Is this what we really want? That’s the thought that keeps popping in to my head as the wind tears at the roof and the water digs a gully as it runs down the drive. I have found media reported events over the past months (year?) to be particularly concerning. There seems to be no will to change the way we do things despite the discomfort of economic hardship and the volatility of nature. The story told in the Age of Stupid is too close to reality. It seems that we have the power to choose and we keep making the same poor choices. There is hope – perhaps the way we manage ourselves is changing. Us Now – is a short movie which describes the process of virtual democracy that is emerging in the rich world wherein we all influence the direction of society, though we have yet to show that we can take responsibility for our own actions. Can we govern without leaders? I used to believe that we would have time to change our ways before we killed nature, but that confidence is waning as I see our leaders of government and banking and business playin the same old games. The Copenhagen Summit in December is billed as a last chance to change human consumption patterns, but its outcome will be similar to that of Johannesburg and Kyoto – until everyone, especially the top 10%, changes thinking and behaviour the problems of society, economy and ecology will continue. We must be the change. But christmas is coming so we must consume large amounts of plastic and accumulate more stuff and travel to the melting Alps.
I like shopping on-line – it’s quick, easy and cost effective. And I’ve tried the self-service checkout, when the teller queue is long or slow. But the push by big grocers to move exclusively to self-service is another nail in the coffin of communities.
Most of us prefer to buy food from a person, we go to the shop to get our milk and bread and even if we benefit frmo home delivery, its because we know the shop which is delivering and we know there’s a person dropping off the box. Certainly, as we get older we value the social dynamic of a community more and more as we realise that chasing after the money train doesn’t bring happiness.
Ironically there is even evidence to support the notion that interacting with a human being is part of the selling process and an effective way to increase sales. Psychologist Emma Kenny shows that getting customers to buy more is all about the love. That’s even supported by the efforts on-line retailers go to socialise the buying experience, e.g. we are given confidence in our choices on Amazon because the ratings from other purchases tell us what we are buying will suit us.
Can you imagine a shopping experience where there is no person to help you in the shop? You know how frustrating those telephone “service” systems are. It is inevitable that we are moving quickly to shops with few if any people in the checkouts and clerks in the aisles. It’s just a question of automation. The question is whether we have the systems and sense to recreate expectations of employment, leisure, work, play and wealth equity. Today we do not, although there are small pockets of people who are demonstrating the possibilities. If we don’t stop chasing the money train and nurture community, if we don’t learn to achieve success without growth, we will face a social crisis far greater than the economic crisis of today – anarchy will rise as people demand the return of society and comunity from big business.
Natural Products: Getting customers to buy more (it’s all about the love)
An open world is the solution to many of the problems humanity has created for itself, from economic instability to ecological instability, from hunger to pollution, from torture to poverty.
On the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, JP Lehmann reflects on the many challenges we must all face up to today:
The Post-Berlin Aftermath – Many Walls Still Need to be Brought Down By Professor Jean-Pierre Lehmann – November 2009
This photo is not a scare tactic. It is a picture of the biosphere in human form … today. That big head is the rich world, the body is everyone else.
We can change our future. The girl in the picture can not.
It is up to you to change. To recognise your fears, breathe and face the reality of humanity’s footprint on the planet, and do something about it. Stop flying around the world so much. Drive less. Buy less stuff. It’s not someone else’s responsibility. You choose our future.
An article in today’s news suggests that we can turn back the tide of carbon by installing thousands of artificial carbon capture trees.
OK, it might help. But it’s just the wrong kind of thinking and a tremendous waste of materials. It is real trees that we need.
Building steel structures with solar panels and chemical reactors is not going to help re-balance the cycles of nature. They are not going to replace themselves (as trees do). They are just another placebo for western conscience.
This kind of approach to correcting the damage humanity has wrought upon nature is foolish. It is not that we can not “solve” the problems with controlling technology, but that these “solutions” will result in a planet without nature. We might enjoy TV, video games, airconditioning and processed food, but a life with only virtual infrastructure, and no trees, is very unattractive.
