. All those who can work, through good support and a re-organisation of our national working practice can be found jobs, those who have caring responsibilities should be valued and rewarded fairly for that and those who are unable to work due to ill health should not only be well cared for but also made to feel an equal in society.
I hope you find the above thought provoking, if so please share them...
Monday, 15 March 2010
Little Britain: The Serpent and the Cleft stick
I choose this metaphor to illustrate my sense of the UK and the majority of democratic political systems over the last few hundred years. It seems to me that the serpent represents both individual politicians and their parties, desire to gain and wield power and a belief at all levels, that the arms of the cleft stick which will help them rise still further in power are, competition and growth.
Competition narrows the field as the spoils go to the victor who is then better resourced to compete again. This imbalance in the field leads to an impoverishment of diversity and true innovation, merely propagating improvement in efficiencies and rigour which may yield benefit in the management of a production line but not in the development of a society or the release of human potential.
The pursuit of endless growth, strives for increased consumption, GDP and market share bringing with it economic clout but this in turn leads to exploitation of those on whose toil, lands or resources that growth depends. This focus on growth and accumulation rather than development and sustainability leads to widening social inequalities within and between nations and citizens, resulting in distrust, resentment and general discord.
All the above is set in the context of a world of finite and reducing natural capital on which not only our entire global economic system but our very existence as a species depends.
Perhaps the most disturbing consequence of this kind of politics is the impact it has on the attitudes and behaviours of the individual citizen. We are driven to express our identities through growth in our consumption and competition in our status. This is no worse, than in the home of competitive individualism namely America, if every person on the planet lived as they do, we would need 4 planet Earth’s to sustain today’s population, the figure for Europeans is around 2.5 and growing. The global over consumption is only moderated, in part, by the more populous developing nations such as China and India who average consumption approximates to the Earth’s capacity, however the rate of increase in these nations is growing more rapidly than anywhere else. As a global aggregate we are currently running about 20% above anything that is sustainable.
Life has existed on Earth for some 4 Billion years and Homo sapiens arrived about 40,000 years ago. If we translate life on Earth into one year, we arrived 30 seconds before midnight on the 31st of December and our population took 29.5 of those seconds to reach 1 billion and has increased to almost 7 Billion in the last 0.5 of a second. It is estimated that by 2050 our population will grow by a further 50%. One doesn’t have to be very adept at mathematics to realise that if global consumption per capita continues to increase and we add another 3.5 Billion consumers, then the cupboard will rapidly become bare.
In my next blog I will be putting forward ideas that we in the UK could start implementing to bring about a change in our approach, as we seek longer term solutions to transition away from this wholly unsustainable model. Suffice to say here that I believe that Politicians, as our elected representatives and governors of our society, must take the lead. They must set aside their competitive, party based combative dogma and work together to address the needs of our time.
Returning to the original metaphor, I would hope that sooner rather than later the Serpent will represent our ability to develop political influence and that the cleft stick will illustrate how genuine collaboration and meaningful contribution might raise our politicians up to a vantage point which would increase the scope and quality of their vision, insight, leadership and consequent governance.
Competition narrows the field as the spoils go to the victor who is then better resourced to compete again. This imbalance in the field leads to an impoverishment of diversity and true innovation, merely propagating improvement in efficiencies and rigour which may yield benefit in the management of a production line but not in the development of a society or the release of human potential.
The pursuit of endless growth, strives for increased consumption, GDP and market share bringing with it economic clout but this in turn leads to exploitation of those on whose toil, lands or resources that growth depends. This focus on growth and accumulation rather than development and sustainability leads to widening social inequalities within and between nations and citizens, resulting in distrust, resentment and general discord.
All the above is set in the context of a world of finite and reducing natural capital on which not only our entire global economic system but our very existence as a species depends.
Perhaps the most disturbing consequence of this kind of politics is the impact it has on the attitudes and behaviours of the individual citizen. We are driven to express our identities through growth in our consumption and competition in our status. This is no worse, than in the home of competitive individualism namely America, if every person on the planet lived as they do, we would need 4 planet Earth’s to sustain today’s population, the figure for Europeans is around 2.5 and growing. The global over consumption is only moderated, in part, by the more populous developing nations such as China and India who average consumption approximates to the Earth’s capacity, however the rate of increase in these nations is growing more rapidly than anywhere else. As a global aggregate we are currently running about 20% above anything that is sustainable.
Life has existed on Earth for some 4 Billion years and Homo sapiens arrived about 40,000 years ago. If we translate life on Earth into one year, we arrived 30 seconds before midnight on the 31st of December and our population took 29.5 of those seconds to reach 1 billion and has increased to almost 7 Billion in the last 0.5 of a second. It is estimated that by 2050 our population will grow by a further 50%. One doesn’t have to be very adept at mathematics to realise that if global consumption per capita continues to increase and we add another 3.5 Billion consumers, then the cupboard will rapidly become bare.
In my next blog I will be putting forward ideas that we in the UK could start implementing to bring about a change in our approach, as we seek longer term solutions to transition away from this wholly unsustainable model. Suffice to say here that I believe that Politicians, as our elected representatives and governors of our society, must take the lead. They must set aside their competitive, party based combative dogma and work together to address the needs of our time.
Returning to the original metaphor, I would hope that sooner rather than later the Serpent will represent our ability to develop political influence and that the cleft stick will illustrate how genuine collaboration and meaningful contribution might raise our politicians up to a vantage point which would increase the scope and quality of their vision, insight, leadership and consequent governance.
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
Uncertainty: The gift of creation
“The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers.”
Erich Fromm
Uncertainty is a key characteristic of complex systems, the world in which we live being just such a system. The existence of such uncertainty must not only guide our future actions but might also be a source of true enrichment of our lives. As the above quotation suggests I believe our current prevalent desire for control as a source of certainty is actually preventing us from living truly meaningful lives. Life itself grew out of uncertainty and chaos and is to some extent sustained by it, if you stop to wonder at the world it is the unexpected which is truly captivating. It is the unexpected that gives us the most pleasure; it encourages us to develop as people. If we could only let go of our desire for certainty, be that in what will happen or what we believe, we might find a wonderful array of new possibilities.
The world is pregnant with possibility, as are we, when was the last time there was a paradigm shift in the way human beings choose to behave or see things. If we are to radically change, then the systems and structures which govern almost everything we do must change too, with that will come massive uncertainty and unless we are able to positively embrace it we will be driven back with fear, and like the proverbial ostrich bury our collective heads in the sand and say the threat really isn’t there. We’ve been doing that for the last 20 years and we are now firmly on the tonight’s menu.
Today's most powerful people benfit from things being as they are and use our innate fear of the unknown to support our 'devil we know' attitude, rest assured if they continue to prevail and we do not move a way from a consumer driven economic model the degree of uncertainty that will be visited upon us all will be beyond imagination. The extremely wealthy may be able to protect themselves but not their offspring. Death does not discriminate....
Erich Fromm
Uncertainty is a key characteristic of complex systems, the world in which we live being just such a system. The existence of such uncertainty must not only guide our future actions but might also be a source of true enrichment of our lives. As the above quotation suggests I believe our current prevalent desire for control as a source of certainty is actually preventing us from living truly meaningful lives. Life itself grew out of uncertainty and chaos and is to some extent sustained by it, if you stop to wonder at the world it is the unexpected which is truly captivating. It is the unexpected that gives us the most pleasure; it encourages us to develop as people. If we could only let go of our desire for certainty, be that in what will happen or what we believe, we might find a wonderful array of new possibilities.
The world is pregnant with possibility, as are we, when was the last time there was a paradigm shift in the way human beings choose to behave or see things. If we are to radically change, then the systems and structures which govern almost everything we do must change too, with that will come massive uncertainty and unless we are able to positively embrace it we will be driven back with fear, and like the proverbial ostrich bury our collective heads in the sand and say the threat really isn’t there. We’ve been doing that for the last 20 years and we are now firmly on the tonight’s menu.
Today's most powerful people benfit from things being as they are and use our innate fear of the unknown to support our 'devil we know' attitude, rest assured if they continue to prevail and we do not move a way from a consumer driven economic model the degree of uncertainty that will be visited upon us all will be beyond imagination. The extremely wealthy may be able to protect themselves but not their offspring. Death does not discriminate....
The Earth: An unconcerned observer
“I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority.”
