A social commentator of his time Charles Dickens
Charles Dickens, photographed at the age of 49 by the London portrait photographer George Herbert Watkins. Watkins took several portraits of Dickens between 1858 and 1861 and they have helped define the enduring image of Dickens as a melancholy, care-worn personality.
Picture: HULTON-DEUTSCH COLLECTION
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/10580182/Charles-Dickens-in-pictures.html
Picture: HULTON-DEUTSCH COLLECTION
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/10580182/Charles-Dickens-in-pictures.html
What is it that is so wrong with the world?
,Well my dear Antaganus, you may well be right. Certainly Mr Dickens (notwithstanding that the above quotation comes from a well-known piece of his fiction) would seem to support your theory of the people of ages past seeing their present as being something akin to that which you suggest: either fearful pessimism or excited optimism; and I suppose that it is fair to say that either of these perspectives does not necessarily equate with reality. I find it fascinating that historical words can echo down through the ages and still be as relevant as the day of their inception. One might say that in one sense, "nothing changes" but then I am not sure if that is true? Nevertheless Dickens' opening to his novel, the Tale of Two Cities, seems to be very apt for today. I suppose, Antaganus, you might be right if you were to suggest that it may well be just man's pessimistic nature to see the times he lives in as being the worst there's been, but then are we not all a little conservative at heart; fearing change and things new? Innovations down the ages have always been prophesied, by someone, as "going to be the death of us".
Of course there have always been the doom's-day-ists, a la Nostradamus, to prophesy the beginning of Armageddon and those who might well quote Clint Eastwood in one of the Dirty Harry movies where a man falling from a 10 storey block was heard to say, as he passed the windows on the way down, "so far so good". But of course such a scenario would be different than just unfounded fear, as a man falling from a ten story block of flats would have an inevitable disastrous consequence. The separation of foundless pessimism and true Armageddon will be, as they say of the devil, in the detail.
I think our situation is not just fearful pessimism but of real substance. In Diligo Vita I want to draw attention to the influence of man on the future of the planet. But I have said there have been many "doom's-day-ist's" down the ages, prophesying one sort of Armageddon or another and I do not want to join them in some mystical fortune telling of inevitable impending disaster that has no possibility of redemption. So Antaganus I offer you some of that detail.
The Future is not in the clouded mystery of a soothsayer's crystal ball, but rather, to the seeing eye of a wise man; prophesies are possibilities and probabilities that are in the realms of a corollary. Attitudes make decisions, the subsequent actions of those decisions have reactions and repercussions. All are determinable (theoretically) given enough data. One has only to look at the corollary of events that are produced by acts of terrorism to see a chain of events that reflect a predictable human nature. Although an unpopular assertion, the existence of peoples that are so motivated to take such drastic action are themselves reacting to a perceived stimulus, which is perhaps a corollary that we in the west would prefer not to look at too closely. I would put it to you, Antaganus, that a "it will be alright" attitude is to play ostrich with what is obvious, if one has both the inclination and understanding enough to see it.
Antaganus: See what? you haven't shown me a problem yet, just that man is predictable, I think I could have told you that.
Population, Pollution and natural resources have been a foreseeable issue for over 60 years. With seven billion people and counting it doesn't take a genius or a Nostradamus to see that sooner rather than later this fact will produce situations that will be very predictable. It must be sublimely obvious that limited resources (oil, water, land) with an ever growing demand has to end in strife. If it comes to a "balloon debate" where someone's survival is at stake, we won't need a crystal ball to predict events.
We need to have a debate about world population, setting growth/reduction goals for the next 100 years without sending economists into paroxysms over the fears of an in-balance to demographics .
Of course there have always been the doom's-day-ists, a la Nostradamus, to prophesy the beginning of Armageddon and those who might well quote Clint Eastwood in one of the Dirty Harry movies where a man falling from a 10 storey block was heard to say, as he passed the windows on the way down, "so far so good". But of course such a scenario would be different than just unfounded fear, as a man falling from a ten story block of flats would have an inevitable disastrous consequence. The separation of foundless pessimism and true Armageddon will be, as they say of the devil, in the detail.