Let’s have more trees, please.
Even people who know things are bad for them, like too many sweets, find it hard to change their behaviour. It is easier to change if the result of changing behaviour is immediate, tangible and measureable – that’s evidenced by the labour market – somebody will do anything at a price.
But it is more difficult if there is uncertainty about how to change, what the result of the change will be and whether or not others are doing the same thing. Changing our living habits and behaviour to be more interdependent with nature (to be more sustainable) faces these challenges.
A recent report (Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges) and article (The psychology of climate change: why we do nothing) discuss the barriers to changing our behaviour, with particular reference to climate change.
Anxiety and helplessness, argues the report published last week by the American Psychological Association, rather than ambivalence or apathy are the biggest barriers to individuals taking action. It says that unlike other environmental problems, like river pollution or GM food, people do not see climate change as an immediate threat.
The report identified some key barriers, including:
- Uncertainty – Research has shown that uncertainty over climate change reduces the frequency of “green” behaviour.
- Mistrust – Evidence shows that most people don’t believe the risk messages of scientists or government officials.
- Social comparison – People routinely compare their actions with those of others and derive subjective and descriptive norms from their observations about what is the “proper” course of action. i.e. Al Gore’s large residence has been used as a justification for inaction.
- Undervaluing risks – A study of more than 3,000 people in 18 countries showed that many people believe environmental conditions will worsen in 25 years. While this may be true, this thinking could lead people to believe that changes can be made later.
- Lack of Control – People believe their actions would be too small to make a difference and choose to do nothing.
- Perceived behavioural control – Because climate change is a global problem, many individuals understandably believe that they can do nothing about it. This is the well-known collective action problem.
- Habit – Ingrained behaviours are extremely resistant to permanent change while others change slowly.
The first step is to be aware that there is a choice of behaviour. Then to care. Then behaviour changes.
Unfortunately, this is not as easy done as said. This report on the chemical industry shows that little has changed in the five decades since Rachel Carson warned of the dangers of DDT in Silent Spring:
‘For myself, when it comes to chemicals, voluntary action just doesn’t work. The only instrument that works is legislation. It’s the only language that they understand.’
The tactics employed, the ‘Six Ds’: ‘Deny the problem, Distort the facts, Discredit the opponent, Distract by suggesting voluntary action, Delay legislation, and Dilute its substance.’ ‘It’s the same old fight.’
Industry will change if forced to by legislators, or consumers changing their buying behaviour. So we should buy differently.
At the end of the day change is up to us as individuals. Living with nature must be in our hearts, minds and hands.
From the UK’s Mail on Sunday.
Assisted suicide has been in the headlines because the law incriminating those who assist suicide is under review. Sir Terry has alzheimer’s and has written about death for over three decades.
I’ll die before the endgame, says Terry Pratchett in call for law to allow assisted suicides in UK By Terry Pratchett
Pledge: Terry Pratchett revealed his views on ‘assisted death’ by saying he hopes to be ‘helped across the step’
Sir Terry Pratchett has made an emotional plea for the right to take his own life, saying: ‘I live in hope I can jump before I am pushed.’
‘I believe that if the burden gets too great, those who wish should be allowed to be shown the door,’ he said. ‘In my case, in the fullness of time, I hope it will be in the garden under an English sky. Or, if wet, the library.’
Sir Terry, 61, author of the hugely successful Discworld books, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s diseasein 2007.
He said that no one has a duty to suffer the extremes of terminal illness and set down his admiration for the sick and dying who have travelled to Switzerland to die in legal suicide clinics. They have displayed ‘ furious sanity’, he said.
The Lords ruled on Thursday that the Director of Public Prosecutions must give Mrs Purdy, who has multiple sclerosis, guidance on whether her husband will face prosecution – and a possible 14-year prison sentence – if he helps her travel to the Dignitas clinic in Zurich to die.
The judgment means the DPP is likely to set down rules which will clear those who do not have selfish motives from the threat of prosecution – a major step towards legalisation.