Elwyn Brooks White
I feel a deep resonance with James Lovelock’s notion of Gaia, whilst on one level it is metaphorical in that it suggests the Earth’s biota is a sentient being, I believe it is helpful conceptually for us to consider it as such since it offers us the opportunity to identify with it and develop a better way of relating to it. However, I believe we also need to recognise the hard truth of the matter, the Earth does not care about us, we have evolved out of the complex history of life on Earth but we are not essential to it, in fact nothing much is, certainly nothing that is alive. Species have come and gone throughout the ages based on their ability to adapt to or survive in the every changing environment on Earth. We seem to believe that we are somehow special, more important than other creatures, perhaps we are but only in so much as we have developed the ability to cause so much harm. The point we must remember is that life on Earth will continue well after our extinction, yes it may look very different and there may be time needed to recover from the impact of humankind but it will indeed happen.
The real concern therefore is not for the good of the Earth, it is for the good of ourselves because we are the only ones who really have a vested interest. I believe we need to start to see this as an issue for Mankind’s survival and not about saving the planet, an irritant we may be but a long term threat we are not. If people truly believed that their children and grand children were going to suffer terribly they may actually be willing to re-examine what really matters to them and forgo their desire for more and settle for being more. I truly believe that we are living at a pivotal point in human history, they say that the night is darkest just before the dawn and looking at our world today with all it’s crisis’s including global terrorism, social unrest, corporate exploitation, political nepotism, environmental devastation and climate change to name but a few, things certainly look extremely dark to me. So what might the dawn bring? Perhaps a time where we meet in our sameness and not in our difference, a realisation that we all need to collaborate to avert the impending disaster and in so doing, we might actually learn that there is a different, more meaningful, morally richer way of relating to each other and the world around us. If, like Martin Luther King, I had a dream, this would be it.
Elwyn Brooks White
I feel a deep resonance with James Lovelock’s notion of Gaia, whilst on one level it is metaphorical in that it suggests the Earth’s biota is a sentient being, I believe it is helpful conceptually for us to consider it as such since it offers us the opportunity to identify with it and develop a better way of relating to it. However, I believe we also need to recognise the hard truth of the matter, the Earth does not care about us, we have evolved out of the complex history of life on Earth but we are not essential to it, in fact nothing much is, certainly nothing that is alive. Species have come and gone throughout the ages based on their ability to adapt to or survive in the every changing environment on Earth. We seem to believe that we are somehow special, more important than other creatures, perhaps we are but only in so much as we have developed the ability to cause so much harm. The point we must remember is that life on Earth will continue well after our extinction, yes it may look very different and there may be time needed to recover from the impact of humankind but it will indeed happen.
The real concern therefore is not for the good of the Earth, it is for the good of ourselves because we are the only ones who really have a vested interest. I believe we need to start to see this as an issue for Mankind’s survival and not about saving the planet, an irritant we may be but a long term threat we are not. If people truly believed that their children and grand children were going to suffer terribly they may actually be willing to re-examine what really matters to them and forgo their desire for more and settle for being more. I truly believe that we are living at a pivotal point in human history, they say that the night is darkest just before the dawn and looking at our world today with all it’s crisis’s including global terrorism, social unrest, corporate exploitation, political nepotism, environmental devastation and climate change to name but a few, things certainly look extremely dark to me. So what might the dawn bring? Perhaps a time where we meet in our sameness and not in our difference, a realisation that we all need to collaborate to avert the impending disaster and in so doing, we might actually learn that there is a different, more meaningful, morally richer way of relating to each other and the world around us. If, like Martin Luther King, I had a dream, this would be it.
The role of religion and spirituality
“The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.”
Richard Francis Burton
“Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love.”
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I am not concerned here with the veracity of any of the assertions made by particular religions or spiritual philosophies but with the influence religion and spirituality has and can wield. The major religions of this world directly impact the beliefs and behaviours of billions of people, I wonder what their original founders might have to say about the way we are behaving relative to the world at large today. I am also fascinated by the apparent growth in alternative spiritual practices which seem to me to be symptomatic of a sense of dissatisfaction with the experience of everyday living. I wonder if we don’t have an innate need to connect with a higher sense of purpose and meaning, as a context in which to set the experience of our individual lives. If this is true then perhaps much of that context could be provided through our relationship with the planet we call home..
It seems to me that all the different religions and spiritual paths extol the virtues of respect for all living things and the divine creation. For various reasons surrounding power and influence these seem to be subservient to the proliferation of each particular doctrine and the mandate it offers their leaders.
I choose to think of 'creation' instead of God thereby removing the tendency to anthropromorphise, I am then better able to treat everything that occurs in the universe as part of an emergent process. As I am part of this 'creation' my role is to participate in a way that is respectful of and sympathetic with, everything else.
When I consider the way that different human societies and cultures have behaved to date, I am left in no doubt that we are far from being contributory to the 'whole'. I am changing my perspective and am beginning to experience a little of the immense beauty that is undoubtedly enfolded in the gift of creation.
The more one cares for, the more one is cared for...... Enjoy!
Richard Francis Burton
“Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love.”
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I am not concerned here with the veracity of any of the assertions made by particular religions or spiritual philosophies but with the influence religion and spirituality has and can wield. The major religions of this world directly impact the beliefs and behaviours of billions of people, I wonder what their original founders might have to say about the way we are behaving relative to the world at large today. I am also fascinated by the apparent growth in alternative spiritual practices which seem to me to be symptomatic of a sense of dissatisfaction with the experience of everyday living. I wonder if we don’t have an innate need to connect with a higher sense of purpose and meaning, as a context in which to set the experience of our individual lives. If this is true then perhaps much of that context could be provided through our relationship with the planet we call home..
It seems to me that all the different religions and spiritual paths extol the virtues of respect for all living things and the divine creation. For various reasons surrounding power and influence these seem to be subservient to the proliferation of each particular doctrine and the mandate it offers their leaders.
I choose to think of 'creation' instead of God thereby removing the tendency to anthropromorphise, I am then better able to treat everything that occurs in the universe as part of an emergent process. As I am part of this 'creation' my role is to participate in a way that is respectful of and sympathetic with, everything else.
When I consider the way that different human societies and cultures have behaved to date, I am left in no doubt that we are far from being contributory to the 'whole'. I am changing my perspective and am beginning to experience a little of the immense beauty that is undoubtedly enfolded in the gift of creation.
The more one cares for, the more one is cared for...... Enjoy!
The crisis of identity
“I've grown certain that the root of all fear is that we've been forced to deny who we are.”
Frances Moore Lappe
I agree with Lappe in so much as I believe that today we tend to over identify ourselves with what we have rather than who we actually are. The consequence of this is both a fear of losing our material wealth and a sense of increased isolation from others who have more or less than us. This in turn seems to lead to an insatiable desire to have more for fear of being overtaken. This is the marketer dream and the very thing they play upon, as they seek to convince us to want what ever it is they have to sell. This is entirely self perpetuating since you buy more to assuage your fear and then fear losing the status it has given you, so in turn need to buy more and so on and so on.
Are you simply the sum of what you have? Are the richest people in the world really the best human beings? Are fear and competition the ingredients for a happy life?
One’s sense of self is greatly influenced by societal norms which are in turn influenced by much of what has gone before in this blog. I believe that we, as individuals, must become aware of our own personal identity and to honestly reflect on what has informed it. We can change what we choose to identify with and thereby change ourselves. When we do this we will become more personally empowered to challenge those who seek to defend the systems and structures which they believe serve them preferentially today.
Frances Moore Lappe
I agree with Lappe in so much as I believe that today we tend to over identify ourselves with what we have rather than who we actually are. The consequence of this is both a fear of losing our material wealth and a sense of increased isolation from others who have more or less than us. This in turn seems to lead to an insatiable desire to have more for fear of being overtaken. This is the marketer dream and the very thing they play upon, as they seek to convince us to want what ever it is they have to sell. This is entirely self perpetuating since you buy more to assuage your fear and then fear losing the status it has given you, so in turn need to buy more and so on and so on.
Are you simply the sum of what you have? Are the richest people in the world really the best human beings? Are fear and competition the ingredients for a happy life?
One’s sense of self is greatly influenced by societal norms which are in turn influenced by much of what has gone before in this blog. I believe that we, as individuals, must become aware of our own personal identity and to honestly reflect on what has informed it. We can change what we choose to identify with and thereby change ourselves. When we do this we will become more personally empowered to challenge those who seek to defend the systems and structures which they believe serve them preferentially today.
Monday, 11 January 2010
Learning to live
“That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something you've understood all your life, but in a new way.”
Doris Lessing
I love this quotation because it suggests that learning is a process of moving beyond one’s own current understanding not about something new but about something you were already aware of. So often we see learning as the ability to accumulate knowledge and information and therein lies the problem. We spend too much of our formative years being educated and not enough being encouraged to learn about how to live a learning life. I believe it was Socrates who agreed that he was possibly the wisest man alive because he knew that he knew nothing, I wonder how much quarter that would get in our universities and hallowed halls of today.
