Israel Palestine - Why not support and care for each other

 The recent attack by Hamas is morally wrong, but the reaction of Israel is also morally wrong. Both sides must be condemned, as the only justification for the State of Israel comes from a story dating back to the Bronze age and Hamas should not kill other human beings in order to further its cause. Neither side makes any serious attempt to integrate or find a solution, which is to support and care for each other.

The modern state of Israel was formed just after the second world war when us Brits became alarmed at the scale of migration of Jewish people flooding into Palestine, and tried to control the numbers. A short war followed, but the war weary British didn't see the point of fighting and so left. Both the British and Israel didn't considered the Palestinian people already living there. Many in the middle east see Hamas as fighting for their homeland, just like Ukraine, and yet the west backs Israel, thus losing all credibility in the eyes of half the world. It's tribalism at it's worst.

Attacking Gaza with overwhelming force will only breed more hate, more violence and more entrenched view points on both sides. Cutting off water, power and food is morally wrong. It's the same as Stalin did to Ukraine in the holodomor when his communist regime took their food away and 4 million starved. One evil crime does not justify another. The West should be attempting to get both sides to stop basing their policy on history, and should try to get acceptance that neither side is going anywhere, and make all sides focus on how to make a better future,  respectfully living together, whether that be in some form of a two state solution or sharing the land.  

The past cannot be changed, but we shouldn't let the past restrict our options for a better future. Israel should seek justice not revenge, and never forget they have a responsibility to the Palestinian people whose home they now occupy and should share.

As I have said before, -

All war is tragedy. War is a primitive, backward and a base activity that is promoted by people who are not thinking of a better future and follow out of date philosophies. Those who start wars are people who do not have the skills  to solve their problems by normal political means, ie respectful negotiation and compromise. They can only achieve their goals by conning others to commit violence with threats and lies and so are not fit to lead. War only spreads destruction, desolation, misery and pain. It is no solution to problems. Everyone has a selfless duty, not to hide from the horrors of our past, but to stand together against such cowards and fools. We should all unite to consign war to the history books, to keep war out of our present and humanity’s future.

I have a dream!

 Our closest relatives, the Neanderthals, died out 40,000 years ago leaving us, Homo sapiens, to dominate the planet.  In his book on the subject, palaeoanthropologist Ludovic Slimak proposes that their demise was not because of failure to adapt to climate change, but because of homo sapiens superior weapons. What is implied, is that Homo sapiens killed off the Neanderthals, in the first incidence of genocide. 

In the Neolithic, when a settled farming lifestyle was becoming established, evidence is emerging (in  Europe) for many acts of whole communities being massacred with bodies being disposed of in mass  graves. (Schoneck - Kilianstadtan). Central Europe is being seen as a bit of a "blood bath" as Professor Alice Roberts puts it. Also when homo sapiens first entered the Americas and New Zealand,  species went extinct, so it is speculated that we killed them off in a frenzy of hunting.

Of course, these are only  theories based on very little evidence, so you can pick and choose your preferred version of reality, and no one can say you are wrong. But given humanity’s historic record of violence, tribalism and destruction, it certainly fits my low opinion of homo sapiens. (See “History of the world in a single object” below).

It is now generally accepted that we are in a new geological era, the Anthropocene*. This period started mid 20th Century, when humans started to irreversible change the planet and now there is no going back. We continue to harm ourselves and the planet through wars, pollution, tribalism, violence and selfishness and by using technology to vastly speed up and increase the effects of these bad habits, it appears that the future of Homo Sapiens is going to be worse, and probably much worse.

If you accept that, because of our superior weaponry, we raped and killed off the Neanderthals, (rape could explain Neanderthal genes are in our genome),  fought battles with the first farmers and killed off many species upon arrival in a new land, then it looks likely that from the very beginning, our success as a species is based on  genocide against other peoples, namely the Neanderthals,  It would appear that our fundamental nature  from deep prehistory, is shameful. People like Hitler, Stalin and Putin are just keeping up the tradition.

I’m sure you are aware of the many great challenges facing humanity, and if you have read some of my essays, you will know that I’m not convinced humanity is up to the job. Great change is coming and we need to change greatly. We need to learn from the past, face up to who we are, accept that our fundamental nature, which up till now, has turned humanity into a great success**.and move on to something better. You could say that because we need to change fundamentally, humanity needs to evolve.

So, having acknowledged the reality of a new geological era, why can‘t we recognise the emergence of a new species, a new split in the tree of life,, a new version of Homo. Isn’t it time for the emergence of  HOMO MUTUALARLIS, a new species that cares, co-operates, puts others first and rejects the violence, selfishness and tribalism of our less enlightened ancestors? Such a species, that recognises that their individual wants, desires and life, is of equal. or of less, importance than that of  others,  that   continually strives to make the world a better place, rather than worse, could then look forward to a compassionate, happier, and sustainable world. 

Well, that’s my dream, you probably think. But aren't there already examples of this fine new species out there in the field? We just need them to breed like rabbits!!!!!

*(up date - geologists who are more at home with timescales of millions of years have rejected this conceit, but the idea has taken root in the public imagination)

**(if you regard accumulation of knowledge and domination of other species as a definition of success)

Violence and how to reduce it.

 The news and history books are full of violence. War in Ukraine, fighting in the Middle East, gun murders, stabbings and sexual violence is portrayed as the norm and it seems it has always been this way. Why are humans so violent towards each other, and if we understood why, could the knowledge be used to eliminate it? Certain writers (Pinker) have pointed out that in recent times the number of wars have been on the downturn, but the risk of this trend reversing and the unacceptable high levels of gun, knife and sexual crime mean human behaviour is not improving significantly. There is still much work to be done,  in order to make the world a better place.

