Global problem
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
Some people, who have the power to vote, seem to know nothing about politics yet have a voice that is heard and a vote that can have drastic implications on the future of the planet. Too many people vote for ‘fashion’ politics in the West. Some women do not even know the difference between Left and Right (and women died for the right to vote). Too many people are too ignorant and too lazy to care. If we are forced, at a young age, to know the basics of politics and the significance of our votes, future generations may become more aware and more conscious of their place in the world.
Global solution
Teach and assess 15 year olds on the simple and currently relevant tenets of politics across three basic streams. 1) Political ideologies (Left / Right), 2) current world leaders of major economies (USA, UK, BRIC, Middle East) and 3) major political structures (democracy / autocracy) – this is not intended as a history lesson so communism is out, except in the case of China. Teenagers should be assessed by a simple multiple choice exam (30 mins, no more) and given a certificate if they pass. They should then be able to vote in local and National elections. And the ballot boxes should be at schools so teens get used to the process of voting. The actual vote will still be influenced by the usual factors (family, peer group etc) and teens will not necessarily have a strong opinion on the major issues underlying party policy. But a vote is as much about an ideological stand point as it is about policy.
By passing the exam and holding the certificate it demonstrates a fundamental understanding of current world politics and will give people this background for the rest of their lives as well as imparting the significance of this knowledge down the generations. This certificate will remove any form of alienation as there will be a consistent, Nationally mandated syllabus and exam – all people will have equal knowledge and be assessed on an equal basis. This will help prepare teens for the substantial exams they face later in their lives through being assessed and coping under pressure. This will give teens a Nationally recognised qualification to support applications to jobs and universities. This will force teens to become knowledgeable about things that do affect everyday life in our communities, our countries and across the world.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Generational issues
Are there some world issues that are right to be forgotten but others that need a cross-generational reminder?
Remember the campaign against the fur trade in the 1980s? It did its job: the number of Mink farms in the USA decreased from 1,221 in 1974 to 274 in 2008 and retail fur sales declined by nearly 50% between 1985 and 1990 . While numbers peaked again in the mid 2000s (then dipped), legislation had been introduced to ensure that the fur business was ethical. The double peak represents two things. The first is fashion. People like to wear animal fur. The second is public opinion. People like to wear animal fur when it’s socially acceptable. The important point is that activists in the 1980s made their statement, politicians responded and business adapted. So is the issue of animal cruelty in the fur trade still relevant?
Remember CND, founded in 1958 to ‘rid the world of nuclear weapons’? In the 1980s, at a time of public discontent and when tensions were high between West and East, CND organised major protests and was under the surveillance of British Intelligence. Now, following the fall of communism and a general increase in prosperity, CND only pops up in the public psyche at times of war. Is it still as relevant as is used to be? If it doesn’t carry the weight to organise protests of hundreds of thousands of people, then people are probably not that concerned. If people are not that concerned, the threat of nuclear weapons are probably not that important. The ‘War on Terror’ is real but, unlike during the Cold War, Nations do not have nuclear weapons permanently aimed at each other.
But what about water? HIV/AIDS? Starvation in the Developing World? Gender inequality? These issues are as pertinent as ever yet people born after 1990 will not have witnessed the severity and public unity behind the warnings during the 1980s and early 1990s. Yet these issues are still as relevant today, so too is an awareness for their impact on our future.
Today is World Water Day, an initiative that grew out of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro. As the global population expands, more emphasis is needed to provide clean water for consumption and sanitation. As Peter Brabeck-Letmanthe, Chairman of Nestle comments, “Global water requirements ... will be 40% greater than what can currently be sustainably supplied”. Why are people not concerned? Have people forgotten the significance of water to our wellbeing, a clear priority in 1992?
