A 1.5 degree Course Change?

 In his short story Typhoon, Joseph Conrad, the early 20th century author famous for his tales of the sea,  describes the story of a steam ship and its Captain, who  “having just enough imagination to carry him through the day, and no more“, ignores the conventional wisdom to avoid early signs of bad weather and steams straight into a vicious storm. A fight for survival ensues.

“I don’t believe you can make a man like that understand anything“ despairs Jukes, the first mate, when the Captain misunderstands his indignation that, rather than sail under his native red ensign, the ship sets sail under a foreign flag.

“What’s the matter with the flag“ says Captain Mac Whirr “it looks alright to me“.

Conrad sums up the Captain’s mundane character thus -“The sea itself…..had never put itself out to startle the silent man, who seldom looked up, who wandered innocently over the waters with the only visible purpose of getting food, raiment and house-room for his family ashore…..Captain MacWhirr had sailed over the surface of the oceans as some men go skimming over the years of existence to sink gently into a placid grave, ignorant of life to the last….. Had he been informed by an indisputable authority that the end of the world was to be finally accomplished by a catastrophic disturbance of the atmosphere, he would have assimilated the information under the simple idea of dirty weather, and no other, because he had no experience of cataclysm, and belief does not necessarily imply comprehension.”

Jukes tries to respectfully warn of the approaching Typhoon by telling the Captain “what ever there might be about, we are heading straight into it”.

At the suggestion of a change of course the Captain explodes “To Eastward? You want me to haul a full powered steamship four points to eastward just to make the Chinamen comfortable?….What put it into your head that I would start to tack a steamer as if she were a sailing ship? …..suppose I went swinging off my course and came in two days late and they ask me ‘where have you been all that time?’ ‘Went around to dodge bad weather‘ I would say. ’Must have been dam’ bad weather ‘ they would say. ‘Don‘t know‘ I would have to say ‘I dodged clear of it.’”

So its full ahead into the storm. The ship, crew and passengers take a battering, only just survive  and arrive in port looking like a wreck. After Conrad’s wonderful descriptive prose he ends the story concluding that the skipper “ got out of it very well for such a stupid man“.


I’m struck by the relevance of this short story, from over a century ago, to our modern world. 

Are we  not being warned by scientists of approaching bad weather and all the disruptive effects of human induced climate change? Are we not full steam ahead in our high tech world, detached from nature, ploughing on at full throttle into a  massive storm of our own making?. Like captain MacWhirr, do we not lack the imagination and sense to take avoiding action, but by putting our faith in new inventions. think that we will be able to ride out the rough seas and make it to better times ahead?

We will shortly exceed 1.5 degrees C of human induced global warming and temperatures will keep rising beyond that. A few decades ago, our governments set targets. but then did nothing of any consequence. We were warned what was coming, but like Captain MacWhirr, lacked the imagination to see it. We now think we can adapt or invent a technological solution and delude ourselves we are detached from nature, like a steamer independent of the wind.  We are still unable to accept why it is vital that we lose our addiction to fossil fuels as it is not urgent, but very important. And how can we explain at a future date why we changed, if no disasters occurred? Similarly, as Conrad highlights. we cannot comprehend the approaching cataclysm, as we have no experience of it. But  change we must, because the difference between Conrad’s story and ours is, the coming storm will not pass, it will be permanent

How stupid are we?

But It’s never too late to change course. As Captain MacWhirr says "She ain't lost yet".
 

The use of the world is ultimately a personal matter

" What happens under the rule of specialization [of labour] is that, though society becomes more and more intricate, it has less and less structure. It becomes more and more organised, but less and less orderly. The community disintegrates because it loses the necessary understandings, forms, and enactments of the relations among materials and processes, principles and actions, ideals and realities, past and present, present and future, men and women, body and spirit, city and country, civilization and wilderness, growth and decay, life and death - just as the individual character loses the sense of responsible involvement in these relationships.

The only possible guarantee of the future is responsible behaviour in the present. When supposed future needs are used to justify misbehaviour in the present [or equally, supposed present needs used to ignore the future], as is the tendency with us, then we are both perverting the present and diminishing the future…..

Although responsible use may be defined, advocated, and to some extent required by organisations, it cannot be implemented or enacted by them. The use of the world is finally a personal matter, and the world can be preserved in health only by the forbearance and care of a multitude of persons."