To tackle this subject, it is necessary to recognise the various different forms of violence, whether it be at individual, societal or international level,  and then decide if there are non violent alternatives.

A) Violence as protection.

If some one threatens you or attacks your close friends and love ones, they will definitely be doing so because they think you are no threat to them. No one starts a fight thinking they will be the one who ends up being worse off. However, for you, the target of these threats and violence, there are three well know options open to you. 1) take  a beating (turn the other cheek) and hope it stops quickly, and seek justice later 2) Run away (flight response) or 3) use violence to stop violence ie fight back. Options 1) and 2) are non violent on your part, but are risky; as they leave the aggressor in a position to commit further violent acts. The aggressor may later reflect on their behaviour and realise they acted selfishly and apologise, but usually more violence will follow. Option 3, fighting back, will lead to less violence if you can beat the aggressor, but if you lose, you will have taken a beating for nothing and the aggressors violent tactics will be rewarded. And even if you do win, it will always be at a cost to yourself and the defeated are unlikely to revert to peaceful ways and will probably seek revenge much later.

Are there other non violent options? Of course there are. Firstly you could project an image of superior strength, so no aggressor ever thinks he can win, so peace ensues - but this is still peace by threat of violence so doesn’t really lead to a relaxed peaceful society.  The cold war is an example.

No, I would say the best non violent response to aggression is to get all your friends to stand with you and face down the aggressor. If someone picks on you, call on others to stand shoulder to shoulder and send the message that the aggressor will have to defeat many, if he wants to defeat you. This is the strategy used by kids getting the assistance of their big brother and also used by Nato concerning Ukraine. Standing with Ukraine gives them a chance against Putin, but if Nato truly backed Ukraine and committed all of Natos forces, then Putin would back down. This explains why he keeps use of  nuclear retaliation in the minds of everyone, as so far this keeps Nato out of the war.. 

B) Violence as Punishment

Humans live in societies, and to live successfully together, societies create rules and laws so individuals don’t make the society worse by acting in their own self interest at the detriment of others. And with rules, comes enforcement and punishment,  so that future bad behaviour is deterred. Historically, this punishment was  some form of violence, whether it was a parent hitting a child, getting paraded around the village as a shameful offender, being banished, mutilated or executed. Societies around the world used violence as an acceptable method of punishment for the good of the whole. Today punishment is less violent, as children are taught how to behave by reward, verbal  punishment and temporary banishment of toys or friends; and adults are fined or locked up in prison, but violence is still there in the background, as the ultimate threat.

Could humans live in a world with only non violent punishments? To a certain extent this has already happened but if a prisoner is violent to the guards, force will be met with reasonable force, which is deemed acceptable by the law. But in this situation both the prisoner and the guards are worse off, so violence is futile but happens anyway.

Perhaps if rules could be explained and understood as being fair and for the good of all, and that violence makes everyone worst off, perhaps then societies could ditch violence once and for all. But I suppose there will always be rules, laws and therefore law breakers and the need for punishment. The aim should be to keep these to low levels through a culture in which violence is not seen as acceptable or beneficial to anyone.

C) Violence as an outlet to frustration

When some one of higher status, such as your boss, does something you don’t like, you may feel powerless to do any thing about it. You will be frustrated and it is all too common to take out anger on someone of lower status. Domestic violence is an inexcusable example. However,  recognising your  frustration, the unfairness of taking it out on innocent others  and not accepting you are totally powerless in any situation, results in non violent solutions. Bush and Blair invading Iraq after 9/11 is an international example of a violent response to frustration. They went to war with a non nuclear nation, when the organisation and people behind 9/11 were criminals, not a country. 

I suspect the mass shootings common in the USA are this form of violence. People of low status, empowered by easily available weapons, who think they have no options to improve their lives, take it out on innocent bystanders.

D) Violence as a means to increase social or national status (power)

Recent research (Harvard Study of Adult Development) into happiness has concluded that the happiest people have lots of friends,  which they call high Social Fitness. For example happy people are popular and have a high social status and therefore social power and also social support. As my previous essays describe, the reasons relate to life’s basic need to reproduce with some one else’s good genes in order to ensure successful offspring in future generations. If you are popular and have many friends, the choice of partners will be so much greater and better.

Most of us choose to work hard, be nice, helpful, entertaining and generous in order to get friends and increase our social status. However this takes time, effort, self sacrifice and personality that some people of low status do not possess, or just can’t  be bothered with. Instead they may choose to get violent as a short cut to leap up the social ladder.

Want to get rich quick - just threaten and steal it and then share your ill gotten gains with your rapidly increasing circle of friends. The police will be after you but if you can get away with it, you can live like Royalty. it’s a short cut to increase social status and once you have established your self your increased power means you can start ordering others about to do the dirty work. As long as the money keeps coming in and you keep being generous, your position will be maintained or enhanced. Of course you have to ignore the pain and suffering inflicted on others, but why care about them when you are doing so well?

Putin’s war in Ukraine is fundamentally about maintaining or increasing his social status. Before the war he was losing popularity, but annexing Crimea was one of his popular successes - so why not annex all of Ukraine and boost his popularity even more. Unfortunately this has not proved successful and as he is now fighting a long war that he cant back out of or win, all he can do is put as best a spin on it as possible and show how popular he is with North Korea, China, India and some African States, who’s leaders also have popularity problems of their own. If citizens realised that wars only benefit the elites, who keep well away from the danger, whilst wasting  national wealth and people, perhaps they would stop following orders and only fight in matters concerning self protection.

