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.


    

Chinese and Russian elites wrongly think wars will keep them in power

 

"Chinese defense minister to speak at Russian event billed as fighting 'Western world domination' China's defense minister will speak at the Moscow Conference on International Security, a spokesperson has said". - Sky news 14 Aug 23

As reported by Sky news, China, Russia and Belarus are getting together to tackle the threat of "Western World Domination". Perhaps they should first think about why they perceive the West to be so dominant.

If they do, they might come to realize that their oppressive method of organising societies is not as successful as ones based on co operation, interdependence, freedom, rule of equitable laws, democracy and that mutual aid produces happier, more innovative, and successful citizens than their authoritarian dictatorships can. 

But there is no chance of such a discussion. China has moved away from liberal policies and its economy is faltering, Russia is fighting a pointless war and the ruble is sinking, Belarus has no independence and has to do what ever Putin says. So it is true that they are fighting "Western World Domination" but (whilst the west is supporting Ukraine to protect its independence), it is not fighting them and doesn't want to.The reality is, their ruling elites are fighting for their own survival, and because they are using outdated 20th century militaristic ideas, (ie invent a foe so the people must unite behind the leadership) they have no hope of keeping up with the modern interconnected, interdependent, compassionate world.

How many migrants seek a better life in China, Russia or Belarus? Hardly any. Given the choice, people move towards freedom.

Why the Majority accept Man Made Climate Change, but take no action

 

Because it is a simple fact of physics, that the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the hotter the world becomes, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) concluded it's latest report that, with very high confidence, Man Made Climate Change is

“a threat to human well being and planetary health. There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all.,,,,,,,  The choices and actions implemented in this decade will have impacts now and for thousands of years.” (paragraph C1 of headline statements IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report)  

So the worlds leading scientists, who have been studying our home planet all their lives, couldn't make it any clearer. Drastically and rapidly reduce green house gas emissions or we're F***ed.

What has been the response to this report and the news that we are messing up the planet for at least the next thousand years? ………..Well, here in the UK, not much actually. Man made climate change is not top of the political agenda. Yes, a few targets have been set, wind farms are being built (principally in the interests of national security) and crack downs made on young protesters disrupting our busy, important lives watching sport. But the Governments intention to open a new coal mine and oil field, shows its real colours with the main focus being to keep voters happy and contented with "cheap beer and circuses", and heading off what ever is deemed to be the latest crisis. Even the Opposition parties are scaling back their promises. Tackling man made climate change is just not a vote winner. A threat to human well being and planetary health is deemed un important compared to rising bills and no longer being able to afford a holiday to Disney World. Meanwhile, Global oil consumption continues to rise, CO2 levels continue to increase and the world gets hotter at rates faster than the scientists predicted. It's like that old comedy sketch were the news presenter says. “The Government has announced that due to an incoming asteroid, the world will end at 2pm next Thursday. Here are the football results. Arsenal 2 Man Utd…..”  

Why are the vast majority of people, governments and political parties, not taking man made climate change seriously? There are several factors and excuses, all of which are unjustifiable.

1) It's Historically Unprecedented Nothing like this, on such a large scale, has ever happened before. There is no text book, historical records,  or even any religious guidance on how to handle such a global  modern problem. But just because it has never happened before, doesn't  mean it isn't happening and we can ignore it;

2) The implications are so serious it's almost incomprehensible.  It is almost unbelievable that our civilization, which is currently based on cheap energy provided by fossil fuels, is about to wreck the world. Can it be true that every time we do such innocent and mundane things such as use our cars, cook our diners or heat our homes, it causes irreparable damage? Well individually it has very little effect , but when 7 billions of us continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere and that CO2 will stay there for centuries, it will wreck the world.