- THE UNSETTLING OF AMERICA by Wendell Berry 1987

The words above resonate with me, so I repeat them here for you. Does not the first paragraph describe the modern world, the second our current denial of our responsibilities, and the third the fact that we can't rely on Governments, Companies or Institutions to resolve the problem of man made pollution of the air, sea and land?

 

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? 

Update Aug 24 - my partner and I are still together and enjoying our new electric car, train journeys and sex!!.

The history of the world in a single object

 Part 1 The History of the World in a Single Object

Having discarded any concept of a creator or afterlife, I didn’t think  I had a spiritual side to my character. However,  there have been times when I've encountered objects that I found  deeply mysterious, disturbing and shocking all at the same time. One such object was in, of all places, the German Museum of Technology, Berlin..

Berlin contains many world class interesting attractions. It makes a wonderful tourist destination, and because they mainly concern the Second World War, the comfortable, middle class British tourist can approach them with the smug arrogance that we fought well and got rid of  “that sort of thing” even though we were born well after the conflict. The city museums give the full story of the Nazi regime and hide from nothing, including carting off the disabled, gays, travelers and work shy to concentration camps, for the only crime of being different.

 “That would have been you” , my partner said laughing as she pointed at the words “work shy“. I'm not sure you are meant to laugh in the holocaust memorial museum.

After three days of rushing about getting most of the guide book ticked off, including (as the book warned) getting conned out of 10 euros by two young tricksters that pestered us with a petition for the disabled, my partner wasn’t feeling so well, so I took the opportunity to pop in to the Technology Museum, that was, by luck, just around the corner from our hotel.    

The museum is superb and far superior to its  dumbed down cousin in South Kensington. It’s packed full of planes, rockets  and automobiles, wonderfully displayed  and described at  multiple levels of detail, so all can enjoy and learn . It even has early computers that predate those of Bletchley park, which us prejudiced Brits assume came first. I wandered happily among the exhibits reveling in the experience, of  Messerschmitt’s, V2’s, Daimlers and all the engineering marvels  that I’ve read about since I was a small boy. However, it was in the railway shed where my carefree visit was radically changed,

In this shed, between the steam trains and mighty diesel engines, is a humble wooden goods wagon  that must have once been common the world over. To be honest, I nearly walked right past it.  But it’s simple shoddy nature made it look out of place and caused me to pause. What was such an boring railway wagon doing in a national collection?

Reading the description it soon became clear. This wagon was  used during the second world war in the service of the Nazi regime. I froze when I realised its significance. This was one of the many wagons that transported thousands of Jews to the concentration camps.

Upon my realisation, a sudden, indescribable wave of dreaded emotion swept through my entire body, emanating from I know not where. My eyes swelling with water, I was transfixed on the spot, I wanted to turn and walk away, head bowed, eyes to the floor, hoping no one had seen me act so foolishly, But I couldn’t.

“Don’t be stupid, don’t be such a coward“ I said to myself. “It‘s only a goods wagon, made of wood and metal,  there‘s no such thing as bad vibes, or spirits or ghosts,“.

With trepidation I edged forward, unwilling to face my fears. Steps led up into the darkness of the interior. Slowly I took the first step. I had to force myself  but I knew I had to do it. I had to see what was inside. It was the least I could do for those who had gone before..

At the top of the steps, after my emotions and heart rate had settled, I found an empty dark space with a small wooden bench running around the perimeter. Nothing more: Only a simple wooden bench, but my imagination filled in the rest. Faces, normal human faces, like those I see every day in the high street, nobody special, of all ages, dressed in simple clothes, still, silent, blank, staring back at me.

I shook and I cried. I’m shaking and crying now, as I write this. I don‘t know why. Perhaps, it’s a profound sadness, but probably not. It something much deeper, much darker.

“Why didn’t you fight back? You could have overwhelmed the guards, there where hundreds of you and only a few of them, They had guns but if you had all acted together, you could have done it.”

The faces didn’t move, They didn’t say a word, Of course they didn’t. They were a recollection of a photograph  I must have seen in a book, an image from a culture I don’t understand, and a time before I was alive. They didn’t know where they were going and perhaps they had their faith to keep then strong, silent and compliant, knowing that what ever happened they would survive, as they had done throughout time.

I remained still. My emotions and imagination .settling from a flood of almost crushing burst of empathy.