Sir Terry, who was knighted in the 2009 New Year Honours, said in an article in the Mail on Sunday: ‘I intend, before the endgame looms, to die sitting in a chair in my own garden with a glass of brandy in my hand and Thomas Tallis on the iPod.
‘Oh, and since this is England, I had better add, “If wet, in the library”. Who could say that this is bad?’
Sir Terry said he would be happy to accept help from the medical profession. He said he had no doubt that there were people with a ‘passion for caring’, but asked them to accept there are people ‘who have a burning passion not to need to be cared for’.
The author rejected the idea that allowing assisted suicide would amount to legalising euthanasia, in which those unwilling to die would be killed off.
He said some ways of looking after those with chronic illnesses, including forcible or ‘peg’ feeding of Alzheimer’s sufferers, were degradpulsorying and painful. ‘I am certain no one sets out to be cruel, but our treatment of the elderly ill seems to have no philosophy to it. As a society, we should establish whether we have a policy of life at any cost.’
Sir Terry added: ‘I have seen people profess to fear that the existence of a formalised approach to assisted dying could lead to it somehow becoming part of national health policy.
‘I very much doubt this could be the case. We are a democracy and no democratic government is going to get anywhere with a policy of comor even recommended euthanasia.
‘If we were ever to end up with such a government, we would be in so much trouble that the problem would become the least of our worries. But neither do I believe in a duty to suffer the worst ravages of terminal illness.’
Peers voted heavily against a parliamentary move to allow assisted suicide last month. Sir Terry backed the reform, put forward by former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, which would have allowed relatives or friends to escort dying relatives to a suicide in Switzerland with the approval of two doctors.
However since then the main nursing union, the Royal College of Nursing, has withdrawn its opposition to assisted suicide.
More than 100 Britons have died at the Dignitas clinic, taking advantage of Swiss tolerance of suicide. Most recently conductor Sir Edward Downes and his wife Joan died in Zurich, in the presence of their two children.
Lady Downes was dying of cancer but Sir Edward, while frail, was not suffering from a terminal illness.
Point me to heaven when the final chapter comes… Terry Pratchett’s deeply personal plea
We are being stupid. We have been so successful in the past century at the art of living longer and staying alive that we have forgotten how to die. Too often we learn the hard way. As soon as the baby boomers pass pensionable age, their lesson will be harsher still. At least, that is what I thought until last week.
Now, however, I live in hope – hope that before the disease in my brain finally wipes it clean, I can jump before I am pushed and drag my evil Nemesis to its doom, like Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty locked in combat as they go over the waterfall.
In any case, such thinking bestows a wonderful feeling of power; the enemy might win but it won’t triumph.
Plea: Things like pride, self-respect and human dignity are worthy of preservation, says Discworld author Terry Pratchett
Last week a poll revealed that more than three-quarters of people in Britain approve of assisted suicide for the terminally ill.
On Thursday, the Law Lords delivered the landmark judgment in a case brought by multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy, who feared her husband would be prosecuted if he accompanied her to die abroad.
She wanted the law on assisted dying to be clarified and the Law Lords have now ordered the Director of Public Prosecutions to draw up policy spelling out when prosecutions would and would not be pursued.
It looks as though the baby boomers have spoken and some of them, at least, hope they die before they get old – well, too old. Some have seen what happened to their parents or grandparents, and they don’t like it. Every day I remember my own father’s death. The nurses were kind, but there was something very wrong about it.
The poll result arrived at about the same time as the Royal College of Nursing announced that it was ending its opposition to assisted dying. Other signs indicate that the medical profession as a whole is at least prepared to face the issue.
I hate the term ‘assisted suicide’. I have witnessed the aftermath of two suicides, and as a journalist I attended far too many coroners’ inquests, where I was amazed and appalled at the many ways that desperate people find to end their lives.
Suicide is fear, shame, despair and grief. It is madness.
Those brave souls lately seeking death abroad seem to me, on the other hand, to be gifted with a furious sanity. They have seen their future, and they don’t want to be part of it.