Violence is also manifesting itself at an international level in an attempt to increase the respect and standing of one nation over another. China, that for past historical reasons wrongly has an ingrained inferiority complex, is toying with the idea of using war and aggression to gain the respect of the West and teach the world a lesson that their way of doing things is as good as, or superior to theirs. It’s a shame that they don’t understand, that what would really gain the respect and admiration of the west, is if they could develop a country, that has excellent health and education systems, a thriving sustainable green economy, fair, tolerant and respected law and order, free citizens and superior wise leadership. But instead, it is far easier to bomb and invade Taiwan or so many in China think. 

Wars fought over resources, such as Israel / Palestine wars over who has rights to occupy the land, fall into this category. After the second world war, Israelis kicked the British out of Palestine, when the Colonial Power became alarmed at the high number of Jewish people migrating into the area. War weary Britain didn't put up much of a fight and no one considered the views of the powerless Palestinian who already lived there. The violence has never stopped since, as one side sees a Bronze age story as evidence of their right to the land, and the other side says we are here now and always have been. Neither side forgets the history, nobody is talking and neither side works for a better integrated, respectful tolerant future.

To counter violence at an individual level, the culture of society especially for our young people must be one that abhors any form of violence against others. If a clear message is sent that using a knife or gun will cause suffering to others,  turn you into a target of violence, will not increase your social status and there are plenty of other non violent opportunities to progress in life, will we see less gun crime, knife crime and sexual crime etc. But this will require a complete change of mindset, from reducing violence in films, games, sport and music as well as education, celebrity endorsement, as well as youth development programmes  to bring about a change in culture.  

E) Violence as an alternative to tolerance and debate (failure of politics)

Everything you think, you believe to be true, because  you wouldn’t think it if you knew it to be false. Therefore it is easy to conclude that anyone who thinks differently to you is wrong, but because you can’t prove otherwise or can't back your ideas with indisputable evidence (or don't want to risk finding out you are wrong), you just punch them in the face to shut them up.

Other people of differing ideologies, faiths or beliefs, who to you are obviously wrong and therefore inferior, can be dismissed as stupid and sub human. You in your correct mindset are superior. Such warped thinking, taken to extremes, leads to violent oppression of minorities, wars of religion, holocausts and genocides. Beware when anyone starts talking about others in a dehumanising, prejudiced, ignorant or biased way, it could be used as an excuse for violence against them.

If we could just accept that some questions have no right or wrong answer, and others think differently to you or I, we are all continually learning and violent intolerance just leads to more violence, perhaps humanity may be judged as making progress.

F) Psychopathic or Evil violence

Psychologists working with mass murderers, sex offenders and very violent people report that there is no such thing as an evil person. There are evil acts and if we are truthfully with ourselves, we are all capable of such acts. It all depends on context. I would shoot Putin if I had a chance and would justify this to myself as destroying a cancerous cell for the health of the body of humanity - but such an act would probably just start an international war or send Russia into chaos, so wouldn’t I be as evil as I see him? (Perhaps it should be the Russian people who deal with Putin.)

Forensic Psychologists, such as Rabecca Myer and Gwen Adshead, who endeavour to treat offenders to prevent more victims, have written books based on their experiences with violent serial killers and sex offenders, (of which I have only read reviews). However what I understand they write of is many normal people who have done terrible things. This form of violence is thankfully rare, but Myers and Adshead says that risk factors for  violence are, no where to live, substance abuse, child hood abuse, paranoid mental illness, no sense of purpose, depression, disorganised lives, fear, disillusionment, no self worth and no relationships, so perhaps its all about attempting to increasing social status, but by the wrong method. Fundamentally, they point out there is no gene for violence, therefore such behaviour could be drastically reduced given sufficient resources. But its quicker and easier to just lock them up rather than address the causes of the problems..  

G) Sexual Violence. 

To realise the enormity of the problem of sexual violence, principally rape, I would encourage everyone to read  Disgrace, Global Reflections on Sexual Violence by historian Joanna Bourke. This book gives an unbiased, non political and scholarly overview of the problem, and recent attempts to reduce it. The last chapter calls for a rape free world but (as all historian do) fails to develop the knowledge gained into a practical strategy for future action beyond calling for solidarity. Having just read the book, the following are my preliminary suggestions on how to reduce sexual violence, which at a fundamental level is the failure of one individual, to recognize  that the wants, desires and life of another individual, is of equal importance to their own.

a) Rape, whilst it does not end a life, destroys a life. Therefore legal systems should treat rape the same as murder. 

b) Boy and girls should grow up and be educated together, never separately. If they learn to live together as soon as they are born, the more chance of respect of the other sex, will be a life long trait. 

c) Male masturbation must be de-stigmatized and become culturally acceptable. Consensual Homosexuality gives males access to (and if measures are taken against sexual disease)  unlimited harmless sex. For heterosexual males, it is a cultural norm (I would say myth) that sex can only take place with a woman. However if masturbation is seen as an acceptable and equally pleasant alternative, this gives an outlet to the male sex drive and the basic genetic programme of the urgent need to reproduce. Such a culture change would eliminate the need for comfort women, prostitution and perhaps rape.

d) War, which reduces social behavioral constraints and hence lead to more sexual violence, must be consigned to the history books. 

e) Religions, with their in built assumption of male domination over women, must be tackled with humanism and atheism.

H) Delegated Violence or State approved violence

Here in the UK, the law says that use of "reasonable force" is acceptable to counteract violence.  However in different societies the definition of what is reasonable will be different. If those in power, give orders to those lower in the hierarchy, ie go arrest that trouble maker, or go fight that war, then they are not being violent themselves and those who obey the orders can think that they are not responsible for the violence, as they have the excuse that they are only following orders. History and the Miligram experiments the 1960's show how important the context of a situation is to the level of violence a person will carry out. 

Obeying authority is drummed into us from the first moment we are born. We are taught for good reason to obey our parents, as children know nothing of the dangers of the world. This trait stays with us into adulthood as society works best if everyone obeys the rules that make life easier for everyone. However because of this and the basic drive to be successful in our society, individuals rarely stand up to power when rules or those in power are bad and promote violence. And because those in power gain by delegating the violence, and reward those carrying out the violence, it is very difficult to change the culture.