It is time for us all to begin to learn how to live a meaningful and fulfilling life and how to put aside our intoxication by and addiction to, consumerism, economic growth and technological advancement. We need to understand that who we are is so much more than such things and to begin to use our incredible creativity to find solutions to the real problems of the day, all of which are consequences of our current misunderstanding. The troubles we face ahead are all absolutely of our own making, we are able to change, all that is required is the understanding that we have little of any true value to lose and everything to gain.
Learning is a life long process and it is incumbent upon everyone, in particular those in positions of power, to begin to re-evaluate their understanding of the world around us. This will not be easy and I anticipate much resistance even to the notion that it is necessary but the rewards will be great. The attachment of politicians and corporations to economic growth is an example of entrenched institutionalised learning; I haven’t yet heard anyone suggest a managed global recession as a potential solution to rising carbon dioxide emissions, surely since it is the source of the increase the logical thing would be to turn it down. We must learn to start addressing these issues at their root cause now, as well as finding less damaging solutions to meeting our interim needs.
It is interesting to note that since first writing about this in November 2007 we are now in the midst of a global recession, unfortunately my worst fears have been realised since all the G8 world leaders have opted for packages of economic stimulation measure including quantitative easing and capital infrastructure projects all designed to re-invigorate consumption rather that taking the opportunity to improve the global ecology. I am left wondering why we haven't deployed all the human potential released by redundancies, short time working and higher unemployment towards environmental projects, the development of more sustainable technologies and social improvement.
Doris Lessing
I love this quotation because it suggests that learning is a process of moving beyond one’s own current understanding not about something new but about something you were already aware of. So often we see learning as the ability to accumulate knowledge and information and therein lies the problem. We spend too much of our formative years being educated and not enough being encouraged to learn about how to live a learning life. I believe it was Socrates who agreed that he was possibly the wisest man alive because he knew that he knew nothing, I wonder how much quarter that would get in our universities and hallowed halls of today.
It is time for us all to begin to learn how to live a meaningful and fulfilling life and how to put aside our intoxication by and addiction to, consumerism, economic growth and technological advancement. We need to understand that who we are is so much more than such things and to begin to use our incredible creativity to find solutions to the real problems of the day, all of which are consequences of our current misunderstanding. The troubles we face ahead are all absolutely of our own making, we are able to change, all that is required is the understanding that we have little of any true value to lose and everything to gain.
Learning is a life long process and it is incumbent upon everyone, in particular those in positions of power, to begin to re-evaluate their understanding of the world around us. This will not be easy and I anticipate much resistance even to the notion that it is necessary but the rewards will be great. The attachment of politicians and corporations to economic growth is an example of entrenched institutionalised learning; I haven’t yet heard anyone suggest a managed global recession as a potential solution to rising carbon dioxide emissions, surely since it is the source of the increase the logical thing would be to turn it down. We must learn to start addressing these issues at their root cause now, as well as finding less damaging solutions to meeting our interim needs.
It is interesting to note that since first writing about this in November 2007 we are now in the midst of a global recession, unfortunately my worst fears have been realised since all the G8 world leaders have opted for packages of economic stimulation measure including quantitative easing and capital infrastructure projects all designed to re-invigorate consumption rather that taking the opportunity to improve the global ecology. I am left wondering why we haven't deployed all the human potential released by redundancies, short time working and higher unemployment towards environmental projects, the development of more sustainable technologies and social improvement.
The gifts of consciousness and conscience
“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
Albert Einstein
“The paradoxical and tragic situation of man is that his conscience is weakest when he needs it most”
Erich Fromm
Whilst both these quotations suggest that we have not made best use of these gifts they clearly allude to the importance both these great thinkers give them. I believe that both consciousness and conscience are unique to mankind; it is their presence in our make up that gives me hope that we will one day accept that we must radically change our ways. If it weren’t for both I believe that slavery would still be considered an acceptable commercial enterprise.
Consciousness gives us our sense of self-awareness and an awareness of how we relate to our wider environment; it also gives us a deeper sense of knowing above and beyond the merely rational. It encourages us to move beyond our basic animal instincts and is the source of our sense of morality. I like Einstein believe that our consciousness has become extremely limited and that it is imperative for us to expand it beyond the boundaries of self, family, nation, generation and species. With this greater awareness will develop a deeper compassion and empathy for all things and I hope that we will begin to feel more secure in and concerned for, the living creation of which we are but a part.
Our conscience is the arbiter of our integrity; it lets us know when we are violating our values and morals. Conscience alone however is not enough; one next has to have the will to act in accordance with it, often in competition with the temptation to ignore it in the pursuit of personal gratification. It seems to me that we are guilty of both valuing the wrong things and of defining morals which are far too anthropocentric. As for acting in accordance with our conscience this seems to me to be something that most people are all too frequently prepared to sacrifice in exchange for personal gain.
Climate change is finally entering into our consciousness following decades of warnings from environmental scientists but this is just the tip of the iceberg, the real threat is mankind’s excessive growth and unsustainable consumption of natural resources and habitats. Until this becomes part of our consciousness and we have the fortitude to act in accordance with our collective conscience about our responsibility to address this, we will make little or no effective progress in limiting the incalculable and devastating consequences that will ensue.
Albert Einstein
“The paradoxical and tragic situation of man is that his conscience is weakest when he needs it most”
Erich Fromm
Whilst both these quotations suggest that we have not made best use of these gifts they clearly allude to the importance both these great thinkers give them. I believe that both consciousness and conscience are unique to mankind; it is their presence in our make up that gives me hope that we will one day accept that we must radically change our ways. If it weren’t for both I believe that slavery would still be considered an acceptable commercial enterprise.
Consciousness gives us our sense of self-awareness and an awareness of how we relate to our wider environment; it also gives us a deeper sense of knowing above and beyond the merely rational. It encourages us to move beyond our basic animal instincts and is the source of our sense of morality. I like Einstein believe that our consciousness has become extremely limited and that it is imperative for us to expand it beyond the boundaries of self, family, nation, generation and species. With this greater awareness will develop a deeper compassion and empathy for all things and I hope that we will begin to feel more secure in and concerned for, the living creation of which we are but a part.
Our conscience is the arbiter of our integrity; it lets us know when we are violating our values and morals. Conscience alone however is not enough; one next has to have the will to act in accordance with it, often in competition with the temptation to ignore it in the pursuit of personal gratification. It seems to me that we are guilty of both valuing the wrong things and of defining morals which are far too anthropocentric. As for acting in accordance with our conscience this seems to me to be something that most people are all too frequently prepared to sacrifice in exchange for personal gain.
Climate change is finally entering into our consciousness following decades of warnings from environmental scientists but this is just the tip of the iceberg, the real threat is mankind’s excessive growth and unsustainable consumption of natural resources and habitats. Until this becomes part of our consciousness and we have the fortitude to act in accordance with our collective conscience about our responsibility to address this, we will make little or no effective progress in limiting the incalculable and devastating consequences that will ensue.
Beliefs: The architects of experience
“Some beliefs are like walled gardens. They encourage exclusiveness, and the feeling of being especially privileged. Other beliefs are expansive and lead the way into wider and deeper sympathies.”
Sophia Lyon Fahs
What we believe determines what we perceive and what we perceive defines what we believe to be real. We are therefore governed less by reality but more what we believe. Our beliefs can be compared to computer subroutines which interpret data by reference to a predefined set of criteria, the problem being that if the criteria are not met, the data is rejected as invalid rather than possible evidence that the subroutine or comparative data set might be flawed. A few of these subroutines are genetically encoded; typically those around survival but the vast majority are installed by our parents, society and our experience. Beliefs are not immutable and can be changed but this requires us first to be aware that they are present and secondly to accept how much they govern what we notice. It is only by asking ourselves what else we are not seeing that the grip of a particular belief can be broken.
So often when people come into conflict it is actually caused by a clash of beliefs rather than the lack of an available solution, if only both parties could see the whole. If we are to change the way people see the world and behave towards it, we will need to work at the level of beliefs. We will need to be open to exploring our deeply held beliefs and those of others. We will need to value people who are able to suspend their beliefs, empathise with others and take a synergistic approach compared to the advocating, combative leaders of today.
Values are beliefs which define what we as individuals and societies deem to be most important and as such, to make any lasting change in the way we behave, we must re-address the fundamental values which are driving us on our current path to social and ecological disintegration.
What are the critical beliefs which are limiting our willingness or ability to make the necessary changes to address the challenges facing us all?