But for me, the scandal has not been solely that innocent people have had the threat of murder hanging over their heads for committing a clear act of mercy. It is that people are having to go to another country to die; it should be possible to die with benign assistance here.
You do not have to read much social history, or move in medical circles, to reach the conclusion that the profession has long seen it as part of its remit to help the dying die more comfortably.
Victorians expected to die at home, undoubtedly assisted by the medical profession.
In those days there was no such thing as drug control – just as there was no gun control. Laudanum and opiates were widespread and everyone knew you could get your hands on them. Sherlock Holmes was one of them!
As a young journalist I once listened in awe as a 90-year-old former nurse told me how she helped a dying cancer patient into the great beyond with the help of a pillow.
Consolation: Terry in his Wiltshire garden with a brandy – the way he would like to be able to spend his final conscious moments
In the absence of any better medication in that time and place, and with his wife in hysterics at the pain he was forced to endure, death was going to be a friend; it was life, life gone wild, that was killing him.
‘We called it “pointing them to Heaven”,’ she told me.
Decades later, I mentioned this to another, younger nurse, who gave me a blank look, and then said: ‘We used to call it “showing them the way”.’
Then she walked off quickly, aware that she had left a hostage to fortune.
I have been told that doctors do not like patients to worry that, theoretically, their GP has the expertise to kill them. Really?
I suspect that even my dentist has the means to kill me. It does not worry me in the slightest, and I imagine that, like many other people, I would be very happy for the medical profession to help me over the step.
I have written a living will to that effect, and indeed this article in The Mail on Sunday will be evidence of my determination in this matter. I cannot make the laws but you have no idea how much I hope those in a position to do so will listen.
In the course of the past few years, I have met some delightful people who say they have a passion for caring and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt them. Can they accept, however, that there are some people who have a burning passion not to need to be cared for?
It appears to be an item of faith with many people I have spoken to that both doctors and nurses, at least in hospital, still have ‘things they can do’ when the patient is in extremis.
I certainly hope this is true, but I wish we could blow away the clouds obscuring the issue and embrace the idea of ending, at their request, the life of a terminally ill person at a time and, if possible, a place of their choosing.
I write this as someone who has, regrettably, become famous for having Alzheimer’s. Although being famous is all the rage these days, it’s fame I could do without.
I know enough to realise there will not be a cure within my lifetime and I know the later stages of the disease can be very unpleasant. Indeed, it’s the most feared disease among the over-65s.
Naturally, I turn my attention to the future. There used to be a term known as ‘mercy killing’. I cannot believe it ever had any force in law but it did, and still does, persist in the public consciousness, and in general the public consciousness gets it right.
We would not walk away from a man being attacked by a monster, and if we couldn’t get the ravening beast off him we might well conclude that some instant means of less painful death would be preferable before the monster ate him alive.
Family man: Terry Pratchett with his daughter Rhianna in 1998
And certainly we wouldn’t tuck it up in bed with him and try to carry on the fight from there, which is a pretty good metaphor for what we do now, particularly with ‘old-timers’ disease.
(My speech-to-text programme persists in transcribing Alzheimer’s as ‘old-timers’. In fact, I’ve heard many people absent-mindedly doing the same thing, and as a writer, I cannot help wondering if the perception of the disease might be a little kinder without that sharp, Germanic intonation.)
My father was a man well tuned to the public consciousness. The day before he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer he told me: ‘If you ever see me in a hospital bed with tubes and pipes all over me, then tell them to turn me off.’
There was no chance of that a year later, when medicine’s defences had been used up and he was becoming a battleground between the cancer and the morphine.
I have no idea what might have been going through his head, but why did we have to go through with this? He had been told he had a year to live, the year was up, and he was a practical man; he knew why he had been taken to the hospice.
Why could we not have had the Victorian finale, perhaps just a week or so earlier, with time for words of love and good advice, and tears just before the end?
It would have made something human and understandable out of what instead became surreal. It was not the fault of the staff; they were, like us, prisoners of a system.