To prevent this kind of violence, someone has to stand up and say this is wrong, followed by many joining until the majority overthrow those in power. I can highly recommend Bystander Society by Mary Fulbrook concerning what can result when people take the easiest personal path, and just look the other way, even when they know what is happening around them is wrong.

Conclusion

Human societies and international relations are based on violence and it appears that we cannot live with out at least the threat (and occasional use) of violence to enforce acceptable behaviour.

Could this change in the future? Is the abandonment of violence just a dream?

Well, the Banded Mongoose Research Project (please bear with me) studies how the social banded mongoose lives in groups that frequently fight battles with neighbouring groups in order to gain territory. They attempt to drive other groups to extinction by killing young female pups. “Humans and Banded Mongooses are among the most warlike animals on the planet” says Michael Cant the Project leader. This is all very interesting and makes for an entertaining read. However, what the article I read mentioned, but didn’t highlight, is that the Banded Mongoose is one of 25 species of mongoose in Africa and that most species of mongoose are solitary whereas the Banded Mongoose lives in colonies called bands. Therefore most other species survive by more peaceful means. Perhaps if the researchers studied those more peaceful species, rather than the war like species, we might realise that violence as a strategy has alternatives that can be equally, if not more successful. As Peter Kropotkin highlighted back in 1902, peaceful co operation, sharing and  mutual aid is very much a part of nature and a much more productive strategy, especially in a tough environment.

Other research in to violence in apes is highlighting the importance of females moderating male violence (kit Opie of University of Bristol). Primates, who live in groups where only females leave the group, where males form coalitions, males are dominant over females and males are exclusively responsible for defending the group, all trend towards increased levels of violence. So perhaps increased sex equality in human societies could lead to decreasing levels of violence.

An educational strategy also exists, and this is to get any potential aggressor to reflect on the long term implications of violent behaviour. If everyone considers what their future life will be like if they adopt a strategy of  violent behaviour, and by using examples from history  and personal experience to make them realise that violence only leads to more violence, which is to theirs and everyone's detriment,  perhaps we will see less.

So, I conclude that humans don‘t need to base their societies on violence. Violence is a learnt behaviour that can be unlearnt. There is an alternative way to live and (despite what is reported in the news and we encounter on the internet)  most of us have chosen that path of peace, it just needs the majority to convince the minority that it is so. Perhaps if Russia had a First Lady and the Chinese Government was 50/50 male female rather than 100% male and everyone shunned anyone gaining from using any form of violence, we might see a better world. 

If we recognised we are one global tribe of humanity, all living on the same planet, perhaps we would realise there is no "other" to fight, and through out history, we have only been harming our selves.


    

Less is More

 I’ve called my blog ‘Make the world a better place’ as I think all our actions should be for the benefit of all  others, living now or in the future. This gives human lives purpose, meaning, value and happiness. But if this is true, the exact opposite must also be true, so I’ve also toyed with the idea of renaming it ‘Stop ruining the world’ because, as the world is already wonderful, is there is any need to “make” anything? Maybe we only need to minimise our harmful actions in order to keep the world the paradise it is. Perhaps we should learn to do less, not more, especially concerning the environment.

I first learnt the value of inaction and the difficulty I have in doing nothing, on a walk, or rather a paddle, in New Zealand. The Inland Pack Track involves paddling down a spectacular river gorge in ankle deep warm tropical water that cuts through the limestone landscape. It takes a few days, so nights are spent sleeping in caves in the cliff sides, one of which is so large it’s called the ballroom. It’s all very idyllic, and after the first day of relaxing paddling (there’s no tiring up hill sections)  I set up camp under the huge overhang of the ballroom. After cooling  off under the waterfall, I went to sleep next to a camp fire whilst watching the glow worms on the roof of the cave. I was perfectly contented despite the rain that had start to fall.

However, the next morning it was still raining. The water level had risen alarmingly and the river was now a raging torrent. Above the noise of the waves, eddies and backflows, the sound of the boulders grinding together as they were tumbled down stream by the power of the water, meant carefree paddling was off the agenda. The water was at least a meter deep and fast flowing. No way was I getting into the water carrying a big rucksack. I was trapped.

By mid day the rain had stopped but the water flow remained high and fast. As something to do I had built a small cairn to mark the water level, laid out stones to spell SOS to any passing aircraft and thought of bad outcomes. I was on my own, know one knew where I was, and the car was parked off road so no one would notice it. It had stopped raining, but what if it started again? What if it was the start of the rainy season and the river would remain high until next summer. My map, warning of the dangers of rivers and the frequency of drowning, only made me feel more worried and isolated. No one would miss me or noticed my abandoned car, so hope of  outside help  was weeks away. I rationed out my three packs of noodles and concluded I had to do something.

Being a climber and mountaineer, I decided to tackle the gorge walls. If escape by the river was impossible, I would have to get out over land. However, as the cliffs where covered in thick tropical vegetation, and the eroded limestone landscape full of man trapping pot holes, this proved dangerous and impossible with a heavy back pack. There was no exposed rock to get hold of and everything was covered in deep soggy vegetation, most of which was extremely slippery, unstable and so rotten it  disintegrated when touched. What looked like solid wood, often proved to be rotten and just collapsed when touched and disappeared into some hole that was hidden by a covering of thick vegetation. After an hour of effort getting no where and several near falls into the river and slips into a hidden pot holes, I retreated back to the cave.

Dejected, I noticed the level of the river had dropped a few inches but was still flowing as strong as ever. I paced about. I couldn’t read. I was full of stress and energy but there was nothing to do but just sit and look at the water and listen to the grinding of the submerged boulders. I though of home.