Motes of dust floated on the beams of light streaming in from the cracks in the wooden walls. Who‘s that outside? Oh hell, it’s a guard! A guard in boots, trench coat, helmet, with rifle slung over his shoulder, just like those I’ve seen in hundreds of films. Just like those that always end up faceless in the mud, anonymous, dead, irrelevant, inhuman.

“Why didn’t you do something? I ask him “Why didn’t you say to your comrades that this was wrong,? Why didn’t you resign? Why didn’t you……. . ? But the guard didn’t reply, he just stamped his feet against the cold, and waved his hand sideways to encourage more on to the wagon. He just wanted to  get back to his warm barracks, smoke, have a game of cards with his mates, dream of his next meeting with his girlfriend or children.

Well, who am I to judge? If he had protested, would he have been sent to the Russian front, lost his pension and chance of promotion? If he had resigned, would he have had to go on the run, in full knowledge that, because of his actions, his loved ones may be put on the wagon too?  What do I know of war, I’m lucky, I’ve no experience of these things.
 
But still I have to peer deeper in to the dark corners of the wagon.  What would I have done if I was in his position? He was a human, I’m a human, we come from similar cultures  Perhaps that’s why I cry and shake when I think of those people in the wagon. I don’t like the probable answer.

It’s horrific. I‘m tortured inside by all of it. The suffering, the compliance, the self revulsion.

I stumble out of the wagon, weak kneed, firmly grasping both hand rails of the steps, and rush  back to the safety of my hotel, hoping no one has seen me.
“Pull yourself together“. I say to myself. “Your lucky, you will never have to deal with a situation like that. It was all a long time ago. There are no Holocausts now“ 

Are there?

Part 2 The future of the World in a Single Object


Firstly, Thank you for reading part 1. I found it extremely difficult to write and hopefully you found it  easier to read.

Why did I find it so difficult? Well I’m ashamed. I’m ashamed of myself  and I’m ashamed of being part of the human race that does such things to  other human beings. From what I’ve read of history it’s been one long Holocaust after another. One tribe fighting another, nations at war with each other for centuries, raiding, slavery, murder, killings, bombings, torture, rape, destruction. Across all cultures and at all times. It’s appalling, disgusting even, but the reality is It’s what humans do. You and I have with in us the capacity to do or permit evil.. Especially when its done to "others" and it’s the easiest path for us to take.

“What’s he talking about, explain yourself” I hear you demand. Well, It’s like those young tricksters that conned me out of ten euros in Berlin , I didn’t really believe they were collecting on behalf of the disabled, especially when they demanded double what I offered. I just wanted them to go away, I didn’t want to appear mean in front of my partner, I didn’t want any trouble, so I took the easiest path and gave them the money to get rid of them. However, were my actions  right?. Emboldened by their success with me, did they try even bigger scams, so others were conned as well?. Did they go on to  become drug dealers, people smugglers, organised crime bosses?. I hope not, but isn’t it a “reasonable worst case scenario”? Bad behaviours have to start somewhere and all because I didn’t tell them to clear off, or make a scene and attract the attention of a police man. It would have been personally more risky, but better for every one in the long run.

So is that how horrific events happen? Small crimes are permitted, which lead to larger ones and then to massive outrages and all because the perpetrators gain by their actions and others stand by with out taking action against them? Do leaders bark out their orders from their isolated palaces or parliaments, not seeing or understanding the harm it does or the misery it creates and no one stands up to them and tells them its wrong?. Once this process starts, I suspect  nobody can change course as it’s  easier to continue, rather than change.. Leaders don’t want to lose face or power by doing a U-turn, and advisers find it increasing more difficult to challenge authority.  Does it bring any one happiness? I suspect not. The elites and civil servants carry out the orders without question as they take the easiest path to protect their privileged position. Again the foot soldiers don’t take responsibility for their actions, they just execute the orders, because  its  the easiest path for them to rise in the ranks and gain wealth. . And the victims, the people who suffer, that are powerless to prevent their suffering, all they can do is take it with as much dignity and strength as they can muster and hope, hope that something will change.  But usually nothing changes because everyone just takes the easiest path for themselves, as ultimately we all just want a quiet, comfortable, hassle free life by the easiest means.   And so, unchallenged, the tragedy continues, as it is in parts of the world now and will continue into the future,  forever, for as long as there are human beings, unless we face up to the reality of who we really are, what we’ve  been doing and why this despicable  behavior has been continually happening.

