We need a grass roots response to Brexit

Posted on June 25, 2016 by James Atkins

I saw there is a petition out calling for a rerun of the Brexit vote. I have also seen lots of anger at racism and UKIP. I don’t think any of this is useful. I think our response to the Brexit debacle must also be to look at the underlying issues and learn. This blog is based on some notes I wrote to a “Remain” friend in Shrewsbury, in the West Midlands, the region with the biggest support for Brexit.

The underlying issue is that there are lots and lots of people in the country who don’t enjoy the ease, pleasure, security, convenience, comfort and so forth that we enjoy and take for granted every day. People who don’t enjoy the fruits of a society which is designed by and for educated middle class people.

The beauty and ease which is either Waitrose or the farmer’s market. Espresso England. Nice houses and cricket and tennis and trees. All that is the Loop[1]. All of prosperity.

When UKIP reemerged and people sneered at them for being a bunch of racists it was an error of judgment. People chose to ignore the malaise and alienation which pushed them back to tribalism. If you listen to UKIP people it’s not about Poles or Refugess but about being alienated by big business, distant politicians and inequality. I think the loss of control is not control over England but people feeling rightly or wrongly they don’t have control over their own lives. (Whether they ever did or ever can is another question: it is probably all about perception.)

So we shouldn’t be surprised by Brexit because all the signs were there; and if we are angry we should be angry with ourselves for ignoring the signs and not working to undermine the inequality which led to it.

I think there are some fundamental things here because Brexit, Trump, Orban etc mark a strengthening of tribalism. For me the bad thing is not Farage or Trump or LePen: the bad thing is that there are millions of people who *listen* to them and have cause to listen to them. This is the crux of the matter.

For Farages and Trumps to have millions of followers shows that there are millions of people without the education, upbringing, culture, good fortune or confidence to resist the lure of tribalism. That is something we have some kind of responsibility for because I think the socio-economic model which allows us luckier people all those lovely fruits of a pleasurable life is the same one that cannot afford to let infants in their formative years spend lots of time with their mums [2]; cannot afford plenty of paternity leave; cannot afford high quality education across the board; can’t afford the caring nurturing of the young that innoculates them from tribalism.

If you want democracy and you want a certain outcome then you have to ensure that lots of people agree with you – so they need to have similar views and values. That means that lots of people have to have similar upbringing and education and influences to you, otherwise they’ll have different views and values. So you need to ensure that lots of people have the same chances for a happy home and good education as you did.

I don’t think politics will solve this because politics is still too controlled by big business and too enamoured of GDP and TTIP and all that nonsense. Politics can’t collect taxes any more (viz Google etc). Politics doesn’t get culture (culture in the broad sense, except perhaps Farage who says there is more to politics than economics, showing he is a fair bit wiser than George Osborne) – by culture I mean the social fabric that makes us civilised: you can’t count civilised so economists ignore it.

This issue will be best addressed by grass roots efforts: all manner of groups and movements and societies and charities which get among the people and spread the values which we cherish. England is really good at charities and social movements so we have the infrastructure for that.

I saw that West Midlands had the strongest showing for Leave. Perhaps we have to go to Telford and Wolverhampton and meet people there who are having a tough time and give them some support. It might be difficult and uncomfortable. It might remind us of our random good fortune and make us feel awkward. It’s not something I’d feel comfortable with but it is probably what needs to be done. Although I guess the last thing they want is a bunch of comfortable do-gooders and evangelists descending on their communities.

If we expect politics to do solve these issues for us, we are likely to be disappointed. If we want to rebuild social fabric, mutual trust and understanding, and undermine tribalism, it is up to us and we will have to get out and do it.

==

Notes:

[1] The Loop is the rather idyllic central part of the town of Shrewsbury, within a loop of the River Severn.

[2] Worth seeing the Brazilian documentary film: The Beginning of Life

Print Friendly, PDF & EmailPrint Friendly
Posted in Climate change policy, Sundry | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

No such thing as a bad question? How about the EU referendum?

Posted on June 19, 2016 by James Atkins

There’s this thing where people say: “There’s no such thing as a bad question.” Well there is such a thing as a bad question, and the EU referendum, giving a simplistic choice between “In” or “Out”, is a bad question. One with tragic consequences.

The British people I have asked about their views on the EU have a nuanced view – there are plenty of reasons to stay in the EU and plenty of reasons to leave. There are reasons of different types reflecting short term and long-term considerations, tactical and strategic, matters of economics, security, history, identity, culture and society, as well as both practical and theoretical positions.

Often people have conditional positions like: “If it wasn’t for X, I’d vote to remain”; or “I’d normally say we should leave but Y is really important to me.”