That evening I cracked. I couldn’t just sit here doing nothing. I had to do something . The water had dropped a few more inches but at that rate it would be many days before it returned to paddling depth. I found two stout wooden sticks to aid my balance, donned my back pack and entered the water.

The power of the water against my legs  was surprising. I struggled to keep my footing.  When it reached my waist, both sticks snapped under the strain, and I was swept off into deeper water. This was a very dangerous moment If I lost my footing, my sack would have flipped me over and probably held me under. I would have either to jettison the pack (which would have been difficult whilst being swept downstream) or drown.

Fortunately neither of these things happened. When the sticks broke. I leaned back against the flow but was picked up by the water and swept down stream. My pack, however, which was full of plastic bags to keep things dry, acted as a float, and as I was not totally out of my depth, my occasional contact with the river bed meant I was able to prevent my self from rolling over. I sort of moon walked, barely in control, in giant hops or bounces rapidly downstream fighting to keep upright. There was no time to think, just survive. Go with the flow but fight to keep upright.

I have no idea of the distance I went or the time I was in the water, but eventually I was swept to the other side of the gorge and managed to grab hold of rocks on the far cliff and bring myself to a halt. Clinging to boulders and the cliff I managed to work my way further down stream until I could scramble up to a small cave well above the water level. Probably shocked by the experience, I don’t remember what I though at that moment other than to spending  the night in that cave was the only option.

The next morning, the sun was out, the water was back to ankle depth and I realised I had risked a drowning for nothing. In this limestone country the water levels go down as quickly as they come up and you should wait patiently rather than enter the fast flowing deep water. Doing nothing is the best option.

Ever since this experience I’ve been aware that western culture or the “Protestant Work Ethic” as its called means I and a lot of other white Anglo Saxons just can’t stop doing things, regardless of whether its for the better or not. This obsession to seize the day, get stuck in or find a solution is deep rooted and often creates more problems than it solves, especially when we don‘t fully understand reality.  From Robinson Crusoe who tirelessly constructs his new home on a desert island, to the film the Martian, where Matt Demon  Sciences the S**t out of being stuck on Mars, work followed by more work is always deemed to be the answer.

Years ago, I enrolled on a management  course, but when I inquired if any research had been done into the concept of over-management, (ie when too many cooks spoil the broth), I didn’t get a helpful response. When I was working, it was frowned upon if I knocked off early, turned off my phone or didn’t work weekends, even though every thing was under control. Even now, when I’m retired, when I says I’ve not been doing much and have no current plans, I get sorrowful looks as I’m deemed to be unhappy and wasting my life, of which little remains.

Governments find it almost impossible to do nothing and can’t help but interfere. They get criticised for not sorting out what ever is deem to be the latest crisis. In-action is dithering, a sign of indecisiveness, lack of confidence and  weakness, So a considered thoughtful response is out of the question, and a knee jerk, over reacting panic measure is  the norm. Keeping the hysterical fear spreading press (who must have an inflated story in order to boost sales) and ranting scared majority happy is the priority. Hence we get lockdowns, windfall taxes, company bail outs, hand outs, bad laws and economic policies and pointless targets rather than well thought out policy that addresses the real causes of the perceived problems which will probably sort themselves out given time.

Particularly, when it comes to the environment, doing nothing is especially important. I used to volunteer to work for a local conservation group, but all we seem to do was “manage” nature by cutting down trees, digging up shrubs and piling up the debris into large heaps that remained an eyesore for years to come. Fortunately when I wrote to them, explaining that the most beautiful places in the world I had visited, where the ones were humans had little or no impact, my idea that conservation should be about minimising the human impact on the land seem to take root, and they are now busying themselves buying up land, remodelling it to whatever they deem best and declaring themselves the saviours of nature. We just can’t get our heads round the fact that nature doesn’t need us and would be far better off with out us.  

With the implications of man made climate change now obvious, it is important that we learn to do nothing or a whole lot less, especially when it comes to burning fossil fuels. Unfortunately there is currently no sustainable way of fly off to all parts of the world, as I ignorantly did when younger. We will have to learn that we can still enjoy life without air miles. There is beauty and wonder wherever you look in this world and books and the computer can bring far off places to you with out the emissions. I acknowledge its not the same as visiting a honey pot tourist location for yourself, but every man destroys what he loves, and isn’t mass tourism destroying exactly what we are hoping to find when we travel? On my last visit to a Mediterranean Island, it was over run by cruise ship passengers, souvenir shops, massive soulless holiday developments, commercialised crowded beaches and noisy night time bars staffed and owned by non locals. Hell truly  is other people, if you want to experience the beauty of the world, and don‘t we just go to these place just to brag about them, rather than truly experience them?.

Its easy to forget that adventures and fun can be had closer to home and there’s isn’t a need to go far to fill our free time. Hopefully more will realise that the holiday industry is just selling us empty dreams and will, like me, learn that doing nothing is sometimes the best option, without nearly drowning on the other side of the world.       
 

Human behaviour Explained

The writer of a letter published in the New Scientist magazine declares that fathoming human behaviour is hard. However, if we condense the point of a humans life to be, firstly survive by the easiest means, then climb the social status ladder as high as possible so we can  reproduce with the best genes possible,  followed by bring up the kids and grand kids, and finally run out of energy and die - then perhaps things become clearer. 

From this premise it is easy to see that we crave approval and status within our social groups, (as this makes survival and reproduction alot easier) so we will usually follow group behaviour, even when it is not the morally right or intelligent thing to do. Our infrequent but continued use of war and violence is explained as a short cut for low status individuals to gain wealth & status thus becoming more attractive to the opposite sex.. Our reluctance to reduce CO2 emissions, even though we know they are damaging our planet, can be explained as to do so, means changing our high consuming, high status, oil based life styles, that demonstrates what  great genes we have and how successful offspring will be, if they are mixed with yours.

