Twitteretter

A recently published Rand Corporation study reveals an ongoing significant redistribution of wealth, from 90% of the population to the top 10%. This is not new and, for me, not a surprise. I’ve written about inequality before. What is new about the Rand study is that it quantifies the redistribution, at least for the US. If the share of wealth and income in US society had remained unchanged since the three decades following World War II, the 90% would be $47 trillion per year richer. The figure is staggering, less than 10% of the population would know how to write it in extended form. The average American would be $42,000 per year better of. How can the wealthy and powerful get away with this in a democracy, where people vote on policies? Simple. We know we have an enemy, but we don’t know who it is. For white men, Latinos and blacks. And for them, white men. For Brits, Europeans and, for many Europeans, African and Asian refugees. Meanwhile, the true enemy hides in plain sight  Le...

Karl Popper, introduced in entry 170, had very topical thoughts on tolerance, informed by living in Austria in the 30s, the time of the Anschluss . ‘Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance to even those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them’ . This warning, issued in the politically dark 30s, is worryingly apt to today’s social and political trends. Tribalism, populism, aggression against the other and refusal of alternative ideas are the order of the day, fuelled by politicians and so called leaders with short term aims and Machiavelli’s ‘ the end justifies the means ’ as their mantra. We would do well to see, in Russia, China, Trump’s US and Brexit Britain the same attitudes to tolerance apparent in Germany, Italy and Spain in the 30s, and to be vigilant. When tolerance dies, democracy follows...

I have read with interest news that Exxon Mobil, API and Koch Industries are being taken to court in Minnesota for misleading the public on climate change. These organisations, amongst others, sought to protect their oil businesses by engaging in a 35 year campaign to sew doubt in public debate about the reality of climate change, following what has been known as the ‘tobacco industry playbook’. The objective is not to state facts proving climate change doesn’t exist, which could be challenged and disproven, but to introduce doubt in the public debate, combined with targeting of specific demographics with bespoke advertising. The practice is immoral, but highly profitable. Even if they ultimately lose an eventual lawsuit, as happened with tobacco, the penalties imposed will be negligible compared with the monies made while engaging in these practices. We need much graver penalties, if they are to be prevented in future, and maybe the largest class action ever, humanity vs oil industry?...

Education is critically important to the success of society and the wellbeing of its citizens, its ultimate purpose. One concern I have of late is that education, following the Anglo Saxon model, is becoming too utilitarian. Educational institutions promote themselves as educating to cover employers’ needs, preparing pupils for the job market. This, I fear, is a mistake. Education needs to be more, it must develop learning, reasoning and criticising skills and a wide range of concerns and understanding. Firstly, because job market needs are not fixed and, therefore, educating for today is doomed to future failure. But more importantly, because efficacy without the right purpose is dangerous. Our brightest, most educated young people focus their efforts on creating wealth shifting complex financial products or strategies to keep kids glued to their screens longer, rather than on solving major social challenges like climate change, infectious disease, antibiotic resistance or inequality ...

In 1964 a young woman, Kitty Genovese, was the victim of a murder, in three separate attacks witnessed by thirty-eight different people in a respectable neighbourhood of Queens, NYC. None of them did anything about it, not even calling the police for nearly forty minutes. This event shocked the World and cast dire judgment on human nature. The psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley, seeking to explain such apparent callousness, conducted experiments that unearthed what is now called the bystander effect. Nobody did anything because they all knew many of their neighbours would be witnessing the same thing. They all left it to someone else to help, and Kitty died. The same effect explains our current attitude to today’s problems. Global warming, inequality, refugee crisis. We all expect someone else, another country or citizen, whether at a national or individual level, to do something about it. While we do, and we remain passive bystanders, we risk the same outcome that befell Kitty...

A common feature of the utopias and dystopias depicted by science fiction from the 60s and 70s was that, through technological success, humans were freed of work, which was carried out by machines. Humans freely explored their artistic and personal interest, free loving and carefree (I use free 3 times intentionally). This was also the consensus of predictions from most futurists in those days, Arthur C. Clarke, Aldous Huxley et al. Today’s reality is very different. We work longer hours than most of the population have at any time since the 1930s, chained by continuously growing demands on our time as labourers and consumers. We have exchanged citizens freedom for corporate profit, which grows exponentially as the anticipated benefits of technical progress concentrate in a few hands. We must go back to the original entente, we did not consciously forsake a realisable utopia for the profit of the few and we should not accept it willingly. We have the power to return to the old course...

Few terms have suffered as much misuse as Marxism. This thought came to my mind during a conversation with a friend a few days ago, in which, after Marxism was mentioned, the question followed: which one? Groucho’s or Karl’s? The question is more apt than you may think at first. Most people believe Marxism is a doctrine which incites the working classes to revolt and recommends the elimination of private property and equal (not equitable) distribution of resources amongst all. This is not the case. Marxism does not in fact make any recommendations. It analyses capitalism from the perspective of Hegelian dialectics and concludes that the opposing forces and interests driving the system will destroy it. This prediction does not request or require action from any social class. Karl’s extremely competent analysis of the inherent contradictions in capitalism have been interpreted and exploited by many, Lenin the first one that turned analysis into recipe, but Marx only observed and analysed...

One argument I have been hearing of late which seems sensible at first sight is that it is not possible for societies to prepare well for something that we don’t know is going to happen. It has been used, to good effect, to defend the fact that we were fairly (not completely) unprepared for the coronavirus pandemic. The argument sounds sensible, but it does not stand careful analysis. Firstly, we did know something like this was going to happen, and the same is true of the next global problems, climate change, antibiotic resistance, the diabetes pandemic and growing inequality. We know they are coming, we should be preparing much better. Secondly, the same politicians and leaderships who use the argument as an excuse disprove it daily with their security and military investment. Countries spend annual fortunes in military capability and exercises, to prepare for the uncertain eventuality of conflict. But the wars that really matter will be fought against the challenges listed above Len...

The coronavirus pandemic has brough along an understanding by the public of the value and importance of science in society. This should, of course, have been there before, science did not become important in 2020, but it was not. The fact is, those who work in science must do more to expose it to the public eye but, more importantly, to explain its utility and value. This is something which has been understood by some Universities, which now have Chairs for the Public Understanding of Science, or similar. But everyone working in science must further its public understanding, we don’t need to be given the job to do so. We must make it an item of conversation, in social media and at the bar, now that they are reopening in many places. Only when the public understands its importance will science get the investment and support it needs to increase its impact and, hopefully, prevent the next pandemic or similar disaster. And only by numbers can we beat those that deal in confusion and mayhe...

It’s that time of the year when the Hay Festival is on. This festival represents a unique opportunity to partake in inspiring and thought provoking debates in an atmosphere of tolerance and open mindedness. I strongly recommend it. Yesterday, one of the sessions was a talk with Rutger Bregman, the brilliant Dutch historian, one of the most exciting social thinkers of our time. Bregman changes the frame of reference by starting from the premise that humans are, in the most part, good and intrinsically motivated. And this is not just a hopeful opinion. In his work, he provides plenty of evidence for this. Modern economy and policy making are based on the central idea that humans are selfish. This premise is crippling. National social policy, trade agreements and employment conditions are designed to control for abuse and cheating and fundamentally limited in their scope. It is high time we change the World and, to do so, we must shake off the Mean World syndrome and believe in us, humans...