I’m not trying to excuse my self or people who oppress or commit crimes, by dismissing it as human nature. I just think that to solve a problem you have to face up to the reality, recognise it for what it is, guilt free, admit the error and then work as hard as you can to solve it. For a start you shouldn’t call it history, the past, or the “troubles”,  as if its kids fighting at the end of the street. This is a whitewash, a cover up, Call it what it is - it’s a tragedy, it’s disgraceful, it’s absurd, but it’s our record, that can no longer be changed. But we all have the power to choose how we behave and we can change the future if we choose to do so.

It’s not as if  there is nothing humans can be proud of. We are a miracle. We are the result of 13 billion years  of  precisely tuned cosmological processes,of 3 billion years of evolution that has generated increasing complex forms of life as it was battered by geological events and astronomical accidents. We have bodies containing trillions of cells that all work together and enable us to reproduce, self repair,  do science, create music and art, love and enjoy this beautiful planet and each other.  For all we know, we could be the only (or first) complex life in the universe, let alone on this planet. Its fantastic, I can’t find a word that expresses my amazement at the story, so I‘m making one up Amazalogical. (Help, please come up with better one!)

Rubbish you shout, who is his guy? what does he know? He’s making it all up, is he mad? And quite rightly so.  I’m  reassured by that response. We shouldn’t accept  all that we are told  But the  question as to who I am is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter who I am, it’s the words and the ideas they convey that matter. So, sincerely I ask you, from the bottom of my heart, to slow down, as lock down has forced me to do and consider these thoughts and not simply dismiss them.  Is there a grain of truth within them? Go to a quiet place, think, be brave, look inside the wagon! I hope you will realise that if you understand how and why holocaust and wars happen, we have a chance to stop them once and for all.


But only if we stop hoping for a better world and all choose to act together against the madness in the world. We can choose to do nothing, or we can choose to act. And by using the internet, I believe we  can all connect and shout across the Globe in one single voice “Enough is Enough, this is absurd, The tragedy has to stop. Now”  When the printing press was invented, the revolution of the enlightenment commenced. Radical ideas were recorded and spread, the world changed and generally for the better. Today we all have a printing press in our possession, unedited we can communicate what we think, and what we want the world to be like. So with this power at our finger tips don’t wait until an election so you can vote for promises that are never kept. I say send an email or letter or tweet or act however you wish to communicate, each day, now and again and again to every one and anyone. Tell Embassies, Government’s, MP’s or officials, or who ever is in power and can do some thing to bring about change. Deluge them , over whelm them with your shout of protest. Make them listen. Make them act differently. If the people demand it, they will have to take action.
.

I believe that it is our obligation to act and if we do all act together, and demand our leaders stop violence against others it will work. Displays of power that are not accepted by the vast majority, soon leads to a climb down. If dictators suppress with violence, the way to defeat them is not by conflict but by everyone standing together in defiance and strength to face down their barbaric and selfish policies, and then their own violence will turn on themselves. Shutting down or controlling basic freedoms is what they do. but with a peaceful Global protest and resistance, they will end up destroying themselves.  That’s what oppressors fear the most, their own people on the streets, backed up by a Global protest. They can’t harm or ignore the one’s they pretend to be protecting, because they are really just protecting their own interests by the use of violence.


So I say its up to all of us, we the people, who share the same genes, the same planet and now the same cyber space. We the people can make this a better world. One with out war, oppression, massive arms budgets, better for every one including future generations and other living things. It won’t be the easiest path to take but it will be the right one in the long run. Then and only then, will the suffering of those people in the wagons, and those like them through the ages, not have been in vain. Even they in the long run, through their suffering and our betrayal, will have made the world a better place..

It worked against Apartheid. It will work again. The power is the People.

Stop the Russian holocaust against Ukraine
Stop the Chinese holocaust against the Uyghurs and Taiwan.
Stop the worldwide holocaust against human rights in places such as Belarus, Russia, China etc etc
Stop the Climate holocaust against the planet and life on earth.

You have Free will - do you choose to use it?

 Do we have freewill?

The question as to whether we have free will,  the ability to independently decide how to act with out manipulation or predetermination, has been debated since ancient times, It is a simple question to ask but perhaps it is one that is too simple to be easily answered, especially as, when it comes to our actions, context is all important and is always unique.