I think our situation is not just fearful pessimism but of real substance. In Diligo Vita I want to draw attention to the influence of man on the future of the planet. But I have said there have been many "doom's-day-ist's" down the ages, prophesying one sort of Armageddon or another and I do not want to join them in some mystical fortune telling of inevitable impending disaster that has no possibility of redemption. So Antaganus I offer you some of that detail.
The Future is not in the clouded mystery of a soothsayer's crystal ball, but rather, to the seeing eye of a wise man; prophesies are possibilities and probabilities that are in the realms of a corollary. Attitudes make decisions, the subsequent actions of those decisions have reactions and repercussions. All are determinable (theoretically) given enough data. One has only to look at the corollary of events that are produced by acts of terrorism to see a chain of events that reflect a predictable human nature. Although an unpopular assertion, the existence of peoples that are so motivated to take such drastic action are themselves reacting to a perceived stimulus, which is perhaps a corollary that we in the west would prefer not to look at too closely. I would put it to you, Antaganus, that a "it will be alright" attitude is to play ostrich with what is obvious, if one has both the inclination and understanding enough to see it.
Antaganus: See what? you haven't shown me a problem yet, just that man is predictable, I think I could have told you that.
Population, Pollution and natural resources have been a foreseeable issue for over 60 years. With seven billion people and counting it doesn't take a genius or a Nostradamus to see that sooner rather than later this fact will produce situations that will be very predictable. It must be sublimely obvious that limited resources (oil, water, land) with an ever growing demand has to end in strife. If it comes to a "balloon debate" where someone's survival is at stake, we won't need a crystal ball to predict events.
We need to have a debate about world population, setting growth/reduction goals for the next 100 years without sending economists into paroxysms over the fears of an in-balance to demographics .
Below are two resources that support my assertion of the problem of population;
www.healthknowledge.org In 2005 HealthKnowledge became an integral part of the Department of Health's 'Informing Healthier Choices' strategy, resulting in a fully developed learning forum, using different types of learning styles. It supports the continuing and professional development of those working in the fields of health and social care, voluntary organisations and others who wish to increase their public health skills by providing fast and easy access to quality learning materials.
http://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/health-information/3a-populations/population-gro
The second, for the more studious is a UN report; one can download all 542 PDF pages. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/policy/WPP2013/wpp2013.pdfwth
www.healthknowledge.org In 2005 HealthKnowledge became an integral part of the Department of Health's 'Informing Healthier Choices' strategy, resulting in a fully developed learning forum, using different types of learning styles. It supports the continuing and professional development of those working in the fields of health and social care, voluntary organisations and others who wish to increase their public health skills by providing fast and easy access to quality learning materials.
http://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/health-information/3a-populations/population-gro
The second, for the more studious is a UN report; one can download all 542 PDF pages. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/policy/WPP2013/wpp2013.pdfwth
Policies to Address Population Growth Nationally and Internationally Populations:Background
Global population is increasing by about 1.5 percent per year, a growth rate (should it persist) that in less than half a century will double the number of people who live on the planet. On the other hand, modern medical techniques are producing life extension but not healthy life extension, and we are seeing numbers of old and chronically sick or disabled elderly people in increasingly longer economically unproductive retirements, who need consequentially increasing numbers of younger people to support them. The ability of the Earth to sustain the human population, posed by Malthus over 200 years ago, is a serious question. Dependence on finite resources for energy and water is already threatening international stability. Potentially exponential population growth can only make matters worse. Improving economic development in the most populous countries of the developing world (India, China) is leading to changing patterns of demand, as people seek more affluent lifestyles. Food and energy demands are increasing faster than had been predicted. Air quality resulting from over-rapid industrialisation is becoming a major problem that will have major public health effects. The likely determinants of climate change, usually attributed to the developed nations, are now spread throughout the developing world, making the ability of nations to achieve the targets signed-up to at Kyoto unlikely to be achieved. Religion is a significant factor in population growth: families in catholic families tend to be larger than protestant, and Muslim tend to be larger than others. In both class, the religion tends to relegate the role of women to the second class. |
|
I would like to tell you a story Antaganus. The story of the Petri Dish, told to me some twenty years ago by a medical student that shared my flat.