HIV / AIDS currently affects about 33 million people. In 1990 the number was about 9 million. The global growth has reached a plateau since the mid 2000s but 67% of people with HIV are in Africa – does this make HIV irrelevant to the West? In the UK, 27% of people infected with HIV are unaware and, since 1999, the largest group of people transmitting the disease are heterosexual partners. Clearly the levels of awareness around the transmission and severity of the disease has declined since the UK Government’s ‘tombstone’ advert in 1987.
Without drawing on other examples, the cases above point quite clearly to the fact that some global issues are dealt with and naturally come to a conclusion. But another set of issues, that span generations, continue to exist but are passed to the side as new global issues become the vogue. It is critical that the protracted global issues are reinforced for every generation to ensure ignorance is averted and the knowledge of our actions can be understood. This is the role of activists, politicians, the media, schools and ourselves. Where the public are currently concerned with ‘green’ we must maintain a balanced view on the top issues we are facing as a planet. These Generational Issues should not be prioritised but discussed, prevented and remediated in equal measure.
Remember the campaign against the fur trade in the 1980s? It did its job: the number of Mink farms in the USA decreased from 1,221 in 1974 to 274 in 2008 and retail fur sales declined by nearly 50% between 1985 and 1990 . While numbers peaked again in the mid 2000s (then dipped), legislation had been introduced to ensure that the fur business was ethical. The double peak represents two things. The first is fashion. People like to wear animal fur. The second is public opinion. People like to wear animal fur when it’s socially acceptable. The important point is that activists in the 1980s made their statement, politicians responded and business adapted. So is the issue of animal cruelty in the fur trade still relevant?
Remember CND, founded in 1958 to ‘rid the world of nuclear weapons’? In the 1980s, at a time of public discontent and when tensions were high between West and East, CND organised major protests and was under the surveillance of British Intelligence. Now, following the fall of communism and a general increase in prosperity, CND only pops up in the public psyche at times of war. Is it still as relevant as is used to be? If it doesn’t carry the weight to organise protests of hundreds of thousands of people, then people are probably not that concerned. If people are not that concerned, the threat of nuclear weapons are probably not that important. The ‘War on Terror’ is real but, unlike during the Cold War, Nations do not have nuclear weapons permanently aimed at each other.
But what about water? HIV/AIDS? Starvation in the Developing World? Gender inequality? These issues are as pertinent as ever yet people born after 1990 will not have witnessed the severity and public unity behind the warnings during the 1980s and early 1990s. Yet these issues are still as relevant today, so too is an awareness for their impact on our future.
Today is World Water Day, an initiative that grew out of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro. As the global population expands, more emphasis is needed to provide clean water for consumption and sanitation. As Peter Brabeck-Letmanthe, Chairman of Nestle comments, “Global water requirements ... will be 40% greater than what can currently be sustainably supplied”. Why are people not concerned? Have people forgotten the significance of water to our wellbeing, a clear priority in 1992?
HIV / AIDS currently affects about 33 million people. In 1990 the number was about 9 million. The global growth has reached a plateau since the mid 2000s but 67% of people with HIV are in Africa – does this make HIV irrelevant to the West? In the UK, 27% of people infected with HIV are unaware and, since 1999, the largest group of people transmitting the disease are heterosexual partners. Clearly the levels of awareness around the transmission and severity of the disease has declined since the UK Government’s ‘tombstone’ advert in 1987.
Without drawing on other examples, the cases above point quite clearly to the fact that some global issues are dealt with and naturally come to a conclusion. But another set of issues, that span generations, continue to exist but are passed to the side as new global issues become the vogue. It is critical that the protracted global issues are reinforced for every generation to ensure ignorance is averted and the knowledge of our actions can be understood. This is the role of activists, politicians, the media, schools and ourselves. Where the public are currently concerned with ‘green’ we must maintain a balanced view on the top issues we are facing as a planet. These Generational Issues should not be prioritised but discussed, prevented and remediated in equal measure.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Fashion issues
Do we still care about HIV / AIDS, tigers, ivory, fair trade or genetically engineered crops? Do we still want to ‘make poverty history’? Aren’t the most pressing issues of today climate change, clean fuels, carbon emissions and controlling the banks? My point is that nothing goes away, all these issues are relevant and important. But what we think of as important changes and this is often down to media coverage and therefore fashion. Take the environment as an example. There has been a lot of publicity about the Copenhagen summit since December 2009, most notably a consensus in the media that it was a limp affair. Nonetheless, it is ‘front of mind’ with most people as a ‘global’ issue. But how much do people actually care?