At least my father’s problem was pain, and pain can be controlled right until the end.
But I do not know how you control a sense of loss and the slow slipping of the mind away from the living body – the kind that old-timer’s disease causes.
I know my father was the sort of man who didn’t make a fuss, and perhaps I would not, either, if pain were the only issue for me. But it isn’t.
I am enjoying my life to the full, and hope to continue for quite some time. But I also intend, before the endgame looms, to die sitting in a chair in my own garden with a glass of brandy in my hand and Thomas Tallis on the iPod – the latter because Thomas’s music could lift even an atheist a little bit closer to Heaven – and perhaps a second brandy if there is time.
Oh, and since this is England I had better add: ‘If wet, in the library.’
Who could say that is bad? Where is the evil here?
But, of course, important points are being made in this debate. Currently, people say they are worried about the possibility of old people being ‘urged’ by greedy relatives into taking an early death.
If we cannot come up with a means of identifying this, I would be very surprised.
Legal first: MS victim Debbie Purdy, pictured with husband Omar Puente, has persuaded the Law Lords to call for clarification of the law on assisted suicide
In any case, in my experience it is pretty impossible to get an elderly person to do something they do not wish to do. They tend to know their own mind like the back of their hand, and quite probably would object to this being questioned.
There needs to be, for the safety of all concerned, some kind of gentle tribunal, to make certain that requests for assisted death are bona fide and not perhaps due to gentle persuasion.
It is the sort of thing, in my opinion, coroners could handle well. All the ones I have met have been former lawyers with much experience of the world and of the ways of human nature, people with wisdom, in fact, and that means middle-aged at the very least, and old enough to have some grasp of the world’s realities.
I have no way of knowing whether any of them would wish to be involved; this is breaking new ground and we won’t know unless we try.
In my early journalistic years, I watched such men deal with the deaths of thalidomide babies and the results of terrible accidents with calm and compassion. If their successors are as caring in their deliberations, I feel this may go some way to meeting the objections that people have.
And I would suggest, too, that Social Services be kept well away from any such arrangement. I don’t think they would have much to offer.
In this country we have rather lost faith in the wisdom of ordinary people, among whom my father was a shining example. And it is ordinary people, ultimately, who must make such decisions.
There are those who will object that the care industry can cope. Even if we accept that they are coping now, which most of us will take on trust, in the coming decades they certainly will not be able to without a major reordering of our society.
The numbers tell us this. We already have a situation where elderly people are being cared for at home by people who themselves are of pensionable age. The healthcare system will become messy, and the NHS will struggle to cope.
There are care homes, of course, and they are subject to inspection, and we must take it on trust that the inspection system has teeth, but would you know how to choose one? Would you know what questions to ask?
Would you know, if you suffer from Alzheimer’s disease or are representing someone who is, whether the place you would be choosing resorts to ‘peg feeding’?
Peg feeding is the forcible feeding of patients who refuse food. I found out about this only recently, and I’m afraid it has entirely coloured my views.
These are, after all, innocent people who are on the road to death, and yet someone thinks it is right to subject them to this degrading and painful business.
The Alzheimer’s Society says peg feeding is ‘not best practice’, a rather diplomatic statement.
A kindly angel: Death, as portrayed in a scene from the Sky TV adaptation of Pratchett’s Discworld novel The Hogfather
People there that I trust tell me the main problem with the treatment of acute Alzheimer’s cases is not a lack of care and goodwill as such, but insufficient numbers of people who are skilled in the special needs of the terminally-ill Alzheimer’s patient.
I am certain no one sets out to be cruel, but our treatment of the elderly ill seems to have no philosophy to it.
As a society, we should establish whether we have a policy of ‘life at any cost’. Apparently there is already such a thing as an official ‘quality of life index’: I don’t know whether the fact that we have one frightens me more than the possibility that we don’t.
In the first book of my Discworld series, published more than 26 years ago, I introduced Death as a character; there was nothing particularly new about this – death has featured in art and literature since medieval times, and for centuries we have had a fascination with the Grim Reaper.