3) It's so very inconvenient  Changing our highly enjoyable, comfortable, happy way of life is just such a pain. It will upset the great, high consuming, high emitting party we (especially in the developed western world) have been having. It's not something any of us wants to do, but to continue burning fossil fuels is irresponsible and will kill billions when vast areas of our planet ie the tropics are no longer habitable. We would be causing a global mass murder, a slow motion holocaust, a famine, a destruction of unprecedented scale. Think this is an exaggeration - last year the heatwave killed 62,000 in Europe alone, and this doesn't include heat waves in India or floods in Pakistan Libya, wildfires in Hawaii, Greece, US or storms all around the world. As matters will only get worse, or more likely, much worse, the excess deaths year on year will soon reach millions.   
,
4) Carbon dioxide is invisible. Unlike smoke, litter, plastic in the oceans, sewage in rivers, you cannot see green house gases. It doesn't make a dramatic photo like black smoke, filth in rivers or piles of rubbish on a beach. Therefore emissions are much more difficult to witness and promote as something that we should take seriously - its easy to dismiss, as its not visible. We can’t see it on social media, so it easy to ignore it. However, in the long term it is as deadly as smoke, and will not clear when the fire is out. It will linger, and because planetary processes take centuries to scrub it out of the air, it will continue to warm the world.

5) Climate change proceeds at a slow pace that is difficult to perceive. Until recently climate change has only been visible in data, charts and graphs. It is impossible to experience climate change directly as events such as wild fires, heat waves and floods occur, but in far parts of the world, and  then pass and normal weather resumes. Only over decades can frequency trends be determined. Our memories are inaccurate, we remember only what we want to remember, so weird weather banished from our minds. Man made climate change is perceived as important, but not urgent and because it takes thinking and imagination, it's hard to comprehend. Also, why be bothered about the serious consequences, when they will only  arise after the next election or after your life time?

6) There has not been, and there is unlikely to be, a single massive disaster event. It is unlikely that there will be a Chernobyl, or  a Great Stink or Titanic event that will make the seriousness of inaction concerning man made climate change undeniable to all. The slowly worsening climate will creep up the temperature scale and one generation after another will look at old photos and films not really knowing when it started or how to get everyone to act. Perhaps if London and a few other cities flooded at the same time, or the Matterhorn collapsed or a world wide famine occurred, perhaps the majority would finally demand action. However no such cataclysm is likely to occur so its full steam ahead in our old mindset, thinking planet earth is unsinkable.

7) Technology will Solve the problem. "No need to act as someone has just invented…." These story's are common and provide the comfort, but the false assumption, that we can invent our way out of any problem. Carbon sequestration, fusion power, hydrogen fuel, geo engineering - none have been tested or developed at a global scale and who is going to pay for it? If there's no profit it wont happen. The easiest solution remains to stop burning fossil fuels and switch to renewables supported by nuclear. Why not just do that? 

8) Targets have been set. Great news, there's no need to act as in 2050 we will be at net zero, So we can all ignore the problem today and keep on emitting. It’s a pity CO2 levels will be rising until the year 2049 and  that the next generation will have an even hotter world and an almost impossible  problem  to solve.However don't worry as in 2049, the Government will set new targets so the problem will be solved! Perhaps someone might have realized by then that targets are not action and achieve nothing.

9) We can adapt. Here, man made climate change isn’t even a problem. We will adapt to the hotter world and crank up the air conditioning. However, those that cannot adapt will suffer and perish and continuing emissions means the world will just get hotter and hotter and hotter until we are fully adapted to a planet that is just a rock devoid of all life apart from ourselves. Science fiction? Well it's true that millions of years ago, in the Eocene and Permian, the earth was much warmer than today and despite mass extinction,s life continued. But whether today's ecosystems can cope the unprecedented rate of change caused by man made climate change is unknown and the risks of our scorched earth experiment are existential.  Why take the risk and isn't it more comfortable to live in today's world or tomorrows hot house?