Firstly, what is the difference between freedom and freewill? Freedom is the unhindered capacity  to act as one chooses. However, the making of a choice as to how to act, is always proceeded by thought processes, so to be truly  free, one will need totally free thought processes  combined with total freedom of action. Therefore freewill (freedom to think) is separate from freedom (freedom to act) and free will is a precondition of freedom. My definition of freewill is   “a state of mind where an individual is at liberty to think and choose how to act without, coercion, predetermination, or manipulation“.  To be totally free, you also need freewill as free thinking and unhindered decision making, proceeds any truly free physical act.

So “freedom” is freedom to act and “freewill” is the freedom to choose how to act. If you don’t have free will, you will only have an illusion of freedom.

Freewill, is a subset of freedom of thought, as thought does not always lead to a chosen action. I can think about the colour red, or clouds, but this doesn’t lead to an action, so exercising my free will is not involved. Also freewill is not just a feeling, as I have read in some books. It is an unhindered state of mind that considers alternatives and decides what an individual shall do. A feeling is just an input to the brain, which may cause you to start to use your freewill in order to select an action.  

Obviously, free will is a higher level of brain activity that just reacting to a stimulus.

Does a Prisoner have freewill? A prisoner is free to think what ever he wants, but is unable to act out those chosen actions - so using my definitions, he definitely has freedom of thought and therefore freedom of choice, but little freedom as he cannot act out the majority of those choices. Hence, even though he is incarcerated he has free will. If he attempts to leave the prison he will be punished, but will this stop him thinking of leaving? No, it will just discourage from him to attempting to leave in the future, but it will not stop his choice or desire to leave.

I have read of prisoners who have endured torture and who came to realise that, whilst their torturers can inflict bodily pain, they can never torture their minds. Once they realise this they are free of their captors, who can no longer harm “them”, by which they mean their thought processes. Also political prisoners have written that once in prison they feel more free, as rather than continually hiding what they think, they can freely express and discuss their views to fellow inmates, as they can’t be imprisoned twice.

Are there any constraints on our thoughts when choosing how to act? There are certainly constraints on our freedom, which may lead us to dismiss options when considering how to act, but as these options still exist in our minds, and we can consider them if we want, we still have freewill. Limited knowledge is certainly a constraint, as greater knowledge will give a person more options to consider. You cannot consider and option you do not know about.

If we don’t possess freewill, we will only have one option to consider so there is no mental selection process. Even if we only have a limited number of options, we can exercise our freewill to choose how to act. And as we can always do something or nothing, do we ever never have a choice to make as time progresses?  Different people will have more or less options for consideration than ourselves, so  we will all have differing levels of freewill, ie greater knowledge provides more options for consideration.  For example, do I go for a walk, a bike ride, a swim or stay indoors. If I can’t swim my options to act are reduced but I am still at liberty to exercise my free will within my capabilities.  I can still think about swimming, as I have seen others do it. But if I’ve never seen or heard of skate boarding, this is not an option for me.

In fact, are their any circumstances when you don’t have freedom of thought? Even when subjected to brainwashing, torture or constant propaganda, you could still have alternative thoughts inside your head, albeit it would take more effort, would need greater strength of mind and great courage to express them. Is there ever a situation where we never consider options to actions? Perhaps if we choose to live in the moment, thoughtlessly, then we would be living our lives on a stimulus/reaction basis. But humans are capable of so much more. Of course damaged brains or drugged brains will not function with free will but I will dismiss these as abnormal situations.

Biologist and neurologists will point out that we automatically flinch from pain or have automatically reflexes, and that when we are growing up certain behaviours become hardwired into our character, They imply that what we decide is predetermined - and yes this may be the case if we make instant decisions or we are lazy and don’t think about what we are doing. However, we humans can think, train our bodies and minds not to flinch, predict and anticipate the future, be creative, learn and research, plan and develop a strategy. It takes effort but perhaps that’s the point, we all have free will but we don’t have to use it - we could just do what we are told or follow what other people are doing. It takes more time, more effort but we all have the ability to use our freewill. If we choose, we do not have to be  preprogrammed automata with a predetermined destiny.