But the Death of the Discworld is a little more unusual. He has become popular – after all, as he patiently explains, it is not he who kills. Guns and knives and starvation kill; Death turns up afterwards, to reassure the puzzled arrivals as they begin their journey.
He is kind; after all, he is an angel. And he is fascinated with us, in the way in which we make our little lives so complicated, and our strivings. So am I.
Within a year or two, I started to get letters about Death. They came from people in hospices, and from their relatives and from bereaved individuals, and from young children in leukaemia wards, and the parents of boys who had crashed their motorbikes.
I recall one letter where the writer said the books were of great help to his mother when she was in a hospice. Frequently, the bereaved asked to be allowed to quote some part of the Discworld books in a memorial service.
They all tried to say, in some way, ‘thank you’, and until I got used to it, the arrival of one of these letters would move me sufficiently to give up writing for the day.
The bravest person I’ve ever met was a young boy going through massive amounts of treatment for a very rare, complex and unpleasant disease. I last saw him at a Discworld convention, where he chose to take part in a game as an assassin. He died not long afterwards, and I wish I had his fortitude and sense of style.
I would like to think my refusal to go into care towards the end of my life might free up the resources for people such as him.
Let me make this very clear: I do not believe there is any such thing as a ‘duty to die’; we should treasure great age as the tangible presence of the past, and honour it as such.
I know that last September Baroness Warnock was quoted, or possibly misquoted, as saying the very elderly sick had a ‘duty to die’, and I have seen people profess to fear that the existence of a formalised approach to assisted dying could lead to it somehow becoming part of national health policy.
I very much doubt this could be the case. We are a democracy and no democratic government is going to get anywhere with a policy of compulsory or even recommended euthanasia. If we were ever to end up with such a government, we would be in so much trouble that the problem would become the least of our worries.
But neither do I believe in a duty to suffer the worst ravages of terminal illness.
As an author, I’ve always tended to be known only to a circle of people – quite a large one, I must admit – who read books. I was not prepared for what happened after I ‘came out’ about having Alzheimer’s in December 2007, and appeared on television.
People would stop me in the street to tell me their mother had it, or their father had it. Sometimes, it’s both parents, and I look into their eyes and I see a flash of fear.
In London the other day, a beefy man grabbed my arm, smiled at me and said, ‘Thanks a lot for what you’re doing, my mum died from it,’ and disappeared into the crowd.
And, of course, there have been the vast numbers of letters and emails, some of which, I’m ashamed to say, will perhaps never be answered.
People do fear, and not because fear is whipped up, but because they’ve recalled an unpleasant death in their family history.
Sometimes I find myself involved in strange conversations, because I am an amiable-looking person who people think they know and, importantly, I am not an authority figure – quite the reverse.
I have met Alzheimer’s sufferers who are hoping that another illness takes them away first. Little old ladies confide in me, saying: ‘I’ve been saving up my pills for the end, dear.’
What they are doing, in fact, is buying themselves a feeling of control. I have met retired nurses who have made their own provisions for the future with rather more knowledgeable deliberation.
From personal experience, I believe the recent poll reflects the views of the people in this country. They don’t dread death; it’s what happens beforehand that worries them.
Life is easy and cheap to make. But the things we add to it, such as pride, self-respect and human dignity, are worthy of preservation, too, and these can be lost in a fetish for life at any cost.
I believe that if the burden gets too great, those who wish to should be allowed to be shown the door.
In my case, in the fullness of time, I hope it will be the one to the garden under an English sky. Or, if wet, the library.
In Bound to Burn, an article copied here, Peter Huber lays out a realistic perspective of the challenge of redirecting our energy consumption patterns. It is very sobering. He outlines the seemingly intractable and growing demand for carbon based fuels, comparing them with an insignificant impact of alternative fuels, concluding that carbon sequestration is the only realistic solution to our energy problems.
Unfortunately, his conclusion is as limited as our ability to sequester carbon and the likely benevelonce it will have on the disruption of ecological cycles.