In the USA, global warming is considered a low priority when it comes to setting National policy (see here). Increasing numbers also think that the rate and problems associated with global warming are exaggerated (see here). The UK Government recently undertook a campaign to raise awareness about Climate Change, but two of the TV adverts were banned because the claims went beyond “mainstream scientific consensus” (see here). This is a clear admission that the actual importance placed on climate change by the populace is lower than we might think, and likely similar to the USA. So it seems that people recognise climate change is an important global issue but it’s one that someone else will resolve.
So back to the point of fashion issues – are we on the cusp of the next set of global issues? Has the green / environment / climate debate been done to death? Are we weary of debates on carbon? Are we ready for a new set of global issues? Maybe not quite yet but in the next couple of years we will inevitably see the environment relegated to the back seat, along with health, poverty and hunger.
In the USA, global warming is considered a low priority when it comes to setting National policy (see here). Increasing numbers also think that the rate and problems associated with global warming are exaggerated (see here). The UK Government recently undertook a campaign to raise awareness about Climate Change, but two of the TV adverts were banned because the claims went beyond “mainstream scientific consensus” (see here). This is a clear admission that the actual importance placed on climate change by the populace is lower than we might think, and likely similar to the USA. So it seems that people recognise climate change is an important global issue but it’s one that someone else will resolve.
So back to the point of fashion issues – are we on the cusp of the next set of global issues? Has the green / environment / climate debate been done to death? Are we weary of debates on carbon? Are we ready for a new set of global issues? Maybe not quite yet but in the next couple of years we will inevitably see the environment relegated to the back seat, along with health, poverty and hunger.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Unreciprocated favours
I talked about the currency of favours previously where people contribute their time in exchange for a personal benefit of some type. I recently came across a piece or research from the University of St Andrews that demonstrated this characteristic in orangutans (see here for the article). So in short, and cynically, humans are no different to monkeys.
Is there such a thing as selflessness in human conduct? The Machiavellians would say no. The Daoists would say yes. I would say ‘I hope so’ (then I have also raised the debate about altruism which is something similar). One principal difference between these ideologies is that of active calculation. The Machiavellians undertake certain actions in the knowledge of the immediate consequences to their benefit. The Daoists undertake certain actions according to the belief that nature takes its course and the consequences will be what they are – by forcing nothing, nature yields to the will of the inevitable and nature inherently exists to benefit (or enlighten) people who follow ‘the Way’. The end result yields personal benefits but the means of achieving these benefits is very different – as is the underlying set of personal values.
I have also talked about our cultural transition from ‘knowledge’ to ‘wisdom’ (see here) and how we must evolve our attitudes towards society from one of fact and solution to one of insight and responsibility. So the currency of favours is nothing new: Machiavelli wrote The Prince in the early 16th Century and the Dao De Jing was written in 500 BCE (give or take). So the question is whether we are happy to share the characteristics of monkeys in a quantitative, calculated Machiavellian approach to engaging in societal endeavours or embrace our responsibility to give selfless, unrequited favours with courage and vindication for the greater benefit of our communities.
As Barack Obama said, we are entering an era of personal responsibility. As the Buddhists say, everything is cyclical. I propose that the time for Machiavellian thinking is over and it’s time to embrace the tenets of the selfless philosophies. So let the currency of favours be implicit not explicit. Let the intent behind favours be unrequited, safe in the knowledge that nature deals in a currency that will see personal investment repaid. So let the expectation of repayment be passive and let the will to help others be active and selfless. Let us be humans not monkeys.