The Story of the Petri Dish
(The Fate of Organisms in a Confined Environment)
|
If one takes a petri dish, sets it with a suitable nutrient broth and agar, and then exposes the same to a general infection of micro organisms one can monitor their progression. At first all is well, the newly found colonies develop and multiply. Soon, however, the growth of the various cultures begin to be in competition with each other and the dominant organisms encroach overwhelming the lesser until only a couple of the most successful remain. Eventually, these too, struggling to survive, are overcome by a lack of nutrition and an excess of poisonous excreta.
|
|
Antaganus: Oh my god! You aren't really likening mankind to bacterium? Seriously? You may be a microorganism but I most certainly am not.
Well, Antaganus, yes and no. Yes: in principle we do share a common trait, that of instinctual survival, like all other animals. And no: in that we are here discussing the the nature of mankind's own existence, which clearly no other animal is capable of contemplating. But the inescapable fact is, that like the micro organisms, man is programmed to be competitively motivated to survive and consequently the story of the petri dish is apposite. However, this ability to contemplate our own existence, is why we can determine mans actions into a corollary: man can most definitely be more than just his instincts, or I wouldn't be here trying to change things; but the fail-safe decision making process, that has not been altered by a believed principle, will be an instinctual decision, and no more so than when man is stressed by threatening events.
Antaganus: Oh come on! This is just philosophical conjecture. Ok, maybe you have a point in that we do have a problem with man's nature, and yes there is an awful lot of us but I still think we can overcome this... But more to the point where are the details of these real problems you promised me?
Inequality in a global village: You must accept the well documented fact Antaganus, that the rich appear to be getting richer, and the poor poorer, be that individuals within a country, or globally, country to country. Leaving all argument aside for a moment, to be quite categorical, the state of affairs where one individual can die (or at least live in grinding poverty with little hope of change), while others can own huge yachts and jets and can live an opulent decadent life style, is quite the most pitiful disgrace, for which mankind should be utterly ashamed. It is said that we live in a global village no doubt reflecting that in this age the nations of the world are less disparate; that the peoples of the world are now so intertwined that the imagery of a village is apposite. As such, we should be more caring towards one another as one might in a family. If the parents of a family were found to be starving certain family members whilst lavishing luxuries on others, we would call this morally iniquitous, and yet, living in the " global village" of today we do just that. Surely the sense of ironic obscenity, cannot be lost in one portion of the world suffering from problems of obesity, whilst another portion is starving to death. So, Antaganus, I make no argument to defend or support my statement (above). I choose to say and make it based on a principled belief: that of LOVE and being loving to my fellow man. For myself, I need no further argument; but for understanding's sake will expand on it, to explain why this disgraceful situation happens.
Antaganus: Ah, is that the faint whiff of sanctimonious piety I smell? That will be God, lurking just round the corner lol. How convenient that you don't have to give any reasoning for your position, but how nice of you to condescend to giving us mere mortals an explanation.
But, Antaganus, I am no God but a mortal, who sees and thinks, and my explanation is more human than divine.
The free market economy, as well as setting a value on goods and services relative to supply versus demand, also has the effect of being meritocratic: that which is "good" or wanted will sell. A meritocratic system does have an implication of fairness in that it rewards relative to merit. It is from this apparent fairness that we deem the free market system as being an acceptable economic model. Of course, what the system fails to take into account, is that the starting position is anything but fair: there is not an equality of opportunity. Nor does the system appear to link reward to "true" value: producing anomalous values towards : pop singers, film stars, football players, sports cars, jewellery; in contrast to doctors, carers, teachers, wildlife, the environment.