It is worth reading simply to expand your perspective on how large the problem of fossil fuels is.
Our contention, however, is that the solution lies in system change and alternative fuels. The time frame is rapid, but no more drastic than the speed at which fossil fuel use has grown in the past century. System change is required because we must live within the laws of nature – increasing energy consumption with 100% carbon sequestration does not satisfy that need. Alternative fuels and technologies are available to satisfy a high value lifestyle, but not an energy intensive one, even today. Halving the global population by reducing births through education and incentive can be achieved in a generation and will have the greatest beneficial effect on humanity’s footprint. These solutions may seem unpalatable but can be attractive and are increasingly necessary if we are to preserve a habitat for humanity.
Extract from Bound To Burn
We rich people can’t stop the world’s 5 billion poor people from burning the couple of trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have within easy reach. We can’t even make any durable dent in global emissions — because emissions from the developing world are growing too fast, because the other 80 percent of humanity desperately needs cheap energy, and because we and they are now part of the same global economy. What we can do, if we’re foolish enough, is let carbon worries send our jobs and industries to their shores, making them grow even faster, and their carbon emissions faster still.
Not yet. But the hasty reaction to economic problems may become more self-destructive than necessary.
Certainly moves to nationalise banks have been necessary to hold the global financial system “together”. And there has been a fall in trade as consumption has faltered. But the increasing popular call for government involvement and deglobalisation is dangerous and inappropriate.
It is dangerous because it results in bad decisions, such as the gross protectionism afforded the banks here in Ireland. Some € 7 billion has been pumped in to two banks that could have been sold to private investors. Now we will face tax increases. The banks still fail to finance businesses. And those executives who failed are still being rewarded. If they had been sold, the government budget would not be so bad and there might be some professional discipline in the board room.
It is inappropriate because we live in a global world. The technlogy that allows us to enjoy free video telephony unifes humanity. The industry that extracts the oil that fuels our food, transport and heat is a global franchise. The pollution of air and water is a global phenomenon. Humanity’s footprint is global. We must manage ourselves at the global level.
But we must manage ourselves at the community level too. It has been too easy to fob-off our responsibilities to national governments and exist in a sterile world of PDAs, planes, cars, fashion, cosmetics and fantasy food. We must live in our communities and be involved in them. That is communism with a small “c”. Nationalisation and deglobalisation can all too easily lead to Communism with a big “C”, and that’s a big step backwards.
Turning their backs on the world by the Economist.
You’re right to try to be optimistic. Or at least positive. A positive outlook helps keep spirits up, helps avoid despondency. despondency can be the worst because then you just stop doing anything and sink in to a mire of desperation.
But optimism about the outlook could be even more dangerous. It could result in further losses because you base your expectations on a scenario which fails to materialise. The best approach is realism. That should be based on sound analysis of the data available and an evaluation of sentiment. Right now the realistic outlook is not good. The best historical benchmark we have for what is happening today is the Great Depression. Back then the image is of soup kitchens. And that picture is likely to re-emerge sooner than we would like because of two serious issues which have no immediate solution – the gaping hole in the credit markets and the rapidly rising unemployment of people.
Look around you and talk to your friends. People are losing their jobs daily. And many of those people have little savings or those savings are tied up in property (illiquid and valued below cost) or stocks (valued below cost). People need to eat. Without food anarchy ensues. People can not grow their own – they mostly live in urban areas – so they must be given food. So expect to see food aid in developed countries.
I just paint that picture in case you are feeling too optimistic. You should base your expectations on reality so that your strategy for survival, and hopefully helping others, is based on sound judgement.
I certainly hope that economies reliquify soon and people start getting jobs again. If that happens then solutions will be easier. but there are few signs yet that fiscal stimulus is being applied or that it is working. The numbers coming out continue to be bad. (For example, today’s headlines: US faces deep problems, OECD says and World Bank predicts global gloom.)
It appears that solutions are going to have to occur at the local level, because governments are stymied. So let’s hope for community supports and local incentives to restart the credit markets. Be positive, and realistic.