Is there such a thing as selflessness in human conduct? The Machiavellians would say no. The Daoists would say yes. I would say ‘I hope so’ (then I have also raised the debate about altruism which is something similar). One principal difference between these ideologies is that of active calculation. The Machiavellians undertake certain actions in the knowledge of the immediate consequences to their benefit. The Daoists undertake certain actions according to the belief that nature takes its course and the consequences will be what they are – by forcing nothing, nature yields to the will of the inevitable and nature inherently exists to benefit (or enlighten) people who follow ‘the Way’. The end result yields personal benefits but the means of achieving these benefits is very different – as is the underlying set of personal values.
I have also talked about our cultural transition from ‘knowledge’ to ‘wisdom’ (see here) and how we must evolve our attitudes towards society from one of fact and solution to one of insight and responsibility. So the currency of favours is nothing new: Machiavelli wrote The Prince in the early 16th Century and the Dao De Jing was written in 500 BCE (give or take). So the question is whether we are happy to share the characteristics of monkeys in a quantitative, calculated Machiavellian approach to engaging in societal endeavours or embrace our responsibility to give selfless, unrequited favours with courage and vindication for the greater benefit of our communities.
As Barack Obama said, we are entering an era of personal responsibility. As the Buddhists say, everything is cyclical. I propose that the time for Machiavellian thinking is over and it’s time to embrace the tenets of the selfless philosophies. So let the currency of favours be implicit not explicit. Let the intent behind favours be unrequited, safe in the knowledge that nature deals in a currency that will see personal investment repaid. So let the expectation of repayment be passive and let the will to help others be active and selfless. Let us be humans not monkeys.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
One Young World: Summit Highlights
I talked about One Young World previously. The organisation held its first summit in February 2010 which gave young people, from across the globe, the chance to debate the top issues facing the future of the planet, move our thinking forward and develop actionable plans to help change the world. Here is a video of the highlights.
They are planning their next summit for 2011. It will be interesting to see if they review (and recognise) the actions taken at the summit this year - can you see an opportunity for the youth action oscars based on videos of success stories? One Young Oscar?
They are planning their next summit for 2011. It will be interesting to see if they review (and recognise) the actions taken at the summit this year - can you see an opportunity for the youth action oscars based on videos of success stories? One Young Oscar?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Are people inherently good?
The Bible, Confucius, Sharia law and the Constitution of the United States of America are all historical examples of guidelines that set out the proper behaviour of people. This begs the question: if people are inherently good, altruistic may be a better word, and act for the greater good of their communities why have certain behaviours been mandated again and again through thousands of years of history? Agreed they all have their nuances. But fundamentally they all state a series of rules, rituals, principles or laws that are to be followed without question. There are, of course, cases where the rules have evolved – the best example in Western culture is the evolution and reinterpretation of Jewish law by the Christians and even differences have evolved between different Jewish and Christian groups.
If we look at the Bible, after the great flood that eliminated human kind, with the exception of Noah and his family, Genesis Chapter 20 verse 21 states “...I (God) will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth..”. Confucius wrote his Analects at a time when China was in the throes of civil war and the country was in desperate need of cohesion. I could go on.
Perhaps Richard Dawkins (or in fact, Charles Darwin) is the most enlightened of all the great thinkers of the last few thousand years. The Selfish Gene, published in 1976, depicts the biological phenomenon that genes work towards a state of stable expression through their passive or inherent (but not conscious) propagation until such time that they are dominant in a given community (gene pool). Altruism in this case, states that sacrifice is a necessary part of the process to propagate the genes. Altruism is therefore a critical part of selfishness ie. The unprecedented expression of the gene to as high a level of frequency as possible until it is consistently and stably present throughout the gene pool.