Is it possible to be free to act however you like, but be unable to think of alternative actions, as you only know one way of thinking? This narrowness of mind, would imply that our lives are predetermined. For example if you where brought up  educated in only one of the many  religious doctrines, and where totally ignorant of the existence of others (or atheism), you will probably only be able to think and act as taught, even if you lived in a free society.  If you don’t know of a different way of thinking (and are punished immediately at the first sign of doing so), it is unlikely you will  think of an alternative by yourself, especially when young. However I don’t believe this is how the human mind works over a whole lifetime, as given greater experiences, reflection and time ie greater knowledge, new ideas would be constantly generated,.(by unlimited associative learning). The result of this lack of knowledge of alternative options, is that our tribal, unconnected, history means we live in a world of great variety, with widely differing  cultures, religions and language. If our lives are predetermined by the laws of nature, why do we not all think and behave in the same way? The laws of physics are the same all the time, no matter where you are. Similarly, animal individual behaviour is highly predictable for each species, so if humans do not have free will, where does the all the variation in human behaviour come from? Even identical twins think differently.

A thought experiment

You are walking alone down a deserted street, and you see a £20 note on the path. What do you do?
The options are
a) Nothing, keep walking.
b) Keep walking but return later to see if its still there, then pick it up.
c) pick it up.
Assuming you pick it up other options open up to you,
1) Put it in your wallet and forget about it,
2) Try to find the person who lost it and return it
3) Show it to everyone you meet telling them how lucky you are
4) Spend it on a luxury for your self
5) Spend it on a necessity  for your self
6) Buy a weapon, such as a knife and to do evil.
7) Gamble it (high risk attempt to enlarge it)
8) Invest it (low risk attempt to enlarge it)
9) Give it to the police and let them deal with it.
10) Give it to someone of higher social status,  
11) Give it to someone of lower social status
12) spend it on a gift for some one else
13) Give it to charity
14) If you are reading this in the future, you might sell it to an antiques collector or donate it to a museum.
15) Ignore the monetary value and use it as a piece of paper (do I have to spell it out?).
16) Stick it to the pavement and amuse your self as you watch others try to pick it up.
17) Make a paper toy plane
18) Destroy it
19) Treat it as litter and put it in a litter bin
20) buy some bird food to help wildlife
21) Buy a tree and plant it for future others to enjoy.
22) something else that you can think of, but I can't, because your unique knowledge of the world will be different to mine.(turn it into Art?)
23) eat it 

24) A combination of any of the above (ie keep £10 and give £10 away).

25) Donate to a political party 

26) lend  it to someone.

If this isn’t an example of freewill, then I don’t know what is! Just because we can only ever act out one of the options, and that our context means our chosen action might be highly predictable, doesn't mean we are automata.
 
However, now consider what you would do if you were being watched.  or with a friend, you are late for a train, you are rich or poor, or did/didn’t believe in God or the Devil, you are a member of a criminal gang. Finally imagine you’re a dog and it’s a cooked sausage on the path  (hence nr 23). Does the list change? Are  there more or less options open to you?

If you are a dog seeing the sausage, the only option is eat it, and quick, before another dog turns up. But for humans, what ever the situation, all the options remain open, it just means you rapidly dismiss certain options as implementation is constrained but other factors. But the important point is, that the options do still exist, no matter what the context and its still up to you to exercise your free will and choose how to act.

What other evidence, if any, is there that we have free will. I can think of several examples, which I don’t think can be refuted.

a) It is a fact that humans, with our big complex brains, possess the ultimate freedom to end our lives at any time we choose. Whilst this may be a rather unpleasant thought, the means to exercise this option is always available and some ancient philosophers even ended their lives by just holding their breath. Even Socrates choose to end his life, even though he could have easily defended himself against his charges.   If we didn’t have free will, this choice would not be open to us and wouldn’t even be contemplated, but unfortunately many seriously think about it and choose this option. Turning this on its head, by exercising your choice to continue living, you are proof that you have free will. Biologists will say that we are programmed by our genes to survive and reproduce and so even this choice is not of our free will. This is  certainly  true of animals, but is it true of humans? Do our genes over ride our brains? If so how do you explain our modern day use of contraception - doesn’t this proves the falsity of this biological determinism argument. Choosing not to have children makes no evolutionary sense.

b) We always have a choice between acting now or  holding out for the longer term. When you get paid you could spend it all in one go or you could spend some of it now and save a bit for later. You could gobble up the contents of your larder, store them as fat on your body, or you can leave it uneaten for later. Humans have the ability to make a judgement of possible future outcomes and decide how to act in the present. We do not just react to stimuli in a predetermined way. This process of determining our futures by deciding how to act now, is so common it is overlooked but is an undeniable example of freewill.