Sophia Lyon Fahs
What we believe determines what we perceive and what we perceive defines what we believe to be real. We are therefore governed less by reality but more what we believe. Our beliefs can be compared to computer subroutines which interpret data by reference to a predefined set of criteria, the problem being that if the criteria are not met, the data is rejected as invalid rather than possible evidence that the subroutine or comparative data set might be flawed. A few of these subroutines are genetically encoded; typically those around survival but the vast majority are installed by our parents, society and our experience. Beliefs are not immutable and can be changed but this requires us first to be aware that they are present and secondly to accept how much they govern what we notice. It is only by asking ourselves what else we are not seeing that the grip of a particular belief can be broken.
So often when people come into conflict it is actually caused by a clash of beliefs rather than the lack of an available solution, if only both parties could see the whole. If we are to change the way people see the world and behave towards it, we will need to work at the level of beliefs. We will need to be open to exploring our deeply held beliefs and those of others. We will need to value people who are able to suspend their beliefs, empathise with others and take a synergistic approach compared to the advocating, combative leaders of today.
Values are beliefs which define what we as individuals and societies deem to be most important and as such, to make any lasting change in the way we behave, we must re-address the fundamental values which are driving us on our current path to social and ecological disintegration.
What are the critical beliefs which are limiting our willingness or ability to make the necessary changes to address the challenges facing us all?
Mankind: The global parasite
“Creation destroys as it goes, throws down one tree for the rise of another. But ideal mankind would abolish death, multiply itself million upon million, rear up city upon city, save every parasite alive, until the accumulation of mere existence is swollen to a horror.”
D.H.Lawrence
A parasite is an organism living in or on another and benefiting at the expense of the other, based on this definition and the qualification that the other, in this case, is the Earth, I believe we must consider ourselves to be a parasitic creature. I am not aware of any other living creature which produces toxic and non-biodegradable waste and whose very existence is detrimental to the entire ecosystem of which it is a part. The growth of the human population over the last 300 years has been little short of biblical in proportion. It took approximately 180,000 years for the human population to reach a quarter of a billion and since the late 1800’s the population has risen from a billion to today’s 6.9 billion with the last one billion of those being added in less than 12 years. Furthermore the global population is predicted to rise to in excess of 9 Billion by 2050.
Irrespective of our polluting ways and the consequential impact on the environment, the earth simply cannot support so many human beings without significantly damaging its ability to produce sufficient food alone in future years. We must recognise this as fact and take action to reduce our population over the next century, with a goal of achieving a global population of between 0.5 and 1.0 Billion people within 150 years. In the meantime, we will need to recognise that we must drastically reduce our consumption of absolutely everything and develop products and materials which are truly recyclable and preferably organic; in so much as they can quickly be returned to the ecosystem, as the original natural resources from which they were fabricated.
Another dire consequence and contributory cause of the population explosion has been the urbanisation of our species. When once we were wanderers who moved with the seasons and in response to the availability of food, we have now built permanent cities and have our food produce by relatively few people in the agricultural industry. This has left us vulnerable to changes in climatic conditions, changes in sea levels, storm patterns and ocean currents which can completely undermine the entire infrastructure of cities designed for entirely different conditions. I believe that as the more devastating impacts of climate change become manifest, millions upon millions of people in cities all around the world will be radically affected. I fear that the citadels of the 20th century are destined to become the mausoleums of the 21st.
Albert Einstein suggested that a problem could not be solved at the same level of thinking which created it, how must our thinking now change?
D.H.Lawrence
A parasite is an organism living in or on another and benefiting at the expense of the other, based on this definition and the qualification that the other, in this case, is the Earth, I believe we must consider ourselves to be a parasitic creature. I am not aware of any other living creature which produces toxic and non-biodegradable waste and whose very existence is detrimental to the entire ecosystem of which it is a part. The growth of the human population over the last 300 years has been little short of biblical in proportion. It took approximately 180,000 years for the human population to reach a quarter of a billion and since the late 1800’s the population has risen from a billion to today’s 6.9 billion with the last one billion of those being added in less than 12 years. Furthermore the global population is predicted to rise to in excess of 9 Billion by 2050.
Irrespective of our polluting ways and the consequential impact on the environment, the earth simply cannot support so many human beings without significantly damaging its ability to produce sufficient food alone in future years. We must recognise this as fact and take action to reduce our population over the next century, with a goal of achieving a global population of between 0.5 and 1.0 Billion people within 150 years. In the meantime, we will need to recognise that we must drastically reduce our consumption of absolutely everything and develop products and materials which are truly recyclable and preferably organic; in so much as they can quickly be returned to the ecosystem, as the original natural resources from which they were fabricated.
Another dire consequence and contributory cause of the population explosion has been the urbanisation of our species. When once we were wanderers who moved with the seasons and in response to the availability of food, we have now built permanent cities and have our food produce by relatively few people in the agricultural industry. This has left us vulnerable to changes in climatic conditions, changes in sea levels, storm patterns and ocean currents which can completely undermine the entire infrastructure of cities designed for entirely different conditions. I believe that as the more devastating impacts of climate change become manifest, millions upon millions of people in cities all around the world will be radically affected. I fear that the citadels of the 20th century are destined to become the mausoleums of the 21st.
Albert Einstein suggested that a problem could not be solved at the same level of thinking which created it, how must our thinking now change?
Water: The elixir of Life
“Be praised, My Lord, through Sister Water; she is very useful, and humble, and precious, and pure.”
Francis of Assisi
Water, water, every where,
Not any drop to drink.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
If the 'holy spirit' had a material form it would be water. Water is absolutely essential to every living thing, without it none would survive; water is truly our most precious resource. Not only is it essential to all living processes, it is fundamental to most, if not all, geophysical processes and in all its forms plays a major role in the moderation of Earth's climate. To date Modern man has treated water as a resource to be consumed and not as a vital, precious gift to be protected.
Throughout history man has chosen to live near sources of fresh water, using it not just for drinking but for agriculture, sanitation and in industrial and mining processes. With the growth in population and consequent increases in water usage in all these areas, mankind has not only polluted water stocks but we now live in a world with insufficient fresh water to support our needs, let alone those of the rest of the ecosystem. The increasing development of the more populous nations of the world will only exacerbate this problem. We can no longer take water for granted and must develop technologies and processes to limit its use wherever possible. We must also recognise that we must, over the long term, allow our population distribution across the planet to be limited by sustainable water availability. This will require a managed transition spanning generations and, if massive suffering is to be avoided, the sharing of technologies and resources across nations whilst this balance is achieved. I have no doubt that should we choose to attend to such matters as a priority for all, instead of focusing on material wealth, countless suffering could be avoided.
There are 1.4 billion cubic Kilometres of water covering 71% of the Earth’s surface, 97.5% of which is saltwater in the oceans and seas, containing some 70% of the Earth’s biomass. For this reason we must urgently understand and minimise the impact man has on saltwater, its inhabitants and the role it plays in the moderation of the Earth’s climate. Of the remaining 2.5 % which is fresh water only one third is in liquid form and almost all of it, namely 98.5%, is held below ground in rocky aquifers, this remains there for thousands of years only gradually seeping to the surface. This leaves an ever decreasing and extremely limited amount of accessible fresh water which is why over 1 billion people have no access to clean water and 2.6 billion have no sanitation . The dynamic fresh water cycle which irrigates the biosphere is driven by water evaporation from sea and land which subsequently falls as rain.
In man’s search for extraterrestrial life, the presence of water on a planet is considered to be a pre-requisite and we must all come to realise exactly how important it is to the continued survival of life on Earth.
Francis of Assisi
Water, water, every where,
Not any drop to drink.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
If the 'holy spirit' had a material form it would be water. Water is absolutely essential to every living thing, without it none would survive; water is truly our most precious resource. Not only is it essential to all living processes, it is fundamental to most, if not all, geophysical processes and in all its forms plays a major role in the moderation of Earth's climate. To date Modern man has treated water as a resource to be consumed and not as a vital, precious gift to be protected.
Throughout history man has chosen to live near sources of fresh water, using it not just for drinking but for agriculture, sanitation and in industrial and mining processes. With the growth in population and consequent increases in water usage in all these areas, mankind has not only polluted water stocks but we now live in a world with insufficient fresh water to support our needs, let alone those of the rest of the ecosystem. The increasing development of the more populous nations of the world will only exacerbate this problem. We can no longer take water for granted and must develop technologies and processes to limit its use wherever possible. We must also recognise that we must, over the long term, allow our population distribution across the planet to be limited by sustainable water availability. This will require a managed transition spanning generations and, if massive suffering is to be avoided, the sharing of technologies and resources across nations whilst this balance is achieved. I have no doubt that should we choose to attend to such matters as a priority for all, instead of focusing on material wealth, countless suffering could be avoided.