 Evidence – I’ve just told my partner I will never fly again and was threatened with the end of our 14 year relationship!!! I suppose it all boils down to sex in the end. 

Or will intelligence finally over ride our selfish genes? 

Make the world a better place

 The motto that I live by is that we should all strive to make the world a better place and that this applies to everyone. It applies to you and I, young and old, where ever you live, everyone. The “world” I define as every human being and every living thing alive now and in the future. The past is irrelevant. If you make the world better for all others, not just your family, tribe, gender, country, species or contemporaries,  it will  automatically be better for you.  What the definition of “better” is, is up to you to decide. Every person is the expert of their life and people should think about their circumstances and skills and decide how they can best improve the world. If everyone took this unselfish stance, putting others before themselves, the possibilities are unlimited.

Migration (Review of 'The Fourth Time we Drowned' by Sally Heydon)

 When reading about the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews I am emotionally disturbed. The suffering endured and inflicted by human beings like me is shameful. When I read about migrants suffering in Libya, I don’t like the cruelty they suffer, but I feel little empathy. Similarly, I support the Ukrainian refugees, or displaced Syrian people, but for the migrants crossing the Mediterranean sea or English Channel, I’m less sympathetic. Certainly they should be rescued from the dangers of the sea, as the middle of an ocean is no place to resolve migration problems, but as Ms Haydon’s book makes clear, the fact is, that most of the migrants want to make the crossing and have paid smugglers for the journey. Most have chosen an illegal route to Europe in pursuit of a dream that no one forced upon them. They are not victims, just humans, llike you and I, wanting to improve their lives.  

It must be recognised that there are two types of migrants, those that don’t want to leave their homes and loved ones, but are forced to so, and those that want a quick and easy way to a better life.

The problem is, there is no human right to live where ever you like on this earth. Human rights apply to citizens of countries. Persecuted Citizens, or those  escaping war have a right to apply for the protection of asylum in another country and other counties citizens must do every thing they can to help.

Borders could be viewed as only lines on a map and some say they should be open, but just as life is not fair, with some born in wealthy countries and others who are not, geography isn't fair either. Landscape, culture and history means that what lies within borders is variable and therefore also unfair. Open borders are impractical as everyone who follows the natural desire to improve their lives would all head to what is perceived as the best place to live and  thus completely over load the local social and political infrastructure. We can’t all live with a sea view of Bondi beach and neither can every one in the world come and live in Europe. To illustrate this point I would ask has the EU’s open boarder policy within the Shengen area benefited southern Europe or Northern Europe?  Have not the younger generation left southern Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain and gone to work in the northern cities of France and Germany  thus  enriching the north whilst only slowly enriching the south? Also when West and East Germany merged, did people stay put or did large numbers move to the rich  west, leaving the east underpopulated? Another example is rural inland and booming coastal China. Therefore I conclude that open borders are an ideal, but in reality not a means to the equalization of wealth. Like people, some places are more equal than others. So borders are necessary and if you have borders, it means  there must be enforcement of laws, permits, exclusions, welcomes and deportations.  Migration is a good thing, but it has to be controlled, so local populations, institutions, infrastructure  and also the migrants themselves can adjust at a rate that all can cope with.

You only have to look at the long term problems caused in Northern Ireland and Israel to see why uncontrolled large scale mass migration is not wise policy, especially with culturally distinct peoples.

Many of the sub Sahara migrants in the book are chasing their dream of a life in Europe. The internet shows them a rich western life style and criminals tell them they can get there for a price. Both the criminals (by demanding ransoms) and the migrants (by contacting westerners) use emotional black mail to get what they want.  Migrants choose to leave their own country and  often with the encouragement of  their families. follow an illegal route to a war torn country, which has little or no rule of law. The stakes are high, but like all gamblers, they see only the few lucky winners and not the many losers that fail. Why are they so surprised that they end up at the mercy of criminal gangs being treated as cash cows milked for what ever they can produce and then discarded when deemed empty and worthless. Its tragic, but what did they expect? - the nasty side of humans (who lack social constraints) is selfishness, cruelty and greed.   And because they are pursuing their dream, are the migrants not pursuing their own greed and selfishness?. Are they not making their world better rather than making a better world? Hopefully more in Africa will read Ms Hayden’s book before setting off.

When a young person leaves an African country for Europe, is that African country better off or worse? If this person comes to Europe and makes a successful life, learns and works hard, pays taxes and contributes to his new country, does Africa benefit? Money may be sent back to the family but has not Europe once again taken something at the expense of Africa? Is this not another form of imperialism of little benefit to the poorer nations of the world? Shouldn’t African resources ie its energetic  young people, benefit African Countries? If all of Africa’s talented young people leave, and never go back, it will forever be bad news coming from the African continent.

Freedom, peace, human rights are not the default setting of humanity. They have to be fought for and protected. Today, democracy is under threat from lies, ignorance and military force and those privileged to live in the west have a duty to stand up to those who follow old violent ideologies. Similarly, those in the developing world have a duty to make their world a better place and not just run away from the problems in their countries. Ms Haydon asks the reader of her book to think of what they would say if a person contacts them from a Libyan detention centre saying they are being tortured raped and staved and asking for help. Well I would tell them the truth, there is little I can do - it’s a cruel, uncaring, unfair world and you are in a lawless war torn country. Get out and go home. If you want a European life style as we all do, start to build Europe in Africa. Don’t run away from your problems. There is no quick fix, Work and fight for a better life for you, your loved ones and your fellow countrymen. Because if you don’t,  no one else will.