If this form of selfishness is indeed our inherent behaviour, law and order exists to counteract our biological imperative. So are we inherently good? In terms of propagating successful or ‘fit’ genes – and I am talking about humans here – we are built with the nature to propagate and advance our species. You could argue that the great works of philosophy and religion spanning more than 5 thousand years have developed as a means of controlling mankind – this statement in itself is one that has been debated for years. But to take it a level further, you could argue that religious and philosophical texts of spiritual means actually exist to oppose human nature. Is our view on whether we are inherently ‘good’ skewed by the filters that these texts place on our apparently open minds? Is our nature, our biological imperative, constrained through the social constructs of religion, law and spirituality? If the human heart is evil and evil is the norm, can you argue that evil is actually good because it is the nature of the populous? As Shakespeare says, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” (Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2). Democracy exists to represent the thoughts of the masses on proportional basis (at least that is the intent). Therefore I propose that evil hearts are the norm and evil is good and laws exist to prevent society and the human species from progressing towards its full potential.
Then, as Isiah Berlin famously wrote, "few new truths have ever won their way against the resistance of established ideas save by being overstated". I am an atheist who believes that we have responsibility for our actions and that our actions must safeguard our communities and the future of the planet. Still, an interesting debate and one that I hope we can all enjoy.
If we look at the Bible, after the great flood that eliminated human kind, with the exception of Noah and his family, Genesis Chapter 20 verse 21 states “...I (God) will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth..”. Confucius wrote his Analects at a time when China was in the throes of civil war and the country was in desperate need of cohesion. I could go on.
Perhaps Richard Dawkins (or in fact, Charles Darwin) is the most enlightened of all the great thinkers of the last few thousand years. The Selfish Gene, published in 1976, depicts the biological phenomenon that genes work towards a state of stable expression through their passive or inherent (but not conscious) propagation until such time that they are dominant in a given community (gene pool). Altruism in this case, states that sacrifice is a necessary part of the process to propagate the genes. Altruism is therefore a critical part of selfishness ie. The unprecedented expression of the gene to as high a level of frequency as possible until it is consistently and stably present throughout the gene pool.
If this form of selfishness is indeed our inherent behaviour, law and order exists to counteract our biological imperative. So are we inherently good? In terms of propagating successful or ‘fit’ genes – and I am talking about humans here – we are built with the nature to propagate and advance our species. You could argue that the great works of philosophy and religion spanning more than 5 thousand years have developed as a means of controlling mankind – this statement in itself is one that has been debated for years. But to take it a level further, you could argue that religious and philosophical texts of spiritual means actually exist to oppose human nature. Is our view on whether we are inherently ‘good’ skewed by the filters that these texts place on our apparently open minds? Is our nature, our biological imperative, constrained through the social constructs of religion, law and spirituality? If the human heart is evil and evil is the norm, can you argue that evil is actually good because it is the nature of the populous? As Shakespeare says, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” (Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2). Democracy exists to represent the thoughts of the masses on proportional basis (at least that is the intent). Therefore I propose that evil hearts are the norm and evil is good and laws exist to prevent society and the human species from progressing towards its full potential.
Then, as Isiah Berlin famously wrote, "few new truths have ever won their way against the resistance of established ideas save by being overstated". I am an atheist who believes that we have responsibility for our actions and that our actions must safeguard our communities and the future of the planet. Still, an interesting debate and one that I hope we can all enjoy.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Be a 'good' leader
A recent study by James Fowler, at the University of California, demonstrates that a single good action is amplified through our networks of friends and colleagues - in fact, everyone we encounter. The article "Cooperative behaviour cascades in human social networks" was published this month in a leading academic journal. He demonstrates something intuitively obvious - if we do something 'good' to someone they are more inclined to do something 'good' to other people with whom they interact...and so the web of positivity is cast.