There are 1.4 billion cubic Kilometres of water covering 71% of the Earth’s surface, 97.5% of which is saltwater in the oceans and seas, containing some 70% of the Earth’s biomass. For this reason we must urgently understand and minimise the impact man has on saltwater, its inhabitants and the role it plays in the moderation of the Earth’s climate. Of the remaining 2.5 % which is fresh water only one third is in liquid form and almost all of it, namely 98.5%, is held below ground in rocky aquifers, this remains there for thousands of years only gradually seeping to the surface. This leaves an ever decreasing and extremely limited amount of accessible fresh water which is why over 1 billion people have no access to clean water and 2.6 billion have no sanitation . The dynamic fresh water cycle which irrigates the biosphere is driven by water evaporation from sea and land which subsequently falls as rain.
In man’s search for extraterrestrial life, the presence of water on a planet is considered to be a pre-requisite and we must all come to realise exactly how important it is to the continued survival of life on Earth.
Saturday, 9 January 2010
Economics: A self serving system
“Money often costs too much.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
I find it interesting that, that which I know least about seems to me to be of the biggest concern. I must confess I find it hard to get my mind around money and economics. Everyone tells me it is absolutely essential, does that mean that like water, life cannot exist without it or does it mean that one cannot survive in the human society we have created without it or perhaps something else? If I take a step back, I see a population of people living in a world of finite resources, who have created a system to attribute value to activities, in order to afford greater or lesser access to those resources, based on a collective judgement of what is worthwhile and which is evidenced by the allocation of printed paper or stamped metal. In such a system, having money grants access to both essential and non-essential resources which makes it essential to life. My question is; is this truly the best system to encourage mankind to behave responsibily both towards each other and more importantly in the World as a whole? Even if it is, who decides what is truly worthwhile or not?
Who are today’s beneficiaries of the global economic system. I read somewhere that the 100 most wealthy Americans have assets worth more than the annual income of half the world’s population. Since these people have little or no assets, the consequent assumption suggests that these one hundred people are more worthwhile than the sum of over 3 billion others, this I cannot accept. One pragmatic view of this, in the context of the over population of the world, would be to say that if those 3 billion people didn’t exist, the remaining population would be better of and the impact on the earth would be less severe. However, it must be remembered that it is the less well off who actually do the majority of the productive work that generates the money or goods for the rest. Yes, we need to reduce the global population over time but more immediately, we must reduce consumption and it is the people in the developed world who currently account for the vast majority of it. In the developed world there are also massive social inequalities, with over 90% of the wealth in the hands of 10% of people. The real issue is not the 10% but the 90% of us who aspire to being like them, constantly wanting more, this then fans out across the even less fortunate in the world and we end up with a species bent on an insatiable desire to consume. Wealth does not equate to happiness but an inability to meet basic needs leads to misery. I can’t help but feel that once our basic needs are met there are much more abundant sources of happiness than material gain.
Whilst I am heartened by the increasing amount of dialogue and discourse about climate change and environmental issues, I am also struck by the inherent attachment to the notion that any change must not impede economic growth. It seems to me that we are totally blindsided to the possibly that the economic system we have created is not only a fundamental cause of, but also a barrier to, any radical solution to the crisis’s which are facing the world today. I recognise that this may be a very poorly informed opinion but I believe money affects almost everything we do at every level. If we are to fundamentally change our culture, both our attitude toward and use of money must change radically.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
I find it interesting that, that which I know least about seems to me to be of the biggest concern. I must confess I find it hard to get my mind around money and economics. Everyone tells me it is absolutely essential, does that mean that like water, life cannot exist without it or does it mean that one cannot survive in the human society we have created without it or perhaps something else? If I take a step back, I see a population of people living in a world of finite resources, who have created a system to attribute value to activities, in order to afford greater or lesser access to those resources, based on a collective judgement of what is worthwhile and which is evidenced by the allocation of printed paper or stamped metal. In such a system, having money grants access to both essential and non-essential resources which makes it essential to life. My question is; is this truly the best system to encourage mankind to behave responsibily both towards each other and more importantly in the World as a whole? Even if it is, who decides what is truly worthwhile or not?
Who are today’s beneficiaries of the global economic system. I read somewhere that the 100 most wealthy Americans have assets worth more than the annual income of half the world’s population. Since these people have little or no assets, the consequent assumption suggests that these one hundred people are more worthwhile than the sum of over 3 billion others, this I cannot accept. One pragmatic view of this, in the context of the over population of the world, would be to say that if those 3 billion people didn’t exist, the remaining population would be better of and the impact on the earth would be less severe. However, it must be remembered that it is the less well off who actually do the majority of the productive work that generates the money or goods for the rest. Yes, we need to reduce the global population over time but more immediately, we must reduce consumption and it is the people in the developed world who currently account for the vast majority of it. In the developed world there are also massive social inequalities, with over 90% of the wealth in the hands of 10% of people. The real issue is not the 10% but the 90% of us who aspire to being like them, constantly wanting more, this then fans out across the even less fortunate in the world and we end up with a species bent on an insatiable desire to consume. Wealth does not equate to happiness but an inability to meet basic needs leads to misery. I can’t help but feel that once our basic needs are met there are much more abundant sources of happiness than material gain.
Whilst I am heartened by the increasing amount of dialogue and discourse about climate change and environmental issues, I am also struck by the inherent attachment to the notion that any change must not impede economic growth. It seems to me that we are totally blindsided to the possibly that the economic system we have created is not only a fundamental cause of, but also a barrier to, any radical solution to the crisis’s which are facing the world today. I recognise that this may be a very poorly informed opinion but I believe money affects almost everything we do at every level. If we are to fundamentally change our culture, both our attitude toward and use of money must change radically.
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
The consequence of corporations
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
Abraham Lincoln
The global influence of today’s multi-national corporations must not be under estimated. Whilst today we look to the UN to advocate what needs to be done to protect the good of all in the world, I believe it is only with the agreement and co-operation of the world’s largest corporations, that the necessary changes can be implemented. The world’s largest corporation Royal Dutch Shell has an annual turnover in excess of $450 billion, which would give it a raking of number 22 in the league tables of national economic scale. RD Shell has a greater annual turnover than the Gross Domestic Product (Atlas method) of Saudi Arabia. Even the 10th highest revenue generating company would rank 45th in the league of economic nations. Not only are they hugely significant financially, they are absolutely totalitarian in nature, the executive controls the behaviour of the whole and the enterprise is focused on one thing alone, the generation of maximum wealth for its shareholders. These companies would not exist if they did not have consumers providing a financial return for their products or services, we the consumer are therefore to be held equally accountable for their activities.
Whilst Abraham Lincoln’s quote serves as a useful warning of what might be, I do not believe corporations are intentionally malignant and that this quotation says as much about the struggle between different groups, be that business folk or politicians, for power and influence, as it does about any disservice to the People. I believe that the growth of corporations and the damage their activities are doing to the planet and to human society, is more a function of the global economic model and human social constructions, than it is about any deliberate intent to dominate. In recent times, whenever humankind has been threatened, it has been the corporations that have responded to actually provided the solutions to any particular problem; be that pharmaceuticals, fossil fuel reserves or armaments. Corporations are excellent problem solvers; the question is; are we asking them to solve the right problems?
It is interesting to note that prior to the 'credit crunch' of the world’s 10 largest revenue generating enterprises, 5 were oil and gas companies and 4 were automobile companies. It is a small wonder that little has been done to reduce our fossil fuel dependency over the last 15 years, despite irrefutable evidence of the damage it is causing. Furthermore, since 6 of theses companies are American owned, is it surprising that George.W.Bush a former oilman himself, has continually frustrated the global attempt to take positive action to address this issue? The lobbying power of major corporations cannot be under estimated and because of their size it is unlikely to diminish. The key is for corporations to redefine themselves as the executors of the global agenda since they are best placed and best able to serve this role.
We must recognise the role corporations play in creating unnecessary consumer demand and the increasingly slick slight of hand they use to increase sales and the unnecessary use of natural resources but equally important, if not more so, is to identify what makes corporations so effective at getting things done across international boundaries and how this and their other competencies might be deployed to further our collective cause, which I propose should be to re-enchant the world..
Abraham Lincoln
The global influence of today’s multi-national corporations must not be under estimated. Whilst today we look to the UN to advocate what needs to be done to protect the good of all in the world, I believe it is only with the agreement and co-operation of the world’s largest corporations, that the necessary changes can be implemented. The world’s largest corporation Royal Dutch Shell has an annual turnover in excess of $450 billion, which would give it a raking of number 22 in the league tables of national economic scale. RD Shell has a greater annual turnover than the Gross Domestic Product (Atlas method) of Saudi Arabia. Even the 10th highest revenue generating company would rank 45th in the league of economic nations. Not only are they hugely significant financially, they are absolutely totalitarian in nature, the executive controls the behaviour of the whole and the enterprise is focused on one thing alone, the generation of maximum wealth for its shareholders. These companies would not exist if they did not have consumers providing a financial return for their products or services, we the consumer are therefore to be held equally accountable for their activities.