We live with the free market economy model - a value system that directly reflects our instinctual nature: "the survival of the fittest", and as such fairness doesn't come into it. The very nature of "survival of the fittest" is inherently unfair, from an absolute equality point of view. If I have a cake, and wish to divide it up equitably between four people, that would be obvious, (absolute equality, - one quarter each, unconditionally); but, if I say that to earn your share of the cake, you must run a race and the first there can have as much as he likes, this would be more akin to the free market system, (relative fairness, - conditional on competitive ability). But then, if in my race, I decided to handicap some, of the not so good runners, (existing poverty, resulting in a lack of resources, investment and infrastructure) this, clearly, would be anything but fair. There will always be a loser in something that is a competition. And so Antaganus, because our free market economy is competitive, it will inherently, produce poverty (as the "loser").
It is of great importance, that we understand the difference between these two positions. One, (absolute equality) is truly moral: a "good thing", that is without condition and needs no justification, other than the principle upon which it is based: in this case of love. Although I understand the sentiment, of those who argue for it, the other, (relative/competitive fairness) is based upon the exploitation of human frailty, (only the "fittest" will survive).
Antaganus: Did I get that right? You are saying that, because the nature of the free market reflects our animal instincts, of competitive survival, we should get rid of the free market as our economic model? Get real! OK, I can see where you are coming from; yes, you do have a point about the value of things being a bit askew; and maybe we in the west, could give more of a helping hand in regard to investment and loans, but hey, there is a lot of aid that goes to third world countries already. But the real issue I have is, as I suspected, your pie in the sky ideas. You do-gooders can always see the flaws in something, but aren't so good at coming up with alternatives for the things you knock. OK, so there may be a couple of issues with a meritocratic free market, but at least it rewards the good guys, the ones that work hard, they should get the cake, not some lazy spongers. The free market has done us very well for the last couple of hundred years or so, and, unless you can come up with an equally good alternative, as they say, stop bitching.
The decision makers: politics. Bitching? It disappoints me Antaganus, to think, that in spite of your tacit concessions to my argument, of the failings of the free-market, you still see my argument as bitching. I concede your assertion, that I should have a replacement for that which I deem inadequate. And I do! Far from being "pie in the sky", as you put it, I have already alluded to the use of principled beliefs as a means of dictating our behaviour and decision making. On which point, incidentally, I noticed by its absence, no comment was forth coming, on your part, other than to refer to it being "sanctimonious piety".
But let's move on Antaganus. In many ways, it is not just the issues themselves that are the problem, it is more the way and attitude with which we are dealing with them. I find it odd, that in our litigation ridden society, where safety has brought about buzz phrases like, risk assessment-management, in regard to the initiation of any building or industrial endeavour, that the rigours of such a merit-worthy practice, should not be employed in the grander, more fundamental issues that face the world to day. It is the sacred-cows, like the nature of our democratic government, or the economics of a supply and demand culture, that need to be exposed to the questioning rigours of a risk assessment; particularly, when dealing with issues of population, pollution, and poverty.
Ah, Antaganus! I hear you say these issues are being dealt with. And yes, it is true, these issues are being dealt with; but only when the "kicking and screaming" is sufficient to overcome the constraints of the status quo and persuade the true controllers of man's destiny: the politicians, the economists, and larger multi-national businesses, to action. But the action is only ever enough to placate the "kickers and screamers"; it does not go to the heart of the issues and lead to real resolution of them.
This "kicking and screaming" method of management is brought about by an adversarial model: where the contenders of an argument fight their particular stance on a given topic. This method of management is management by crisis: solutions only being found by compromise; whereas my "risk assessment management model" is true pro-active management of directed order based on principles.