Not only is there the complexity and multitude of issues to be weighed up. In theory you could have a range of different solutions to those questions, as a country can have different relationships with the EU.  As well as being “In” or “Out” there are various more subtle alternatives: you can “In” and enthusiastic like Germany or France, but you can also be “in” and grumpy like Hungary. You can be a bit in like Switzerland or Norway. You can be on the edge but getting closer like Bosnia and Hercegovina, a candidate country. You can be totally out of the EU but a close ally, like the US; or a neighbour but a fiend, like Russia.

Even staying in the EU there are a range of possible relationships because as an EU member you could take any number of stances – expansive or sullen – , and, with effective diplomacy, achieve goals on specific matters which affect you.

Besides the many dull arguments about economics (which are broadly baseless since the speed of social and technological change means we can’t reliably predict the economic future in any case), there are a few things associated the question of EU membership which make people very cross: immigration, sovereignty, corruption, and so forth. They make people cross because they touch on and question their identity and their ego, and they arouse a great sense of injustice or righteousness in people.

Just one such question, such as immigration, is hot enough. So when you are piling up half a dozen incendiary questions, you are guaranteed to get trouble.

Anyone raising these questions, which are important questions, is playing with fire because of the passions which can be aroused in these questions. Then when emotions are heated, the quality of debate, analysis and judgment is impaired, sometimes fatally. If you are to play with fire, it should be done carefully and responsibly. That is, it is important how you raise the questions.

Hence the issue of a “bad question”. If you force someone to take a black or white position on a subtle question, you are doing the opposite of an intelligent thing. Intelligence is about being able to handle the richness and complexity of things in a meaningful way. By crushing all the subtlety of the UK’s relationship with the EU into a stark, binary outcome (in or out) you are unnecessarily destroying, rather than creating intelligence. You are appealing to the dumb, simplistic and populist. Presenting a complex matter in terms of a binary outcome is a deception and an unnecessary deception at that, since there are a number of different possible relationships with the EU.

The stark, yes-no choice, is brutally formulated, forcing an artificial choice. If people are forced to take binary positions you force a polarisation – you force people apart, you force them to focus on their differences rather than what they have in common.

(A further problem is that the referendum kind of implies there is a connection between the make-people-cross problems like immigration and jobs, and the UK’s relationship with the EU. I expect these are global problems driven by matters far bigger than the EU, so in or out we will be stuck with the same problems.  We will just have a smaller bit of sand to stick our heads into.)

To avoid polarisation in society, the government should have posed a range of questions in the referendum exploring views on a range of specific issues and offering a choice between a range of different relationships with the EU. This would have led to more subtle and intelligent debate.

The UK’s status vis-à-vis the EU is a rich and complex matter. It should not and cannot be answered with a binary “yes/no” or “in/out” answer. By forcing people to adopt extreme positions which do not reflect the totality of their views, you are asking for trouble.

 

—

Note: I asked my proxy to spoil the ballot paper and write “Remain and Reform” on it.

Print Friendly, PDF & EmailPrint Friendly
Posted in Sundry | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Energy Dream is not enough

Posted on May 14, 2016 by James Atkins

I have watched a few videos recently where Bill Gates talks of a forthcoming revolution in energy technology. I don’t want to do him an injustice but he gives the impression that he thinks this energy revolution will “save the planet”.

I don’t think that a revolution in energy technology will save the planet or even mankind. It has not got the slightest chance. It is a small step among many needed, no more.

Mr Gates is very interested in technology, so it is right that he focuses his efforts on technology, but it is not good when such an influential person paints a too simplistic picture – namely suggesting that some great technological breakthroughs are necessary and sufficient conditions of saving the planet.

We should know what we mean by saving the planet. The human race is a part of the planet but only a little bit of it. It weighs about 300 million tons [1] while the total mass of life is around 600 billion tons [2], so the human race is about 1/2000th of life on earth. We are doing our best to increase that proportion through the population getting more numerous and fatter while we simultaneously destroy as much of the rest of life on the planet. We are a relatively small part of the totality of life – yet a species which is on track to eliminating most of the other species and thereby itself.

When we talk about saving the planet we should refer to the totality of life it hosts, with its incredible, unfathomable beauty, ugliness, richness and diversity. Say, 10 million species. Not one.

An energy revolution is very important inasmuch as it brings cheap and clean energy to the world’s human population and thereby removes the desire to burn fossil fuels or cut down forest for fuel. But it won’t reduce our gargantuan appetite for food and the other resources we need to feed our egos or just beat each other up for the hell of it. In fact, the energy revolution could well increase our appetites – no longer held back by constraints in energy supply, the vast human populations of Asia and Africa will find it easier and cheaper to emulate the West in its frenzy to control everything and destroy everything else that it cannot.