Whilst Abraham Lincoln’s quote serves as a useful warning of what might be, I do not believe corporations are intentionally malignant and that this quotation says as much about the struggle between different groups, be that business folk or politicians, for power and influence, as it does about any disservice to the People. I believe that the growth of corporations and the damage their activities are doing to the planet and to human society, is more a function of the global economic model and human social constructions, than it is about any deliberate intent to dominate. In recent times, whenever humankind has been threatened, it has been the corporations that have responded to actually provided the solutions to any particular problem; be that pharmaceuticals, fossil fuel reserves or armaments. Corporations are excellent problem solvers; the question is; are we asking them to solve the right problems?
It is interesting to note that prior to the 'credit crunch' of the world’s 10 largest revenue generating enterprises, 5 were oil and gas companies and 4 were automobile companies. It is a small wonder that little has been done to reduce our fossil fuel dependency over the last 15 years, despite irrefutable evidence of the damage it is causing. Furthermore, since 6 of theses companies are American owned, is it surprising that George.W.Bush a former oilman himself, has continually frustrated the global attempt to take positive action to address this issue? The lobbying power of major corporations cannot be under estimated and because of their size it is unlikely to diminish. The key is for corporations to redefine themselves as the executors of the global agenda since they are best placed and best able to serve this role.
We must recognise the role corporations play in creating unnecessary consumer demand and the increasingly slick slight of hand they use to increase sales and the unnecessary use of natural resources but equally important, if not more so, is to identify what makes corporations so effective at getting things done across international boundaries and how this and their other competencies might be deployed to further our collective cause, which I propose should be to re-enchant the world..
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
Relationships: The space in which humanity resides
“Once the realization is accepted that even between the closest human beings infinite distances continue, a wonderful living side by side can grow, if they succeed in loving the distance between them which makes it possible for each to see the other whole against the sky.”
Rainer Maria Rilke
How we relate to each other and to the wider world around us must change, we seem as individuals to be becoming more and more isolated not only from each other but from the world around us. In the developed world an increasing number of people live alone and the bonds binding the extended family are weakening. Children spend increasing amounts of their time, alone in their rooms glued to gaming machines whilst adults either watch the television or if they are out and about are increasingly isolated in their personal bubble courtesy of the ubiquitous MP3 player. Marriage rates have never been lower and divorce rates never higher. When we are not idling away time as described above we are spending more time than ever before working. If this is the gift of the technological age, I for one wish we could give it back.
It is hardly surprising that our ability and willingness to develop deep relationships with the natural world is sadly lacking when we seem to be continually diluting the relationships we have with each other. Who we are is defined by the quality and substance of the relationships we form in our lifetimes; we are not remembered for what we had but for the impact of our having existed. I believe that we are living in truly emotionally impoverished times and that this is a direct consequence of our over emphasis on material possessions. The consequences of this are being manifest in increasing levels of stress, unprecedented dependence on antidepressant drugs and growth in suicide rates.
Climate change and the other impacts of excessive population and consumer growth such as water deprivation, energy shortages, species extinction, ecosystem collapse and famine do not respect national borders, cultures or theological perspectives. Addressing these issues will require all of us to work to together as never before; we must begin to learn to meet and celebrate each other in both our sameness and difference. If we are unable to rise above our bigotry and tribal allegiances the competition for ever scarcer resources will lead to unthinkable levels of conflict and violence. The degree of collaboration, collective commitment and cooperation required to really make the necessary headway to avoid the worst, will call for the development of unshakeable international relationships.
As a species Man seems to have related to the Earth not as a partner but initially as a provider and now simply a source of raw materials. It is incredulous to consider that $billions are being spent on research into terraforming. The notion that the powers that be are seriously considering where to build another Earth when we have ruined this one is absolutely disgusting. In our development of technology we are attempting to circumvent the very process of creation and evolution. We seem to have ceased to want to evolve as a species and to be hell bent on shaping the world or worlds to fit us; this is not only futile but flies in the face of the very miraculous process that brought us into existence in the first place. We have been around but for the blink of an eye and will be gone even quicker if we do not wake up to the fact that we are part of a bigger ever changing process called Life. Mankind in it’s present form will become extinct one day and that is as it should be, the question is when and whether we actually have the time and potential to evolve into something else. I believe we should be focussing our efforts on developing ourselves into a species that is sensitive to and supportive of the Earth and that we should seek to find happiness and fulfilment in our relationships with each other and all the things around us rather than to continue to attempt to exert power and control.
Rainer Maria Rilke
How we relate to each other and to the wider world around us must change, we seem as individuals to be becoming more and more isolated not only from each other but from the world around us. In the developed world an increasing number of people live alone and the bonds binding the extended family are weakening. Children spend increasing amounts of their time, alone in their rooms glued to gaming machines whilst adults either watch the television or if they are out and about are increasingly isolated in their personal bubble courtesy of the ubiquitous MP3 player. Marriage rates have never been lower and divorce rates never higher. When we are not idling away time as described above we are spending more time than ever before working. If this is the gift of the technological age, I for one wish we could give it back.
It is hardly surprising that our ability and willingness to develop deep relationships with the natural world is sadly lacking when we seem to be continually diluting the relationships we have with each other. Who we are is defined by the quality and substance of the relationships we form in our lifetimes; we are not remembered for what we had but for the impact of our having existed. I believe that we are living in truly emotionally impoverished times and that this is a direct consequence of our over emphasis on material possessions. The consequences of this are being manifest in increasing levels of stress, unprecedented dependence on antidepressant drugs and growth in suicide rates.
Climate change and the other impacts of excessive population and consumer growth such as water deprivation, energy shortages, species extinction, ecosystem collapse and famine do not respect national borders, cultures or theological perspectives. Addressing these issues will require all of us to work to together as never before; we must begin to learn to meet and celebrate each other in both our sameness and difference. If we are unable to rise above our bigotry and tribal allegiances the competition for ever scarcer resources will lead to unthinkable levels of conflict and violence. The degree of collaboration, collective commitment and cooperation required to really make the necessary headway to avoid the worst, will call for the development of unshakeable international relationships.
As a species Man seems to have related to the Earth not as a partner but initially as a provider and now simply a source of raw materials. It is incredulous to consider that $billions are being spent on research into terraforming. The notion that the powers that be are seriously considering where to build another Earth when we have ruined this one is absolutely disgusting. In our development of technology we are attempting to circumvent the very process of creation and evolution. We seem to have ceased to want to evolve as a species and to be hell bent on shaping the world or worlds to fit us; this is not only futile but flies in the face of the very miraculous process that brought us into existence in the first place. We have been around but for the blink of an eye and will be gone even quicker if we do not wake up to the fact that we are part of a bigger ever changing process called Life. Mankind in it’s present form will become extinct one day and that is as it should be, the question is when and whether we actually have the time and potential to evolve into something else. I believe we should be focussing our efforts on developing ourselves into a species that is sensitive to and supportive of the Earth and that we should seek to find happiness and fulfilment in our relationships with each other and all the things around us rather than to continue to attempt to exert power and control.
The relativity of reality
“Reality leaves a lot to the imagination.”
John Lennon
I agree with Plato who suggested that what most people saw as reality was akin to its shadow cast upon the wall of the cave of our own ignorance. It seems to me that we have forgotten what it really means to be a human being as opposed to a human doing. Ask someone who they are and they will more than likely tell you what they do for a living not the type of person they are or what they value. Our reality appears to be one of having not belonging; much of the world’s true reality and importance is by most, not only unnoticed but abused.
Wealth appears to be the cornerstone of our current reality but this is relative. One does not have to go very far back to find a time when home or even car ownership was the preserve of the wealthy, whereas now it is the norm. This does not mean that there is not an ever widening gap between the haves and the have nots, it is just that the vast majority of us in the developed countries have so much more than ever before. It is interesting to note however that people are as, if not more, dissatisfied than ever, which suggests that it is not what we have in absolute terms but relative to each other that concerns us. If this is truly the case we could all simply have less and still be as happy.
We need to understand that our perception of reality is shaped by what we value and what we value needs to support the good of all, not only all mankind but every other species and the ecosystem. In most cultures the primary indicator of value is expressed fiscally. People who do things in the world of commerce that have high perceived value, are financial rewarded; be that a CEO, an actor or even a sports person. If we truly want to draw back from the brink we could start by rewarding those who are contributing most in support of the desired change, perhaps with less obscene individual incomes and larger grants to be used in furtherance of their efforts on our collective behalf. I believe that most financially successful people today are more interested in the kudos that their success brings and not actually the money, the money just serves to make it visible to others. For this reason I see no reason why many of today’s successful people would not be equally successful in a system that put far less emphasis on commercial success and more on social and environmental sensitivity.
