MORE QUESTIONS FOR ANY QUESTIONS

Any Questions is a BBC Radio 4 programme at which a panel of 4 well-known, and of course articulate, guests, chaired by Jonathan Dimbleby, are asked preselected (by the programme's producers) questions submitted by members of the audiance.

Below are the questions that I came up with before making my own selection. None of my selection were selected, however, which was both a disappointment and a relief, since it would have made me quite nervous and probably have spoiled my enjoyment of the event.

 Any Questions is broadcast live Friday evenings at 8pm and repeated the following afternoon at 13:10

Link to Any Questions website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/anyquestions.shtml

 


 

Question:

Given that we don't experience reality itself, but an interpretation of it, produced by our brains to be consistent with what we already believe and depend upon, is it any wonder that we have such difficulty recognising the inherent non-sustainability of our economy and way of life?
 

My special interest in this question (if any):

Concern for man's future, which is imperilled by his blindness to the insanities of normality.
 


Question:

How many millionaires, multi-millionaires and billionaires does the panel think our planet can support?
 

My special interest in this question (if any):

Concern for the lack of concern relating to the drain and strain that Earth's ever increasing population of technologically empowered but essentially insatiable human beings is placing on its finite resources and carrying capacity.


Question:

Rather than the poor, as generally assumed, is it not in fact the RICH who are the world's biggest problem? Not just because they typically place a far greater per capita drain and strain on Earth's finite resources and carrying capacity, but even more because they function as role models and trendsetters, whose utterly unsustainable lifestyles (and lifestyle aspirations) billions of others, encouraged by the media, strive to emulate?


My special interest in this question (if any):

A desire for today's children to have it as good as I have had.


Question:

Given that our economy is rooted in the male rivalry (competitiveness) of man's, rather than woman's, animal nature, how can it ever be a suitable place of work for women – or, come to that, for more human than animal men?

My special interest in this question (if any):

The wish to draw attention to the extent to which our socio-economic order is rooted in man's animal nature (unsurprisingly, in view of what Charles Darwin is supposed to have taught us about human origins) and the profound, but largely unrecognised, consequences thereof.


Question:

Modern life is often referred to as a “rat race”. In view of what Charles Darwin taught us about human origins, could this be because our economy has developed and been honed to exploit our animal nature? And might this not explain why we are plundering and impacting our planet with such reckless (and specicidal) abandon?

My special interest in this question (if any):

A desire to put an end to the rat race, so that we might behave and become more like human beings, and that my people (and others) might survive, not just for the next few decades, but for the coming centuries, or even millennia.


Question:

Given that money is by far the most important and versatile form of power, and the well-known adage that power corrupts, should we not question, far more than we do, its role in society and the workings of our economy?

My special interest in this question (if any):

I am the author of an essay entitled, Money – humanity's worst invention?
 


Question:

Is it fair to compare stock markets with casinos, where our planet's and children's future, is being gambled away?

My special interest in this question (if any):


Question:

The biblical story of Adam and Eve gives a remarkable and beautifully symbolic account of what distinguishes Homo sapiens', or at least some of us some of the time, from other animals (“. . . the eyes of them both were opened and they discovered that they were naked . . “), but then goes on to describe how (the Judeo-Christian concept of) God cursed us for it.

For centuries we have been worshipping a (concept of) God who cursed us for becoming human. Is it any wonder that we have made so little progress in taking responsibility for the consequences of behaviour that only shameful “original sin” makes us aware of?

My special interest in this question (if any):


Question:

With the advent of civilisation, just a few thousand years ago, an artificial socio-economic environment effectively replaced the natural environment as the focus of Homo sapiens' struggle for survival and advantage, providing an explanation as to why we persist in giving priority to the economy (the household of man as part of the socio-economic environment) rather than to ecology (the household of our planet, comprising the natural environment) when it is obvious, were we not in a state of collective denial and afraid of biting the hand that feeds us, that for medium to long-term human survival it has to be the other way around. Does the panel agree?


Question:

Could it be that we are, quite literally, addicted to our growth-dependent economy and the grossly materialistic lifestyles (and lifestyle aspirations) it engenders, but that our dependency on them blinds us to their inherent non-sustainability?


