Dear Mr Johnson,

I liked the succinct definition of “the elementary principles of conservatism: that if you let people get on with their lives, and develop their potential, you will generate the wealth society will always need to pay for the poorest and neediest”, which you provided in today's Daily Telegraph (Why be a Tory? Because James Bond is).

However, if you look closely, I think you will find that this principle also underlies New Labour’s thinking.

What is so attractive about it is that it allows us to combine our genetically programmed, animal nature (as Homo economicus, and always striving to maintain or improve our position in the socio-economic hierarchy) with our more spiritual, human nature (as Homo whatever the Latin is for “man striving towards godliness”). But in so doing it gives primacy of our animal nature, which is perhaps not surprising, considering that it was there first and that our human nature has only been in a position to contest it since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and became aware of and thus responsible for their behaviour.

For a true humanist, who wants human nature to dominate society, including its economy, this is a highly unsatisfactory situation. More importantly and urgently, it is also incompatible with us achieving sustainability on our much abused planet, Spaceship Earth, with its limited natural treasures (resources) and finite carrying capacity.

You have heard about the "straw that broke the camel's back", but have you ever wondered, whose straw was to blame?

Paradoxically, it was no one's and everyone's. Assuming, of course, that everyone placed just one, or the same number of straws on the camel's back.

The answer is rather different, however, if some people placed more straws on its back than others.

Let the camel represent Earth's finite carrying capacity, on which each of us has to place a certain number of straws in order to live. Although we do not know exactly how many it can carry, we do, or should know by now that there is a limit - which will be exceeded if increasing numbers of people continue to pile on more and more straws.

Insanely, this is exactly what we are doing. Everyone can pile as many straws onto the camel's back as they have - or can borrow - the money to pay for, and are encouraged to do so, not just by their natural inclinations, but also by a growth-dependent economy and its multibillion dollar credit and advertising industries.

Unfortunately, it is difficult recognising the "insanity of normality", which we have all grown up with, especially when so much (our jobs, investments, lifestyles, aspirations, etc.) depends on it.

Thus, you could hardly be more mistaken than in your attitude towards Sean Connery. It is not just the disproportionately large number of straws that his personal lifestyle and the values, attitudes and aspirations on which it is based place on the camel's back, but the fact that he is seen, not just by you, but by billions of others as well, as a role model whom they seek to emulate.

The poor are still assumed to be the world's biggest problem, when in fact the RICH (primarily because of their role-model function) are a far bigger problem.

If the world's role models and trendsetters are admired and envied for their material "success" and extravagant, non-sustainable lifestyles, as they usually are in the media, what hope is there of persuading others to live sustainably? 

And if we fail to achieve sustainability (i.e. sustainable economic activity and lifestyles for 7 - 9 billion people) within the next two or three decades, we (or our children) will be off to join the dinosaurs.