10) Man made Climate Change isn't commercial. Newspapers, magazines, media must make money (or get clicks on phones) to survive, and most people don't want to know that we are trashing the planet let alone pay for this bad news. So this commercial reality means the seriousness of global warming is underplayed in the media and a bias emerges towards towards new tech solutions, a down playing of the data and more generally, a lack of acknowledgement that anything can be done,  There seems to be a mind set of "keep the readers happy" or people will go elsewhere. The historian Neil Oliver has recently called for the media to stop terrifying people with scare stories - ie we don't want to know! Therefore it is only "not for profit organisations" such as the United Nations that are presenting the true picture. 

11) Our selfish genes mean we act in our own self interest, rather than for the common good.  In the competition of life and our biological drive to pass on our genes, we delude ourselves that we are the most important thing in the universe and prioritize our own needs over those of others. Therefore as long as I’m doing great, what does it matter about others and future others? Co operating at a species level doesn't come naturally to us and so far there is no sign that our intelligence will conquer our nature . However evolution will teach us co operate or our population will collapse.

12) Why should I act when the Chinese aren’t. To stop climate Change everyone must act, now. This means taking personal responsibility and accepting you are part of the problem, but also part of the solution. Expecting others to solve the problem and doing nothing yourself is not going to work. Inactivity by others is not an excuse for not acting your self. If every one uses this excuse, nothing happens and we all burn (as the UN has pointed out).

13) Doomster dismissal. Those who are making a fuss can be dismissed as, emotional, on the spectrum, cranks or over exaggerating, It's the usual tactic that if you can't defeat the argument, rubbish the messenger. However you can't change the laws of physics, and more CO2 in the atmosphere means it just gets hotter and hotter and hotter, whoever is annoyingly banging on about it.

14 Environmental protesters are hypocrites as they use oil based products too. To accuse  protesters as hypocrites, ie someone who says you are doing something wrong, when they are doing exactly the same thing, does not change the fact that both you and them are doing a something wrong. It may give you an excuse, or comfort, for continuing your bad action, but it also shows that deep down you know it is morally wrong and both you and the protesters need to change their behavior. 

15) I refuse to be guilty for the way I live. Calling for action on climate change is not about making any one feel guilty. The past is the past and cannot be changed. Being a boomer I've racked up my carbon foot print with global travel and driving all over the country. Its about changing now for the future, of doing the right thing rather than the easy thing, about making the world better not worse.

16) Economics and democracies are not the best system to bring about swift change.  Our civilization needs energy and our economic systems are set up to always favour the cheapest option. Fossil fuels are cheap. They come out the ground almost ready to use, and because we can vent the waste produced after use into the atmosphere for zero cost, this form of highly concentrated energy is cheap. Therefore our economies have been build on cheap fossil fuels, as the future costs of dealing with the problems of global warming are all future costs for some else to pay. Economists are now saying that these hidden costs (externalities, because they are external to the market) should be paid for by introducing a carbon tax that can be used to pay for the transition to renewables (estimated at an Annual global bill of $2.7 trillion to reach net zero by 2050); but who will vote for this increase in tax, especially when climate change does not directly effect their lives? Only by educating the majority of the long term implications of man made climate change, and the need to act swiftly for the benefit of everyone, will a democracy embrace the transition to renewables. The earth is priceless, out side of economics and you can't buy another earth.

17) Whats the cost benefit analysis of tackling man made climate change - isn't it cheaper to do nothing? How do you put a cost on the world you live in, the lives wrecked or the damage caused by heat waves, fires, storms, floods and ecosystem collapse? The situation is so risky that we can't afford to wait for more data. What is obvious is that the longer you put off making a decision to solve a problem, it will get more and more expensive, Do you fix a roof at the first sign of a leak, or wait until all the timbers are rotten too? 

18 Man made global warming is a long term problem. The current UK Tory Government is opening up new oil fields and coal mines because their decisions are based on a 1 year time frame ie the 2024 general election. The UK Labour party, that will probably be elected, will have a 5 year decision making time horizon. Environmentalists have a 25 year mindset and scientist take a long term 75 - 1000 year time frame. With this in mind it can be understood why everyone is disagreeing. But which is the most intelligent perspective? As the issue is so serious, I'm with the scientists.