Here is his website: http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/
We are responsible for our actions and always have a choice. So the key lesson from Fowler's paper is that we can, individually, play a role in benefiting our communities. We must all take responsibility for our value systems and these are manifested through our actions. We must all be leaders and demonstrate our beliefs through our actions at every opportunity. We must all respond to challenges through actions that are balanced, just, inclusive and benefit our communities. We must remove our egos and selfishness to ensure that our actions exist with the single objective of benefiting our communities. Fowler's paper demonstrates that we, as individuals, can help change the world for the better. We must all be 'good' leaders.
Here is his website: http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/
We are responsible for our actions and always have a choice. So the key lesson from Fowler's paper is that we can, individually, play a role in benefiting our communities. We must all take responsibility for our value systems and these are manifested through our actions. We must all be leaders and demonstrate our beliefs through our actions at every opportunity. We must all respond to challenges through actions that are balanced, just, inclusive and benefit our communities. We must remove our egos and selfishness to ensure that our actions exist with the single objective of benefiting our communities. Fowler's paper demonstrates that we, as individuals, can help change the world for the better. We must all be 'good' leaders.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The wisdom economy
This week, the RSA talked about the transition from the 'knowledge economy' to the 'wisdom economy'. Intuitively, this sounds great. Words like 'consideration', 'thoughtfulness', 'insight' and 'consequence' come to mind. The basic premise is that knowledge and skills have been the differentiator for Western economies but we are seeing that the emerging markets are as intelligent, innovative and creative as the west. More importantly, the emerging markets are able to provide services and produce 'things' at a fraction of the cost as the western markets.
So what can differentiate the mature western markets? What is the next stage of maturity or evolution? The proposal is wisdom. The article states:
"A wisdom economy doesn’t ignore knowledge, but recognises that value is attached to the ethical and social framework within which that knowledge is used. Wisdom recognises that values and value-judgements are implicit in the way we live and that we need to be open about them. The knowledge economy is innovative. The wisdom economy is reflective. Reflection doesn’t displace innovation: but it asks what the purpose and end of the innovation will be. It stops to consider the consequences, and will sometimes place a higher value on inaction than on action as a result."
Here is the link to the article:
http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/03/03/knowledge-economy-wisdom-economy/
These types of idea are appearing more and more in conventional thinking. If wisdom is the next development of how we live together and operate, the time is right to sharpen our self awareness and review our values.
So what can differentiate the mature western markets? What is the next stage of maturity or evolution? The proposal is wisdom. The article states:
"A wisdom economy doesn’t ignore knowledge, but recognises that value is attached to the ethical and social framework within which that knowledge is used. Wisdom recognises that values and value-judgements are implicit in the way we live and that we need to be open about them. The knowledge economy is innovative. The wisdom economy is reflective. Reflection doesn’t displace innovation: but it asks what the purpose and end of the innovation will be. It stops to consider the consequences, and will sometimes place a higher value on inaction than on action as a result."
Here is the link to the article:
http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/03/03/knowledge-economy-wisdom-economy/
These types of idea are appearing more and more in conventional thinking. If wisdom is the next development of how we live together and operate, the time is right to sharpen our self awareness and review our values.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Earth hour
Earth Hour started in 2007 in Sydney, Australia when 2.2 million homes and businesses turned their lights off for one hour to make their stand against climate change. In March 2009, hundreds of millions of people in over 4000 cities in 88 countries switched off their lights to pledge their support for the planet, making Earth Hour 2009 the world’s largest global climate change initiative.
Here's the link for more information.
http://www.earthhour.org
Earth Hour 2010 takes place on Saturday 27 March at 8.30pm (local time) and is a global call to action to every individual, every business and every community throughout the world. It is a call to stand up, to take responsibility, to get involved and lead the way towards a sustainable future.
Here's the link for more information.
http://www.earthhour.org
Earth Hour 2010 takes place on Saturday 27 March at 8.30pm (local time) and is a global call to action to every individual, every business and every community throughout the world. It is a call to stand up, to take responsibility, to get involved and lead the way towards a sustainable future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