c) We always have a choice between selfishness and altruistic behaviour. This depends to a certain degree on whether you can get away with it, If everyone acts selfishly, society would break down so enforcement of the law would be strict. If everyone else is altruistic, it would pay to be selfish as expensive enforcement would be slack. Hence crime will always be with us.

d) If free will doesn’t exist, what is the explanation of my and many others  love of dangerous pursuits  such as rock climbing or (not in my case) drug taking. These activities are satisfying and pleasant for the individual but potentially very harmful in the long run. If there was a rational natural law of explanation then every one would do dangerous things but they don’t.  This behaviour certainly isn’t attractive to the opposite sex. Who wants offspring from a partner who will probably not be around very long to help raise a family?. Perhaps freewill means that individuals choose trills and trips rather than boring safety.

From these examples, I say that all humans do have freewill, but because it takes extra effort and courage to use it and act out it's results, we are usually lazy and choose not to, we just go with the flow. However, it is our responsibility to use it and not just do the easiest thing. The path of least effort is usually not the correct way to act which is why the world is in such a mess. If people deny we have freewill, they are absolving themselves of their responsibility, Just like Putin, who says Russia was forced ie had no choice, but to invade Ukraine. What Rubbish.

So, if we all have freewill, but some of us use it more than others,  does this rid us of determinism? Well, at the level of the individual, it greatly reduces it, but at the scale of society no. The behaviour of a society is the emergent property of the total behaviour of all the individuals within it, and this aggregate behaviour will be highly predetermined by past events and the levels of knowledge within that society. Therefore, a democratic society will contain some who (by exercising their freewill) decide to think that rule by a single strong person is best, but the majority would choose to think that regularly voting for a leader is better, so their will will be the one most likely to be the reality. The result is that from all those individual behaviours, the behaviour of the society as a whole  is predetermined ie the democratic society will be more peaceful, more egalitarian, and more free than one ruled by a dictator. Hence, at the level of an individual, there is great variability in behaviour as people use their freewill, but at the level of society or nation, a high degree of determinism as  the variables are averaged out and a pattern of overall behaviour emerges. Freewill and determinism can exist at the same time, but not at the same scale.

Finally 

Many philosophers say that free will is an illusion, but I’ve not been able to understand their line of thinking. The above are my thoughts on the matter and I do state that, because more options are available for consideration, greater knowledge provides a greater degree of freewill, . However, Socrates said that with greater knowledge, you can’t help but do the ‘right’ thing., so, if there is only one right or best thing to do, does that mean we have no freewill? Well no, because we still have all the options to think about in our heads, and some of us can dismiss knowledge we don't like as fake, but it does mean that we are more likely to choose the same course of action. So knowledge increases our freewill, but as knowledge increases our ability to predict the outcomes of those options, our freedom to act is constrained and more individuals will start to act in the knowledgable way with less variability in society . I would also point out that usually it is possible to act out more that one option, ie hedge your bets, or an action be started, but then changed later as the knowledge of the likely outcomes increases. 

PS Tunicates, a marine animal, starts life as a swimming tadpole with a brain, but later undergoes metamorphosis, becomes an immobile filter feeder and shrinks it's brain. Also, shrews decrease the size of their brains in winter when there's less to do. Wants this got to do with humans, well nothing, but remember - use it, or lose it!!!

Part 2 An alternative systems Approach

The present moment of a person will pass into a future moment.

The action being undertaken in the present moment will pass into the action being undertaken in the future moment.

Assuming the person remains alive, the present action will become the future action because of a process.

Applying  knowledge of systems, this process can only be one of the following 1) stable, or simple Ie unchanging predictability, 2) periodic ie variable but repeating predictability, 3) Random (ie totally unpredictable) 5) Chaotic ie appears unpredictable but there is an underlying pattern 5) complex. (ie very difficult to predict)

Applying the theory of evolution, we can dismiss periodic, chaotic and random when thinking about human processes. Natural selection has eliminated these forms of behaviour in animals.

Human behaviour cannot be described as stable or simple, or we would all do exactly the same thing, every day of our lives.

Therefore the process that gets a person from one moment to the next is a complex process.  

When applying this complex process, a person can only arrive at one future moment and not go back.

