List of Contents

 Oct 23    Sycamore Gap or Rosebank Oilfield - Which is the Greater Crime?
Oct 23     Israel Palestine - Why not support and care for each other?
Oct 23     What has the Holocaust, Holodomor and Genocides got to do with Climate Change?
Sep 23    I have a dream!
Sep 23    Ukraine - What next? (How to break the cycle of endless wars 2)
Aug 23   Violence and how to reduce it.
Aug 23   Chinese and Russian elites Wrongly think wars will keep them in power.
Jul 23     Why the Majority accept man made climate change, but take no action.
Jul 23     Burning Fossil Fuels is a crime against humanity
Jul 23     Less is More
Jun 23     A 1.5 degree Course Change?
Jun 23    The Use of the world is ultimately a personal matter
Jun 23     Human behaviour Explained
May 23   The History of the World in a Single object
Apr 23    You have Free Will - do you choose to use it?
Mar 23    Make the world a better place.
Mar 23    Migration (Review of The Fourth Time we Drowned by Sally Heydon)
Feb 23     Marketing Sustainability
Feb 23     Charity Shops and how to fill the existential void.
Feb 23     Life’s a joy, or it should, would, could be.
Feb 23     The Tyranny of the majority.
Feb 23     We Each support and serve each other.
Feb 23     Being Green shows you are caring, intelligent and love the world.
Feb 23     Has Human evolution run it’s course?
Feb 23     Freedom of Speech is not freedom to lie or freedom to cause harm.
Feb 23     Why you should never invite Socrates to your diner party.
Feb 23    Natural Selection trends towards an improved understanding of reality.
Feb 23    Rationality and the crisis in democracy.
Jan 23     Letter to Ukraine.
Jan 23     Effective Financial Investment.
Dec 22    Letter to the Russian Ambassador to the UK.
Nov 22    The Climate Crisis Challenge - Ban the Burn.
Nov 22    The Mess the world is in and What to do about it.
Oct 22     Women Rule the World - They just don’t realise it.
Sep 22     Letter to the Russian Ambassador - All War is Tragedy
Sep 22     Armour for a Real World Mission.
Sep 22     The Multiply Butterfly Effect.
Sep 22    Letter to the Chinese Ambassador to the UK
Sep 22     Know Yourself - the wisest words ever written?
Sep 22     How to prevent wars - defluffed
Sep 22     Hierarchy of Needs - Social acceptance is top, not self Actualisation.
Sep 22     How to prevent Wars
Aug 22    Freedom Loving democrats Take Heart!
Aug 22    How to Stop a Tyrant Part 2
Aug 22    Putin the Coward
July 22     Fossil Fuels are as bad as the Slave Trade
Jun 22     Neurodegenerative Diseases disprove the existence of a soul and afterlife.
Apr 22    Atheist faith hope and Prayers.
Apr 22    Civilization Collapse - Is Humanity Committing Suicide?
Mar 22    World Leaders - do we really need them?
Mar 22    Human Progress - Don’t make me Laugh!!
Mar 22    Mr Putin - its ok to be gay.
Mar 22     How do we break the cycle of endless wars?
Feb 22     The Direction of Human History.
Jan 22     Now is the Time to End Tribalism.
Oct 21    A Gift from Mr Putin
Oct 21    Why the West is Best and the evidence to prove it.
Oct 21    Letter to the Chinese Ambassador to the UK - Super Hero Xi.
Oct 21    Fear
Jul 21     Fun and high Jinks at the Chinese Communist Party’s Birthday Bash.
Apr 21   Concerning Religion
Mar 21   The importance of international Travel
Jan 21    Time for a Universal Declaration of Human Obligations

Sycamore Gap or Rosebank Oil field, Which is the Greater Crime?

 It may be because I‘m a Sheffielder, who has witnessed many of our street trees being felled, but I can’t get worked up about the felling of a single sycamore tree on Hadrian’s wall. Especially when it occurred a few days after the UK Government announced it would be opening up new oil and gas fields, loosening its commitment to phase out gas boilers and pushing back targets to stop selling petrol and diesel cars. In my eyes both acts are wrong, but one is criminal vandalism and the other is a crime against humanity.