19 The green policies are being portrayed as infringements to civil Liberties. The introduction of the Ultra low emissions zone to all of London has been imposed on Londoners with high daily charges and little public debate. Resistance to this well meaning but clumsy, and for some punitive, policy, has been  seized upon by the political right, as a policy of  those in power reducing our freedom in order to reduce pollution and achieve net zero. This highlights that in a democracy, the majority of people must accept the need for change, and policy must be inline with the demands of the people. Therefore debate and education and general acceptance must proceed green policies. Green policies are not about infringing freedoms, they are about protecting our future and the planet in which we live.

20) it’s the economy Stupid. Because most lack the comprehension, imagination and intelligence to grasp the reality that climate change will, at a minimum radically alter, and at worst destroy our civilization, we continue to plough on full steam ahead with our same old policies head long into disaster. When it comes to man made climate change, there is a leadership vacuum and democracy is unlikely to deliver one. No wonder our young people are losing faith in politics.

For all of the above reasons we lack the moral courage to speak the truth about how we are living and its consequences. We lack the bravery to acknowledge reality and accept responsibility for what we are doing to our world.
    
To spare ourselves the mental discomfort, we adopt an intellectual blindness. We veil the unpleasant truths from view by half closing our eyes – and our minds. We make panicky excuses and shrug off undeniable facts  with words like adaption, net zero, and sequestration, knowing full well that the only answer is to change our highly damaging life styles and stop burning fossil fuels.  We steer around the subject and In order to live with ourselves, we have to smear the reality out of recognition with verbal camouflage and techno babble.* We fight to maintain our delusion.

Such a response is only human, but the sooner we all accept the consequences of inaction, and take meaningful steps to sustainability by drastically reducing our CO2 emission, the better for humanity, the planet and the future. 

I don't like it, I don't suppose you like it, but we have no other option.

 

*Adapted from the writings of Kravchenko, a perpetrator of the Holomodor. Please don't fall into the same mind set that killed 4 million people, by taking their food away.

PS if you come across "Its all a hoax designed to control us" - just ask who ever is saying it for their reasoning and evidence. It's then easy to point them in the direction of reality.. 

Burning fossil fuels is a Crime against humanity

 The UN definition of a ‘crime against humanity’ is inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: 

 A simple internet search  within seconds gives the following stats - European 2022 heatwave causes 62,000 deaths, in 2021 Particulates kill 330,000 in India (BBC 26/10/22), Pakistan 2022 floods kill 1500. Such figures caused UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres to respond  man made “climate change is killing us”.

 With such large numbers of deaths already occurring, and because global consumption of oil and gas shows no sign of rapidly falling as required, the situation is at best, going to get worse, or more likely, get much worse, so as we now have the indisputable knowledge of the harm caused, isn’t it time to start calling the burning of fossil fuels a Crime against Humanity*?

The holomodor and holocaust occurred, because people deluded themselves that other people were less important than themselves, and invoked a mental blindness to justify their actions, or their decision to look the other way. Today, we rightly condemn those who perpetrated or failed to stop these darkest hours of humanity’s past. But are we not showing signs of the same mental blindness towards today's slow motion global holocaust? We know that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes death, and if we choose to ignore such facts, are we not complicit in the killing of fellow human beings?

Despite tensions, the US and China have held meetings  in order to work together on the control of emission. Hopefully they have recognised the seriousness of the situation. Why can’t the UK parties also have talks, so that there is a cross party consensus on policy?  Man made Climate change is far more serious than Politics and we all have a duty to work together to make the world better, not worst.

*We now have the knowledge that man made climate change is causing great harm and if we continue to make the situation worse  by choosing to ignore this knowledge, we are intentionally causing great suffering - a crime against humanity.

 

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.       
 

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? 

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 I found, 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 only 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 getting conned out of 10 euros by two young tricksters that had 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.