.However because a person always has options (ie alternative realistic future actions) for consideration, the one action undertaken in that future moment is always a choice of processing, or predicting and assessing the likely outcomes of differing options ie we can exercise free will to choose between options.

Assuming that because we can only undertake one single action in any one single moment, is not evidence of predetermination of behaviour, because it ignores the complex process in which we consider alternatives. exercise our free will and decide on which option to implement.

Given perfect knowledge, a complex system could be seen as a predictable and therefore a stable predictable system. However, in reality. perfect knowledge is impossible as the information needed, and the energy needed to process that information is so large, that it is impossible in the real world. Therefore stating that a complex system such as human behaviour is deterministic, is an attractive arrogance, but is false. 

Conclusion - We are not automata. .

Assuming we have no free will

You could say that all of the above is a delusion to give me comfort in thinking I have freewill. 

So  if we don't have free will, what could we do with this knowledge? Nothing, as we don't have free will. This information would be totally useless to us. 

So we may as well not waste anymore time thinking about it, live with our delusion and get on with something more useful or pleasant.

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, or children sent by parents (as a form of substitute pension policy)  , but for the economic 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, like 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, visas 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. A large influx of culturally different people into a society means that they don't have to integrate and all the problems of a divided society can arise.

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 some 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. You may dismiss this as an expression of my ingrained imperialist racism, but look at the facts. Perhaps, if all African Countries gave hope to their people by clearly making their countries wealthier and  had sound financial policies that included pension and welfare schemes, then perhaps parents in Nigeria wouldn't send their kids off to Europe to get rich and so support them financially in old age because a complete lack of access to sound pension schemes.

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. 

PS (Added June 24). I find it strange that Right Wing politicians in Western rich countries use Migration as a major problem that must be addressed. Fundamentally this problem is distorted out of all proportion because they are rascists and see themselves and their countries as superior. If a Country is Great, it is no surprise that people from all over the world want to live there, so migration should be seen as an indicator of Greatness. If the people want to get rid of migrants, perhaps they should wreck their countries economies, start wars, and ruin law and order; then they will solve the migrant problem as no one will want to come, just as no one who has a choice migrates to Russia, North Korea or China.

I would recommend all readers to the UN 2024 report on global migration. Because of wars in Syria and Afghanistan, Iran is the country that is currently absorbing the most migrants. 

Marketing Sustainability

To bring about a speeder change to a sustainable life style. a tool at our disposal is marketing which, because it is very expensive, hasn’t been fully exploited to our advantage. However I have worked with marketing people and studied the books so here are my ideas for consideration.

• Keep it simple – focus on the single most important issue. From reading Greta’s Climate book I think this is “stop burning stuff” All other issues are secondary and  whilst important, distract. These can be dealt with after people have accepted the priority issue. So “Ban the Burn or its going to be hotter and hotter and hotter" or more positively  "Electrify your life".
  
• Answer the Why question – “just because smoke is clear these days, does not mean it’s not dangerous” or “We’ve made a good job of clearing up all the dirty smoke we can see  – now its time to tackle the important stuff we can’t see”. This last statement is a positive one showing its not all doom and gloom. ( Living in Sheffield, it annoys me when we forget UK rivers and air are the cleanest they have been for over a century).
• Make the message personal – answer the question “What is the benefit to me?” This can be addressed by saying “Show you are caring, smart and love life, by going green”. The implication is that if you don’t, your selfish, dumb and nihilist – but this must never be stated.
• Always  Stress the positive, not the negative, - “were making progress, the world is cleaner, so help to do more”
• Show that changing your choices or vote is not pointless - other people are rapidly changing too  – “people all around the world are joining us”, Get celebrity  endorsement. Show Green thinking is now mainstream – the other parties are making promises too, but will they implement?
• Address the doomsters – would you rather live in a hot house or a comfortable house?
• Stay focused – don’t get distracted, dismiss deniers with a simple, “ you still think that” or “your behind the times mate!” sort of attitude.
• Be humorous - For Celeb endorsement I would love it if Sean Kelly the world famous cycling champ and thoroughly lovely man stood up and said “go green – or its going to be a real killer!” , which is what he always says just before the cyclists have to pedal up some steep  mountain in the Alps.
  

If you are working for a sustainable future, I wish you success with your endeavours. You have the whole world of science saying that what you are doing is correct.  If you just pull on the holds you can reach, and after that reach for the next ones, you will reach the top of the mountain!!!