But to be honest, I don't blame our politicians for failing to have the leadership qualities we need. They, and the electorate, have fallen victim to what has become a fundamental flaw in the current version of our democratic politics: where the leadership qualities, of passion and conviction of principles, has fallen prey to the pursuit of power, making, in effect, the electorate "tail" wag the leadership "dog". Our power hungry politicians have become like cheap bookmakers, creating populist manifestos, betting on what they perceive to be the fickle electorate's most acceptable agenda at any one moment. As much as true leadership will not be found within this flawed democratic system, nor will a visionary manifesto be found through a consensus of the majority of the electorate.
What we need, is true leadership, based on fundamental principles, by people that are not afraid to challenge the electorate to think; and for a well informed electorate, to have faith and trust, in the people they have given power to. The nature of the relationship between the people, the government and the press, (those that should be informing the people), needs to be debated.
Antaganus: Mmmm... well you might have a point there; our politics does appear to have become a bit like horse trading in political issues and gone are the days of visionary leaders of yesterday
The summation of this evidence is that governments and the people of the world must face the reality of our situation. Population growth must be stopped and in time reduced, not just for the sake of all the other living things that we share the planet with - the lesser bacterium of the petri dish which have already been degraded, both in species and habitat - but for our own existence as well. If we don't, then without question, we can look forward to many more wars, and conflicts of escalating proportions.
As I see it, the problem of population is inexorably linked to economics, particularly for the more developed and developing world. Belief and confidence in a successful, stable economy, dictates, not only that companies are in profit, but that that profit should grow year on year. This state of necessary, perpetual growth, is echoed at a political/social level where governments "sell" the notion of the possibility of constant em-betterment to the electorate. Growth and em-betterment is our leaders' "carrot of contentment" for the electorate, so that they can believe their lives can get better - irrespective, of the opulence they already have, compared to the rest of the world. Enough is never enough.
I also see a real problem with altering demographics. As stated in the above article an ageing, growing (due to better health and subsequent longevity) population puts a lot of strain on the current workforce to sustain a growing non working population.
We are the dominant organism, the winner, if you like, in this race for survival. With seven billion of us and counting, there is no danger of us not surviving. But we are the imbalance in nature: we have no natural predator to check our numbers; but what we do have is an intellect, that can understand the necessity for change, and the mechanism of principled belief, with which to accomplish change. Of course, the real issue of the population problem is in what we can do about it. Stop having children!? Leaving the demographic and economics aside, telling people to not have children, isn't exactly going to win any votes (literally). This enormously emotive conundrum, is truly the stuff of impasse, or is it?
As I see it, the problem of population is inexorably linked to economics, particularly for the more developed and developing world. Belief and confidence in a successful, stable economy, dictates, not only that companies are in profit, but that that profit should grow year on year. This state of necessary, perpetual growth, is echoed at a political/social level where governments "sell" the notion of the possibility of constant em-betterment to the electorate. Growth and em-betterment is our leaders' "carrot of contentment" for the electorate, so that they can believe their lives can get better - irrespective, of the opulence they already have, compared to the rest of the world. Enough is never enough.
I also see a real problem with altering demographics. As stated in the above article an ageing, growing (due to better health and subsequent longevity) population puts a lot of strain on the current workforce to sustain a growing non working population.
We are the dominant organism, the winner, if you like, in this race for survival. With seven billion of us and counting, there is no danger of us not surviving. But we are the imbalance in nature: we have no natural predator to check our numbers; but what we do have is an intellect, that can understand the necessity for change, and the mechanism of principled belief, with which to accomplish change. Of course, the real issue of the population problem is in what we can do about it. Stop having children!? Leaving the demographic and economics aside, telling people to not have children, isn't exactly going to win any votes (literally). This enormously emotive conundrum, is truly the stuff of impasse, or is it?