My special interest in this question (if any):

A concern for today's children and coming generations


Question:

In medieval Europe, anyone opposing the ruling (Christian) ideology was not argued with, but condemned as a heathen or heretic, while in Communist Russia, opponents were dealt with by suspicions or accusations of counter-revolution. Similarly, in modern Britain, any opposition to the ruling, "progressive" ideology of mass immigration and multi-racial/multi-cultural society is suppressed with suspicions, insinuations or accusations of racism. Does the panel share my view?


My special interest in this question (if any):

I am a native Briton, frustrated by the impossibility of discussing immigration and multi-racial/multi-cultural society without fear of being branded a “racist”.


Question:

When at an international game of football black British players become the object of "racist" taunts or chants, I suggest that this is not necessarily, as generally assumed, an expression of racism, but of disappointment at players not having the ethnicity expected of an Englishman. If China were to field a team in which some of its players were ethnic Europeans, I would have difficulty accepting it as being genuinely, or fully Chinese. My black companion and I might even boo the white players, and no one would accuse us of being racist. Rude and bad mannered, perhaps, but not racist. What does the panel think?

My special interest in this question (if any):

A desire to expose how the terms "racist" and "racism" are misused (just as "heathen", "barbarian" or "counter-revolutionary" once were) in defence of a so-called "progressive", but intolerant ideology.


Question:

Is anyone who questions the wisdom, benefits or desirability of mass immigration and the multi-racial/multi-cultural society thus created being racist?

My special interest in this question (if any):

I am a native Briton who questions the wisdom, benefits and desirability of mass immigration and multi-racial/multi-cultural society.


Question:

Xenophobia (by which I mean the “dislike of things foreign”, not of individual foreigners) is the flip side of a single coin, on the other side of which is the “love of things familiar” (famiphilia?). Does the panel agree, and concede that many descent people are unjustly condemned as xenophobes and racists, when in fact they are just deeply and understandably unhappy about all the change and foreignness that mass immigration has brought into their once cozy and familiar neigbourhoods?

My special interest in this question (if any):

My love of things familiar, combined with sadness (and anger) at the destruction through mass immigration of so many native British communities and the sense of national identity, rooted in shared ethnicity, history and culture, that I once had.


Question:

Mercifully, the birth rate of native Europeans has dropped to a sustainable level, producing a natural, god-sent reduction in our bloated population. What madness drives those who would take measures to increase it or compensate it through mass immigration?

My special interest in this question (if any):

I know what the madness is, or at least, where it comes from: from our animal nature, which gives priority to the economy and the creation of wealth and power.


Question:

Instead of individuals, families, communities and whole societies having to adapt to serve the economy, what about us creating an economy that serves individuals, families, communities and society? An economy rooted, not in our animal nature, as at present, but in our more enlightened, human nature.

My special interest in this question (if any):

My desire (and the urgent need for sustainability's sake) for an economy rooted in man's more enlightened, human nature.


Question:

In view of what Charles Darwin is supposed to have taught us about man's animal origins, should it surprise us to discover that human society and the economy are deeply rooted in his animal nature, or that free-market capitalism has developed to take full (and thus such effective) advantage of it? Further, would it be a surprise to learn that such an economy must be inherently unsustainable?


Question:

"You can make money without doing evil", is one Google's 10 principles, but the company depends heavily, if not completely, on advertising revenues, and any advertising that encourages people to consume unnecessarily even more of Earth's finite resources and place an even greater strain on its already overstrained carrying capacity, as much advertising does, IS in my view evil. Does the panel agree?


Question:

What madness causes us to spend 10's if not 100's of billions of dollars every year on advertising, which drives economic growth, not to satisfy the needy, but to indulge the greedy, at a cost that will be paid by our children and future generations for our plundering of their planet?

My special interest in this question (if any):

The knowledge that it is our animal nature, which free-market capitalism has developed and been honed to exploit, that is responsible for this madness, which is blinding us and driving us towards the catastrophe that lies ahead. And 100 billion dollars has a lot of blinding and driving power.


Question:

In the panel's experience (or learned opinion), is the male orgasm identical with ejaculation?

My special interest in this question (if any):

Curiosity as whether or not I am the only person who considers them not to be identical.