The motives of the vandals is currently unknown, but if they were trying, by the sacrifice of a single tree, to open our eyes to show how blind we are, I have to congratulate them on a job well done. The tree, because it is so wonderfully photogenic,  is world famous, being framed in perfect symmetry between two sinuously curving hills. It’s unforgettable image is ideal for our tiny screens that we now use to experience the world, and Its destruction has left a hole in our lives and generated an outpouring of emotion.

But are we so obsessed with our tiny screens, screens that only allow us to view the world through a business controlled keyhole, that we have become blind to the bigger picture and what is really important?

Can we not see that the felling of this single sycamore, is insignificant compared to the damage that will be caused by the extra carbon dioxide emitted because of our Governments recent policy announcements?.  The felling of this tree harmed no one, but more CO2 in the atmosphere will damage the planet and will lead to more human suffering. 

Just because policy announcements don’t make a stunning photo, can we not see who the real criminals are?

Israel Palestine - Why not support and care for each other

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

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

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

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

As I have said before, -

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

What has the Holocaust, the Holodomor and Genocides got to do with man made Climate Change?

 After visiting Berlin a few years ago, I wanted to learn why the holocaust occurred, and if it was possible to prevent similar events ever happening again. After reading and thinking about this troubling subject, I learnt that the circumstances and mindset of it's perpetrators has been common throughout history, it is just that in modern times, we have the means to carry out slaughter on a massive scale.

Firstly, it must be accepted that people like the Nazi’s, Hutu militias or Stalinist's are not monsters. They did monstrous, evil acts, but they were perfectly rational human beings. When they faced trial, they behaved just like any other criminal would. Many didn’t think they had done anything wrong, and went to their deaths unrepentant. To simply call them monsters, is to deny their humanity, which makes the problem too easy for us to dismiss. We must accept they were humans, just like us, and try to understand why and how they carried out such evil acts. We have to accept, that if we had grown up in Germany, Russia or Rwanda just prior to the Holocaust, Holodomor or Rwandan Genocide, it is highly likely that we too would have also participated, or done nothing too stop, crimes, awful crimes, against humanity.

Not any easy truth to acknowledge, but once accepted, understanding can develop.

So having accepted the horrific fact that normal human beings are  capable of great evil against others, why does it happen? Well the key word is “others”. Crimes against humanity are always carried out against others. And prior to the crimes occurring, these others will have been portrayed as “lesser others” - People who are of lower status, inferior, unimportant, or descendants of some perceived past crime, such as migration or stealers of wealth. If this portrayal is carried to such an extreme, those other human beings are seen as not equal, as animals, filth, coach roaches or sub human, or, if they hold different religious or political views, as wrong, or just simply, such as rainforest people, not considered at all.If this is the case, then any cruel and barbarous act against them can be portrayed as actually doing good, similar to an act of cleansing, or progress or improvement to the world. If this view is widely held in a society, then genocides can, and in the past, frequently have happened.

Especially, when those views are held by those in power. When this occurs, even if the general population does not hold these views, the elites, by passing laws and rewarding those who enforce and obey those laws, can control behaviour to such a high degree that individuals will not stand up and speak out against, what becomes, the majority view. To do so will mean a long prison sentence, reprisals against loved ones or even execution. Few have the moral courage required, and the elites ensure those that do, cannot join and work together. The elites know that if dissenters get organised, they become more powerful and pose a threat to their privileged position. At the first sign of trouble, alternative views are crushed. And so the genocide, holocaust and holodomor is permitted by almost everyone.

What’s this got to do with our current problem of man-made Climate Change? Well, I’m getting worried. I see parallels in how we are thinking about man-made climate change, and how genocides have occurred in the past.

Because, when it comes to the issue of global warming, the “others” this time includes billions of  “future others“, Those “others” cannot vote today because they are yet to be born. Their needs, wants and lives are not heard, are not equal, not considers and seen to be of less importance to our own, They can be easily dismissed and ignored. By radically altering the planet, will we not be harming them before they even exist?