I cannot count the number of times people have told me that I am not living in the real world and that I need to see the world as it is. Well I do see it and I’m happy to say it looks far more inviting than that which many others tell me is their reality.
John Lennon
I agree with Plato who suggested that what most people saw as reality was akin to its shadow cast upon the wall of the cave of our own ignorance. It seems to me that we have forgotten what it really means to be a human being as opposed to a human doing. Ask someone who they are and they will more than likely tell you what they do for a living not the type of person they are or what they value. Our reality appears to be one of having not belonging; much of the world’s true reality and importance is by most, not only unnoticed but abused.
Wealth appears to be the cornerstone of our current reality but this is relative. One does not have to go very far back to find a time when home or even car ownership was the preserve of the wealthy, whereas now it is the norm. This does not mean that there is not an ever widening gap between the haves and the have nots, it is just that the vast majority of us in the developed countries have so much more than ever before. It is interesting to note however that people are as, if not more, dissatisfied than ever, which suggests that it is not what we have in absolute terms but relative to each other that concerns us. If this is truly the case we could all simply have less and still be as happy.
We need to understand that our perception of reality is shaped by what we value and what we value needs to support the good of all, not only all mankind but every other species and the ecosystem. In most cultures the primary indicator of value is expressed fiscally. People who do things in the world of commerce that have high perceived value, are financial rewarded; be that a CEO, an actor or even a sports person. If we truly want to draw back from the brink we could start by rewarding those who are contributing most in support of the desired change, perhaps with less obscene individual incomes and larger grants to be used in furtherance of their efforts on our collective behalf. I believe that most financially successful people today are more interested in the kudos that their success brings and not actually the money, the money just serves to make it visible to others. For this reason I see no reason why many of today’s successful people would not be equally successful in a system that put far less emphasis on commercial success and more on social and environmental sensitivity.
I cannot count the number of times people have told me that I am not living in the real world and that I need to see the world as it is. Well I do see it and I’m happy to say it looks far more inviting than that which many others tell me is their reality.
Monday, 28 December 2009
Agriculture: An ecological tightrope
"The diligent farmer plants trees, of which he himself will never see the fruit."
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Global grain prices have doubled in the last two years, due to grain shortages in Australia and a significant increase in demand from China and India. In addition, arable land usage is increasing due to the burgeoning demand for bio fuels. Within Europe agricultural set aside, which fostered natural biodiversity, is diminishing rapidly. Agricultural farmers believe that a boom time is ahead and that output should be grown as quickly as possible to meet the increased global demand. This short term, economically dominated approach concerns me deeply.
It is undoubtedly true that agriculture has played a very important role in the development of man, providing surety of a food supply has afforded the opportunity to concentrate efforts on other things of which we might be proud but the our over population is also directly attributable to agricultural development and practices. Agriculture is responsible for the destruction of many rich and diverse habitats, soil erosion and water shortages. I believe that we must seriously re-evaluate the role agriculture plays and ensure that it is managed in such a way as to minimise its detrimental impact on the wider bio system.
I do not believe that simply producing more in response to an increase in demand is sustainable; everything we take out of the earth’s system for the consumption of man, ceases to be available for the remainder of the system. It has been calculated that, as a global population, we are already consuming approximately 1.2 times that which the earth can produce sustainably in any given year, so already, year on year; the earth is actually able to produce less and less. With our global population forecast to increase by yet another 50% by 2050, this situation can only get worse and the consequence will be starvation and water deprivation on an unimaginable scale. Instinctively, responding to fossil fuel shortages by replacing them with bio fuels seems fraught with danger, just how much land will be required to achieve this and what will the environmental implications be? For me the core issue is our excessive dependence on all types of energy, we should address this problem first and foremost and use the least damaging technologies to provide a stop gap whilst this is achieved.
It seems ironic to me that our response to addressing the problems caused by excessive growth in population and consumption appears to be to grow more! As Cicero suggests farming is a long term endeavour which spans generations, it is about the husbandry and stewardship of our natural resources. I feel we have over industrialised agriculture and that certainly in the developed world, the majority of the population has lost the ability to identify with the land and is therefore less sensitive to the negative impacts we are having on it. I also believe that the dominance of the supermarket chains has exacerbated these issues. One only has to walk around a supermarket to notice that the emphasis is on encouraging consumption rather than providing for basic food needs.
I believe that developing truly sustainable agriculture will be essential to our long term survival and collective well being.
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Global grain prices have doubled in the last two years, due to grain shortages in Australia and a significant increase in demand from China and India. In addition, arable land usage is increasing due to the burgeoning demand for bio fuels. Within Europe agricultural set aside, which fostered natural biodiversity, is diminishing rapidly. Agricultural farmers believe that a boom time is ahead and that output should be grown as quickly as possible to meet the increased global demand. This short term, economically dominated approach concerns me deeply.
It is undoubtedly true that agriculture has played a very important role in the development of man, providing surety of a food supply has afforded the opportunity to concentrate efforts on other things of which we might be proud but the our over population is also directly attributable to agricultural development and practices. Agriculture is responsible for the destruction of many rich and diverse habitats, soil erosion and water shortages. I believe that we must seriously re-evaluate the role agriculture plays and ensure that it is managed in such a way as to minimise its detrimental impact on the wider bio system.
I do not believe that simply producing more in response to an increase in demand is sustainable; everything we take out of the earth’s system for the consumption of man, ceases to be available for the remainder of the system. It has been calculated that, as a global population, we are already consuming approximately 1.2 times that which the earth can produce sustainably in any given year, so already, year on year; the earth is actually able to produce less and less. With our global population forecast to increase by yet another 50% by 2050, this situation can only get worse and the consequence will be starvation and water deprivation on an unimaginable scale. Instinctively, responding to fossil fuel shortages by replacing them with bio fuels seems fraught with danger, just how much land will be required to achieve this and what will the environmental implications be? For me the core issue is our excessive dependence on all types of energy, we should address this problem first and foremost and use the least damaging technologies to provide a stop gap whilst this is achieved.
It seems ironic to me that our response to addressing the problems caused by excessive growth in population and consumption appears to be to grow more! As Cicero suggests farming is a long term endeavour which spans generations, it is about the husbandry and stewardship of our natural resources. I feel we have over industrialised agriculture and that certainly in the developed world, the majority of the population has lost the ability to identify with the land and is therefore less sensitive to the negative impacts we are having on it. I also believe that the dominance of the supermarket chains has exacerbated these issues. One only has to walk around a supermarket to notice that the emphasis is on encouraging consumption rather than providing for basic food needs.
I believe that developing truly sustainable agriculture will be essential to our long term survival and collective well being.
The threat of competition
"Trying to be number one and trying to do a task well are two different things."
Alfie Kohn
I am deeply concerned by the competitive nature of western society; I believe it is implicit in almost everything we do and defines how, as individuals, we see ourselves. I believe that herein lies our seemingly endless desire to have more, implicit in this is that the more "stuff" we have, the more self worth we have. I know this is a huge generalisation and that there are many people whose values are not so shallow but I believe it is symptomatic of western society as a whole. From our earliest years we are encouraged to judge ourselves against the benchmark of others, as if there is a stereotypical "best" to aspire to. Whilst this may deliver satisfaction to those who are particularly good at something we choose to value, it devalues the majority. The inherent lack of self esteem that follows then leads to all sorts of dysfunctional behaviour in life, the most damaging of which, on a global scale, is the need to consume. I see this as a ‘need to feed’ the unrecognised and damaged unique individual that we are. This can lead to over consumption, addiction, or aggressive gain, at both the micro and macro level. As Alfie Kohn suggests, the underlying intent behind being number one and doing something well, can more often than not, be worlds apart.
As necessity is said to be the mother of invention, competition is often cited as the source of excellence. As Einstein reminds us, everything is relative, in a world that celebrates individual success and has a, to the victor goes the spoils mentality, this is undoubtedly true but this is the world of man not the real world. Whilst Darwin postulated that the natural world and its evolution was centred around the principal of the survival of the fittest, I believe he intended this to mean the best able to co-exist, to find an harmonious niche, not to dominate and conquer as seems to be the popular modern interpretation of his theory. I am not suggesting that we all need to be the same but that we should learn to celebrate and recognise the value of our diversity. Competition in some circumstances, can add to the excitement and joy to be had from an experience but should it should not be at the expense of the enterprise itself.