Is this response heartless? Yes, but sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. What would Europe look like if, in the 1939, Europeans just left and went to America? What would Ukraine be now if most chose not to fight and took the easy option and just left? The morally correct option, is not the easiest option.

In her book, Ms Haydon rightly criticises the UN and EU for wasting money and not addressing the suffering and human abuses in Libya. I recall no criticism of African Governments being mentioned. Perhaps she thinks they are beyond hope and so tries to influence those who may listen. However she should have more faith in humanity. African Governments have a responsibility to serve their people and others just the same as the UN and EU does. The failure of African leaders is  where the heart of the migration problem lies. Incompetent, greedy, selfish leaders, who put themselves first and not their people, leaders who think that war is a solution to problems, fail to take the advice of other countries whilst sitting in their luxurious palaces are wrong and should be told so. If net migration numbers are an indicator of a counties success, most are a complete failure.

It could be argued that western countries have room and wealth for all who want to come,  and everyone should be welcomed as newcomers will enrich and enhance their new societies. After all, there are many jobs in the UK that need doing by hard working people. It is also true that anti migration policies are based on an irrational fear of flood gates opening, invasions of  multitudes and cultures being diluted. Such fears are deep routed and reach back as far as the collapse of the Roman empire, when the north european tribes came knocking on the door.  

Both arguments are wrong. What is required is a sense of proportion. Migration should and must happen but control is the important factor. Illegal routes should be shut down, but the priority given to migration for those in desperate need.Too few migrants is inhumane, too many is impractical. 

The motto that I live by is that we should all strive to make the world a better place and that this applies to everyone. It applies to me, you and the migrants. Everyone. The “world” I define as every human being and every living thing alive now and in the future. If you make the world better for others it will  automatically be better for you  What the definition of “better” is, is up to individuals to decide. Every person is the expert of their life and people should think about their circumstances and skills and decide how they can improve the world. If everyone took this unselfish stance, any thing is achievable and no one would have to leave home.

 

Charity Shops and how to fill the existential void

 I love charity shops. They are something of which us Brits should be very proud. Rather than chuck unwanted, but perfect good, stuff away, we can recycle it for resale thus helping good causes. And hunter gatherer hoarders like me can fill their houses up with wonderful things for next to nothing.

Upon a visit to my favourite local charity shops, (the ones that have yet to be ruined by a professional make overs), the jigsaw section is the priority. I’m a sucker for jigsaws of beautify works of art. Whilst completing each puzzle, I can really get to know the details of each picture and learn the brush strokes of the masters. I can also break the second law of thermodynamics (albeit on a temporary basis)  by restoring a little order to the world. Now my attic is so full of Botticellis,, Van Goghs, Turners, Constables, Klimits, Kandinskys, Giottos etc etc etc that I could probably open it up as a small art gallery. It’s a shame that the bedroom ceiling is now developing some rather large cracks.  

After the jigsaws, it’s the book section. Why buy a new book when we have libraries and charity shops? Of course, what is on offer is totally random, but that is just what makes it so magical, Who knows what you will find and what you will end up reading about.

Currently, I’m reading “Danube” by Claudio Magris, for which I paid £1. What a gem! I would never have bought this book full price and I’ve never heard of the author, so how could I search for him on line. Who ever donated it, was either a fool or very wise. This is just one of the many admirable paragraphs that gave me great pleasure.

“Perhaps writing is really filling in the blank spaces of existence, that nullity which suddenly yawns open in the hours and the days, and appears between the objects in the room, engulfing them in  unending desolation and insignificance. Fear, as Canetti has written, invents names so as to distract itself. The traveler reads and takes notes of the names, of stations his train passes through, at the corners of the streets where his footsteps lead him; and he goes on his way with a breath of relief, satisfied with that rhythmic order of nothingness“.

Wow. Where’s that jigsaw of the Scream? This is exactly how I used to feel until a few years ago. But now I’ve moved on.

Fear, as I’ve already written, only exists in our heads and holds us back. Even fear of death should be banished, after all it can’t be that bad, because, if it was so terrible, why would we all do it?

As for the existential void, that boring bit between birth and death, what should we fill it with? Biology says reproduce, travel writers say travel, and Voltaire said gardening, but that still leaves plenty of time to fill. So what to do?

Well I’m a boomer, and was constantly told, in that super confident time, that I could become what ever I wanted . However, I was in a bit of a dilemma, as no one ever told what was worth doing - so I became a Quantity Surveyor. This gave me a quiet comfortable, boring life that I spiced up with dangerous rock climbing.  

Now that I’m retired, and weaker, (so can’t progress on the rock), I’m faced with a similar dilemma. What to do?

Make the world a better place, that what. But how to achieve this? There are so many things we can all do, But I like to think big - what are the biggest issues the world faces? How can these problems be  solved? Firstly pick a topic and then learn. Secondly understand, predict, and finally, interact. Apply a bit of pressure at a sensitive spot and see if the world twitches. I Listen for echoes of what I write and so far, what I hear gives me encouragement.

Of course these echoes could all be delusional creations of a Don Quixote, or the imaginings of a small dog, that whilst yapping at passing juggernauts, is very pleased with itself because it believes it has chased them away.

Well, as my friend Pete says "a mans got to have a hobby". and I’m happy visiting my local Charity shops!

Ps A burglar visited our house recently but didn't take anything of mine. So another advantage of getting your stuff from charity shops - none of it is worth sealing!!!.

Life's a Joy, or it should, would, could be.

Every Wednesday afternoon, even in the final years of her life, my great grand mother visited the local cinema for her movie fix. The family legend is,  that for a couple of years, the Wednesday matinee was always the Sound of Music! Nobody knows how many times she saw it!