Because, when it comes to the issue of burning fossil fuels, are we not committing genocide, not against other humans, but this time against other species, whose habitats are being destroyed? The world of the Emperor Penguins and the Polar Bear are being rendered, for them, uninhabitable. The vast majority of us know this, but do we do anything? Are we not just looking the other way, while the concentration camps are in full operation, pumping out their carbon dioxide?

Because, when it comes to rising planetary temperatures, are we, especially in wealthy high emitting countries not treating the "others" who live in the tropics, as human beings whose lives, wants and desires are  unimportant compared to ours? Are we not treating them as un-equals, as lesser beings?

Thermometers don’t lie. And we shouldn’t lie to ourselves, we are all capable of evil acts.And the future may look back on the continued burning of fossil fuels, as the most evil act of them all.

I have a dream!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukraine - what next? (How to break the cycle of endless wars 2)

 The current state of the war in Ukraine is likely to result in stalemate. The Russian Army has dug in and Ukrainians are finding it extremely difficult to break through and push them out of their country. Each side is launching missile attacks that have little strategic value but look good in the news. Behind the scenes, Russia is increasing its military spending by 25%, and Zelensky is touring the West trying to keep the financial and military support for his country high. However, signs of Western resolve diminishing are appearing, as results have not been forthcoming on the battle field and no end is in sight.

Internationally, sanctions are starting to have some effect as the Rubal falls, but not enough to restrict the Russian war effort. China, whilst indirectly condemning the war by calling for peace, appears to be doing nothing that would reduce the conflict and is silent on Russian / North Korean military co operation,

So what next? What should be the next moves in the “Great Game” which brings death, misery and destruction to so many? How do we end this war?

What is certain, is that Putin will win next years Russian Presidential election, probably by 98%. Putin needs a large election victory to demonstrate to Russians, the world and himself that he has the total backing of the people and that every thing he does is popular, right and correct. And because the Russian people have been crushed into silence and inaction by Putin’s  anti dissent laws, we are unlikely to see an up rising on the streets in protest, even though everyone knows its a sham. The Russian people don’t have it in them to stand up to power, and will continue to trudge off to the front line, enslaved by their own leader.

So, Putin will remain in power and as he will never admit he's made a mistake, delude himself that he is protecting the mother land from those who want to destroy it (or more correctly destroy HIS ideology), he will continue to waste all of Russia’s resources, both materially and human, on the war.

The West, who are happy for Ukraine to do it's dirty work, ie weaken Russia, will slowly accept that Ukraine survived the war, albeit as a smaller country, and accept that the war should enter a new low level cheaper phase with no movement along the front line, which will eventually become the new boarder (similar to Turkish boarder in Cyprus).

However with Putin remaining in power, and with Russian Military spending being increased it would be foolish to think that Putin will not attack again in the medium term. War is his excuse for remaining in power as it hides the total failure of his domestic policies. So the West must not let him grab the initiative and must make the next move. The Russian Army is on the back foot and it must not be allowed to regroup, reorganise and come back stronger.

Therefore, I say that, if Europe wants another 70 years of peace, as we have enjoyed since the second world war, Nato and all of the Western alliance must issue an ultimatum to Putin - Get out of Ukraine, Crimea and the Black Sea by the end of the year, or Ukraine will be treated as a full member of Nato and Nato Forces will enter the War. This should be backed up with increased military build up on the Nato / Ukrainian Border ready for Ukraines Permission to enter their country and take part in the war. Putin will no doubt bang on about nuclear weapons and try to scare everyone, say that it is impossible to meet these demands, but he is not stupid and neither are his Generals. He is not going to take on Nato, especially with his armed forces in a weakened state. He will not want Nato in Ukraine. (Putin keeps talking about nuclear weapons, because, with is army taking a hammering in Ukraine, the rest of Russia is virtually undefended and open to other threats).

This is what should happen to finish Putin, but it is unlikely to happen as Western leaders only think of the short term. They will dither and let Putin get strong again and so have to fight another war in say 3-5 years time. China may even get ideas, and start its own war.

And so the tragedy will continue, the opportunity to break the cycle of endless wars will be missed and humanity will be plagued by serious violence for at least another century. What a waste.
 

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?