Much has been said by economic theorists surrounding how competition has furthered the development of mankind, if this is true why are we now facing the greatest crisis ever? A crisis that is of man’s own making and that I would suggest, is born out of his predilection towards competition. If we look at energy consumption alone, how much unnecessary energy is wasted in industry by companies competing for the same piece of business, which only one of them can actually win? This may make sense within our economic system but makes absolutely no sense in the context of our over exploitation of the earth’s diminishing natural resources and extreme climate change. As competition was the watch word of the industrial era; co-operation must become that for the ecological era. We have to construct an alternative to the economic model, one which fosters the behaviours necessary to avert the disaster that await us if we don’t.
Alfie Kohn
I am deeply concerned by the competitive nature of western society; I believe it is implicit in almost everything we do and defines how, as individuals, we see ourselves. I believe that herein lies our seemingly endless desire to have more, implicit in this is that the more "stuff" we have, the more self worth we have. I know this is a huge generalisation and that there are many people whose values are not so shallow but I believe it is symptomatic of western society as a whole. From our earliest years we are encouraged to judge ourselves against the benchmark of others, as if there is a stereotypical "best" to aspire to. Whilst this may deliver satisfaction to those who are particularly good at something we choose to value, it devalues the majority. The inherent lack of self esteem that follows then leads to all sorts of dysfunctional behaviour in life, the most damaging of which, on a global scale, is the need to consume. I see this as a ‘need to feed’ the unrecognised and damaged unique individual that we are. This can lead to over consumption, addiction, or aggressive gain, at both the micro and macro level. As Alfie Kohn suggests, the underlying intent behind being number one and doing something well, can more often than not, be worlds apart.
As necessity is said to be the mother of invention, competition is often cited as the source of excellence. As Einstein reminds us, everything is relative, in a world that celebrates individual success and has a, to the victor goes the spoils mentality, this is undoubtedly true but this is the world of man not the real world. Whilst Darwin postulated that the natural world and its evolution was centred around the principal of the survival of the fittest, I believe he intended this to mean the best able to co-exist, to find an harmonious niche, not to dominate and conquer as seems to be the popular modern interpretation of his theory. I am not suggesting that we all need to be the same but that we should learn to celebrate and recognise the value of our diversity. Competition in some circumstances, can add to the excitement and joy to be had from an experience but should it should not be at the expense of the enterprise itself.
Much has been said by economic theorists surrounding how competition has furthered the development of mankind, if this is true why are we now facing the greatest crisis ever? A crisis that is of man’s own making and that I would suggest, is born out of his predilection towards competition. If we look at energy consumption alone, how much unnecessary energy is wasted in industry by companies competing for the same piece of business, which only one of them can actually win? This may make sense within our economic system but makes absolutely no sense in the context of our over exploitation of the earth’s diminishing natural resources and extreme climate change. As competition was the watch word of the industrial era; co-operation must become that for the ecological era. We have to construct an alternative to the economic model, one which fosters the behaviours necessary to avert the disaster that await us if we don’t.
Growth, Development and Sustainability
"One thing is clear to me now, ...... our values must be compatible with the exigencies of the natural world we live in and depend upon. They must implicitly recognise the laws of thermodynamics, energy’s role in our survival, the dangers of certain kinds of connectivity, and the nonlinear behaviour of natural systems like the climate. The endless material growth of our economies is fundamentally inconsistent with these physical facts of life. Period. End of story. And a value system that makes endless growth the primary source of our social stability and spiritual well-being will destroy us."
Thomas Homer-Dixon
I couldn’t agree more with this quotation, at the very root of the problems we are creating, is our seemingly insatiable appetite for all kinds of growth, the most damaging of which is economic. I feel it important to declare here that I believe that money is nothing more than a human construction, used as a token for the exercise of control over others and as such, can and should be repositioned to facilitate the changes necessary for the survival of our species. Money can attribute value but it is not a value in and of itself yet it can and should be used to do valuable things. The problem is not money but the economic system it enables. Beneath the economics lies the radical issue; that of human greed and the desire for power and prestige, whether this is a natural phenomenon or simply learnt behaviour is becoming irrelevant since our survival instinct trumps status every time. My question as to whether or not we are writing our epitaph or that we are indeed awakening, arises from the doubt I have about our willingness to put collective and generational survival above our individual short term desire for personal gratification.
WIn addition to economic growth other types of growth are cause for concern. Growth seems to be the watchword of our global community, when we speak of development it is invariably linked with growth, it's about becoming bigger, more influential, having more, all quantitative rather than qualitative terms. We seem to relate our very identities to how much we have compared to others, this leads to a deep splitting between individuals, communities, nations and most importantly from the rest of the ecosystem and biosphere. We seem to see ourselves apart, as the consumer of all things, here to have our needs met at the expenses of everything and everyone else. It resembles an addiction, the more you have, the more you want but the more you get the more fearful of loss you become, leading to an absolute need to continue to get more. This makes for deeply unhappy people who become increasingly unable to relate appropriately, this then leads to truly dysfunctional thinking and behaviour, in fact, one becomes deluded. I believe that collectively we have become deluded and have lost our true identities and our ability to relate appropriately to the world around us. If one looks back at some of the aboriginal cultures, irrespective of their origin, there is much to be learnt about how we might once again connect to the greater whole. I shudder every time I hear about the so called progress and aspirations of the developing nations and am reminded of the old adage; beware of what you wish for, you might actually get it.
Development of a different kind will be crucial to our future, we must use our innate ability as a problem solving animal to develop solutions to the problems we have created. These problems must include the point issues of dealing with today’s burning platforms such as climate change, environmental degradation and the population explosion but it has to be recognised that these are symptomatic of a much greater malaise which is rooted in our social and political structures, simply put we care about the wrong things and unless this changes we will continue to self destruct as any reformed addict will attest to. To achieve true sustainability Man must once again become a complimentary participant in the web of life and value the good of the whole above simply his own. If we were to achieve this we might actually begin to develop as a species rather than developing ‘stuff’ at the expenses of all around us. Sustainability is not simply about finding carbon neutral ways of continuing to do what we do, it is about becoming something that is not only sustained by but is sustaining of, the larger field of which we are a part.
Thomas Homer-Dixon
I couldn’t agree more with this quotation, at the very root of the problems we are creating, is our seemingly insatiable appetite for all kinds of growth, the most damaging of which is economic. I feel it important to declare here that I believe that money is nothing more than a human construction, used as a token for the exercise of control over others and as such, can and should be repositioned to facilitate the changes necessary for the survival of our species. Money can attribute value but it is not a value in and of itself yet it can and should be used to do valuable things. The problem is not money but the economic system it enables. Beneath the economics lies the radical issue; that of human greed and the desire for power and prestige, whether this is a natural phenomenon or simply learnt behaviour is becoming irrelevant since our survival instinct trumps status every time. My question as to whether or not we are writing our epitaph or that we are indeed awakening, arises from the doubt I have about our willingness to put collective and generational survival above our individual short term desire for personal gratification.
WIn addition to economic growth other types of growth are cause for concern. Growth seems to be the watchword of our global community, when we speak of development it is invariably linked with growth, it's about becoming bigger, more influential, having more, all quantitative rather than qualitative terms. We seem to relate our very identities to how much we have compared to others, this leads to a deep splitting between individuals, communities, nations and most importantly from the rest of the ecosystem and biosphere. We seem to see ourselves apart, as the consumer of all things, here to have our needs met at the expenses of everything and everyone else. It resembles an addiction, the more you have, the more you want but the more you get the more fearful of loss you become, leading to an absolute need to continue to get more. This makes for deeply unhappy people who become increasingly unable to relate appropriately, this then leads to truly dysfunctional thinking and behaviour, in fact, one becomes deluded. I believe that collectively we have become deluded and have lost our true identities and our ability to relate appropriately to the world around us. If one looks back at some of the aboriginal cultures, irrespective of their origin, there is much to be learnt about how we might once again connect to the greater whole. I shudder every time I hear about the so called progress and aspirations of the developing nations and am reminded of the old adage; beware of what you wish for, you might actually get it.
Development of a different kind will be crucial to our future, we must use our innate ability as a problem solving animal to develop solutions to the problems we have created. These problems must include the point issues of dealing with today’s burning platforms such as climate change, environmental degradation and the population explosion but it has to be recognised that these are symptomatic of a much greater malaise which is rooted in our social and political structures, simply put we care about the wrong things and unless this changes we will continue to self destruct as any reformed addict will attest to. To achieve true sustainability Man must once again become a complimentary participant in the web of life and value the good of the whole above simply his own. If we were to achieve this we might actually begin to develop as a species rather than developing ‘stuff’ at the expenses of all around us. Sustainability is not simply about finding carbon neutral ways of continuing to do what we do, it is about becoming something that is not only sustained by but is sustaining of, the larger field of which we are a part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