“She went a bit senile at the end” my mum explained, but having watched the film for the first time recently, I’m not so sure. The Joy explodes off the screen and is a delight to watch. Perhaps Great Gran Ma just loved being reminded of the simple joys of living. Perhaps she would agree with me that it is simply the best film I’ve ever seen. All others are just incomparable to it!

When watching the news, or thinking about the state of the world, it’s almost impossible to see the positive. Such Suffering. It’s almost debilitating thinking about it, especially  as most of it is totally avoidable. Its depressing a friend said to me, but its only depressing if you have lost your faith in humanity.

War in Ukraine - come on Putin, what’s the point anymore, no one is winning, Pull the plug on it!
Earthquakes in Turkey and Syria - we have the engineering skills to build earthquake proof buildings.
China US tensions - co operate don’t compete.
Global warming - don’t burn stuff, love life and care for the world.
Poverty and disease  - Share the wealth and medical knowledge. Israel Palestine - integrate don't segregate.
Suppression of freedoms and human rights - is it really so important for those in power to cling so tightly to it. They should just relax and play with the kids or walk in the mountains, swim in the ocean. Be more Julie Andrews, than great dictator.

Why do we make it so difficult for ourselves? Perhaps we have forgotten the joys of life and need to rediscover them and then help others to find them too.

When ever possible, wallow in the joy and wonder of your existence. Its fantastic!, And help all others to do the same...Lets make the explosion of joy in real world, not the movie world.

----------------------

In my essays below I've tried to make sense of the absurdity of the world, and (perhaps) having come to some understanding of why we are making such a mess of it, what can be done about it.

We each support and serve each other

 "We each support and serve each other". - Tolstoy

Is there any need to say more? Except to add that my definition of "other" includes all life on earth and those future others who have yet to come. We have a responsibility to them as well.

Freedom of Speech is not freedom to lie or freedom to cause harm.

 I wrote to my member of parliament (a member of the opposition party) , complaining that the Government was proposing to reducing freedom of speech in the UK. She wrote back staying that she didn't believe in an absolute right to freedom of speech and asked should someone be able to stand up in a crowded theater and shout "fire" thus causing a panic? 

Ignoring to debate her assumption that panic would ensue (not in Britain, surely?), I pointed out, that if there really was a fire, I would be very grateful to the person giving early warning of this dangerous situation, so if she is thinking of banning people shouting in theater she should refrain.  The difference between her scenario and mine,  is that in one instance the shout of fire is true and in the other, it is a malicious lie. We should all have freedom of speech, but not a freedom to knowingly lie or cause harm.

Eon Musk, who has bought twitter, believes in an absolute freedom of speech and is considering allowing any one to say anything they want, regardless of whether it is knowingly true or not, constructive or harmful. If he does, he will completely devalue his asset. Who will know the difference between truth, lies, beliefs, facts, jokes  or harmful posts put up by bored people wanting to entertain themselves. If some one can post hate on twitter, which is illegal to say in the streets or print on paper in the UK, is this acceptable? No. It may be extremely expensive , or currently unfeasible to vet billions of tweets but not to start weeding out the worst ones is irresponsible. 

When I send a letter to a newspaper, the editor reads it and decides if it is worth printing. If my letter is factually incorrect, or harmful to others, or just plain daft, he will chuck it in the bin. This is not censorship, but a process that maintains the high quality of his newspaper. The editor also knows that if he prints lies, hate or factually incorrect letters, he will be up before the regulator, loose credibility and probably sales. Why should twitter be any different? Perhaps if post were not anonymous, and  fines imposed on users who had to submit a deposit or credit card details each year as a bond, things would improve.

Does the right to bear arms give you the right to shot someone - obviously not. Does the right to freedom of speech give you the right to talk rubbish and cause harm - obviously not. Rights come with responsibilities and responsibilities apply to everyone. Continual abuse these responsibilities by a small minority and politicians use it as an excuse to take away all of our freedoms, that could ultimately lead to a dictator abusing their powers.

 

 

 

Rationality and the Crisis in Democracy

In his latest book Steven Pinker calls on us to be more rational. If only we thought about things and ditched our swift emotional responses, the world would be a better place. Underlying this cry, is the intellectual perplexity  that democracy resulted in the election of  Trump, and here in the UK, Brexit. Unfortunately, Pinker is barking up the wrong tree. He should have more faith in democracy and emotional irrational humans.

The  reason why Trump was elected, Brexit happened, and for that matter, why people voted for Hitler or Putin, is because we are still fundamentally tribal. The world is constantly changing and today is changing so fast that it’s hard to keep up. The world is getting smaller, people are moving around more and the internet gives voice to anyone. Based on limited and uncertain information  how do people decide between candidates? Should our leaders be someone similar to me or someone from another tribe? In the UK should the foreign leaders in Europe make the decisions or people from my British tribe? Should we vote for someone who will restore honour and respect to our tribe by economic or military strength (so compensating for  past humiliations)  or someone who accepts that the other tribes may have a better way of doing things, and in this interconnected world, knows we can‘t be strong with out them. Faced with such problems, the human default position ingrained in our evolutionary roots, is to stick together and back the tribe.

 In the modern world we need to learn that tribalism is no longer helpful. We need to vote for the people who realise that the world must work together to solve global problems not tribal ones. Today, what tribe our leaders come from is increasingly irrelevant,  it is more important that they want to make the world better for everyone. Fear of outsiders fails, if we know that they want the same things as us and want everyone to succeed and be happy. Democracy may have made short term mistakes in electing Trump and bringing about Brexit, but autocracies make bigger mistakes, such as invading Ukraine, pursuing Zero Covid or suppressing human nature such as freedom of expression.

If we can accept this, move on from our tribal roots and the fear of outsiders,  maybe it will be a better place.

Well that's my irrational view based on very little data, unless of course you consider a life time of unlimited associative learning and creativity as data!