Curing Malaria and inventing smart batteries does not cure humanity of its rapaciousness, does not tame the nitrogen cycle which we have sent spiralling out of control since Haber & Bosch’s technological revolution a century ago; it doesn’t bring us to use the land wisely; it doesn’t reduce the population or the birth-rate (education might but an energy revolution does not imply more education); it doesn’t promise any enlightenment. A single, flatulent syllable is enough to disabuse anyone from the notion that economic growth leads to education and enlightenment: Trump.

By all means let’s pursue an energy revolution. But let’s temper the techno-optimism and put technology in perspective. Let’s remember that technological dreams (like others) can easily backfire (lead in petrol, CFCs, DDT and so forth). Let’s also recognise that saving the planet is about much more than technology: it is just as much about culture and society; and it is fundamentally about man’s relationship with the rest of the living planet. Setting our relationship with other living things on a harmonious keel, if at all possible, would seem to need a new enlightenment, a social and cultural change on an immense and daunting scale – something which should also, rightly, terrify us, since the science of social engineering is even less understood than the science of cheap and clean energy.

If Mr Gates has the bandwidth to complement the great work he does on energy, he might want to fund research on how we bring mankind to love nature and live in harmony with other living things.

[1] http://www.livescience.com/36470-human-population-weight.html

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)

Image made on Mononotes TM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Print Friendly, PDF & EmailPrint Friendly
Posted in Climate change policy, Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Bustard’s Third Rule – kids v nukes

Posted on May 14, 2016 by James Atkins

The Bustard’s Third Rule on climate policy is that it takes less time to raise a child than to build a nuclear power plant.

Here is some good evidence: http://qz.com/681753/the-united-states-newest-nuclear-power-plant-has-taken-43-years-to-build/

The implication of this is that if we want to “save the planet” we should invest heavily in raising our children to love and understand and care for the natural word. This, requiring only a small number of intense and inspiring experiences of nature during formative years, should be cheap and quick and get a good deal of the job done.

Note: The Bustard’s Second Rule (https://www.thebustard.com/?p=344) has been happily proven wrong – the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry has not been sufficient to stop the “renewables revolution”. Hip Hip Horray.

Print Friendly, PDF & EmailPrint Friendly
Posted in Climate change policy | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Diversity – everywhere except in the most important place

Posted on February 1, 2016 by James Atkins

Resilience needs diversity: diversity means that if one bit of a system goes wrong, other bits, unaffected, can carry on and make up for local failure. Creativity needs diversity, too: as in the case of evolution, you need to try out lots and lots of new things before you eventually stumble on an innovation that works better.

Thus protecting the good things we have and improving on what we have, both need diversity. The nice thing about diversity is that it allows for change and improvement without needing a boom and bust model. Diversity is the bedrock of wholesome, steady, iterative improvement. It prevents boom and bust or slash and burn, where things get really successful then fizzle out and get replaced.

This is something that environmentalists and ecologists have known for ages.

It is also something that traders and investors have known for ages. Diversity your portfolio and you can make the same returns for lower risk.

And sociologists are up on it, too: an admixture of various cultures helps strengthen a society.

Now, what is the one of the most important things we have in society, that ensures that the very fundament of our civilisation keeps going. Education and schooling.

Ouch. National curriculum. Indoctrinated teaching inspectors. Centralised dictats and feverish form-filling. Evaluation and motivation by a single system of statistical rating. This is the complete antithesis of diversity. It means that our education system is bound to fail in its purpose.

A resilient and creative education system capable of raising children to form a vibrant and sound new generation must be diverse. It must allow for failure. Creativity and success can only happen if you also allow for failure. It must allow for experiment. It must welcome thoughtful innovation. It must cherish independence in thought and processes.

Everyone knows that our society is very troubled. Massive social problems need massive creativity and originality to solve them. From the point of view of the Bustard, man’s relationship with nature is one of those areas where work is needed. For that we need to free our education system. We need to choose and train our teachers superbly and then trust them.

If the implication of this is that parents must be free to send their children to any school, so be it. It becomes our responsibility, then, to educate our parents well, too, and hold them to high standards. Let’s not make the rule for the exceptions – let’s treat everyone as if they can handle that, and then help those that can’t.

It will take a couple of generations of great pain to bring about the cultural shift to make this happen. But if we don’t, our schools will become more and more mediocre and less able to raise children to handle the mess we have put them into.

Print Friendly, PDF & EmailPrint Friendly
Posted in Climate change policy | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments