Roger's Weblog for May and June 04

Thursday 12 August

The German word for "tax" is "Steuer" which also means "rudder", i.e. a means of steering: letter to NYT

Tuesday 10 August

George Monbiot is right when he writes in today’s Guardian (Goodbye, kind world) that the truth about global warming is hard to accept.

Monday 9 August

"Security hike fails to stop ID thefts": which is another reason why we need a National Identity Database based on each individual's biometric and DNA profile.

Sunday 8 August

According to an article in today's NYT, despite new and better products at lower prices, companies are finding customers less appreciative ("Companies Find They Can't Buy Love With Bargains").

This needs to be recognised for what it is: a symptom of man's "more animal than human" nature, which is threatening the survival of our civilisation, possibly even our species.

William Taylor's observations confirm my own, that most people are never satisfied, no matter how much they already have. Thus, there is no prospect of demand ever levelling off, despite the material demands of the world's richest billion inhabitants already placing a non-sustainable drain and strain on our planet's finite resources and carrying capacity.

The rich strive to become even richer (indeed and insanely, are encouraged to do so by our growth-dependent economy and its multi-billion dollar advertising and credit industries), while the less well-off are forever striving to catch up.

Soon our planet will have 7-9 billion human inhabitants, most with little appreciation of what they have (once they have it), but an insatiable desire for more and more . . . . . Until the drain and strain proves too much for Spaceship Earth and brings our entire civilisation crashing down.

The Report, "Bargains Help Auto Industry Recover in July", in last Wednesday's NYT underlines the madness we are caught up in, but fail to recognise because of its "normality". There are so many of what I call the "insanities of normality" leading us towards our doom.

No, I am not a pessimist. Far from it. We have the ability to save ourselves, but only if we come out of denial and face up to the hopeless situation we have developed progressed and plundered ourselves into during the course of the past century or so, driven by our "more animal than human" nature.

We have to create an economy and lifestyles based, not as they largely are now, on our primitive animal nature, but on our more enlightened, far less competitive and materialistic, human nature. It will involve initiating the greatest and most rapid revolution in human history. The 20th Century should have taught us how NOT to go about it, since failure is really not an option.

Friday 30 July

I have just read "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond, which I found extremely interested and informative. It inspired me to write the following email to the author: Saving the Third Chimpanzee from Extinction.

Monday 26 July

The introduction of non-lethal weapons to the military will surely be seen by future generations as one of the greatest, most humane and civilised developments in human history "The Quest for the Nonkiller App."

If every human life (including that of enemy combatants) is really as sacred as most of us would claim, then seriously wounding or killing someone should be the very last resort, rather than the only option often open to soldiers.

If the West wants to prove its moral superiority over militant Islam, which flaunts its willingness to kill (or over any other advocates of violence), what better way to do so than by demonstrating our reluctance to kill - even our enemies?

Sunday 25 July

Yet more evidence for man's "more animal than human" nature:

According to a survey, carried out by the respected All-Russian Research Centre of Social Opinions, young people between the ages of 18 and 24 put "successful businessmen and oligarchs" on a pedestal and even idolise them. It found that oligarchs were second only to pop stars in the popularity stakes with 42% of those polled expressing deep admiration for them. "Success, and I mean quick success, has become the main value [for young people]," Vladimir Petukhov, the man responsible for the research, said ("Young Russians ogle the oligarchs") .

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

When I hear talk of sending men to Mars in the foreseeable future, "Ticket to Mars will cost the Earth", it seems to me a premature and irresponsible venture, far too expensive (in that the money could be more effectively and profitably invested in unmanned space exploration) and risky in terms of human lives. Hopefully, men will stand on Mars one day, but it is something that should not be rushed and for the time being, at least, not attempted.

Attempting to put men on the Red Planet in the foreseeable future will be yet another expression of man's "more animal than human" nature, of his arrogance and stupidity, and a further act of denial of the dire situation we have managed to "develop" and "progress" ourselves into.

Like the blind addicts we are, we are pressing ahead with plundering our planet, not just continuing, but ever increasing the non-sustainable drain and strain we are placing on its limited resources and carrying capacity, in compulsive pursuit of an insanely growth-dependent economy and the insanely (because utterly unsustainable) materialistic lifestyles it engenders.

Thursday 22 July

The remarks by David King, director of the pressure group Human Genetics Alert, quoted in today's Guardian ("Green light for 'designer babies' to save siblings"), I thought noteworthy for their gross stupidity: "It is wrong", he says, "to create a child simply as a means to an end, however good that end might be, because to do so turns that child into an object. This violates the basic ethical principle that we should not use people as tools."

Monday 19 July

Reading the comment, "The Right to Bare Arms" in today's NYT, I assumed it had to do with religious dress codes. I soon discovered that it was about the right to "bear arms", but knowing myself to be a bit dyslectic, initially assumed it my mistake. But that is neither here nor there.

Growing up in Britain in the 1950's, I never saw anyone carrying a gun until I moved to Germany in 1973, where it took me years to get used to seeing policemen carry them. They scared and intimidated me: mind your step, or I may shoot you . . . Gulp!

Carrying a gun is a "display of power", and - excepting those who do it professionally - a clear expression of our "more animal than human" nature. In different cultural circumstances men might bare and display their hairy chests - or their penises.

If they only realised what monkeys they are making of themselves (showing themselves to be - the planet's "Greatest Ape") when they insist on their right to bear arms, they would be acutely embarrassed and very ashamed of themselves.

Wednesday 14 July

According to last Sunday's Telegraph, the British-based Russian oligarch, Boris Berezovsky, insinuates that the Russian Forbes Editor, Paul Klebnikov, was murdered for "telling lies" about himself and his fellow billionaires (Murdered writer 'was like a bull in a china shop'). I am not informed enough to form a definitive judgement on the matter, but under the circumstances, I think it far more likely for someone to be murdered for telling the truth than for telling lies.

It seems to me that what has happened in Russia since the fall of Communism, with a small number of clever people grabbing vast amounts of wealth for themselves, is a classic and tragic case of man's lower, animal nature winning through against his higher, human nature. It is ironic, instructive and hardly coincidental that the attempt to impose "more human than animal" values on the Russian people (in the form of Communism) should have backfired so badly and produced a society in which man's animal nature dominates even more forcefully than in the West, which, through the rule of law, has sought to temper, harness and exploit man's animal nature.

When Jesus said, "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven", he should have let it stand, instead of immediately contradicting himself when challenged by adding that "for God all things are possible", i.e. even for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Although I suspect that the contradiction was added by some of his early followers who did not want to put off the rich from joining or supporting their sect.

The fact is that the pursuit of and attachment to material wealth and power (which are closely related and often identical) is based on our more animal than human nature. Those who wish to progress spiritually (i.e. become less animal and more human - or, if you prefer the language of the Bible, to enter the kingdom of heaven) have to overcome their primitive urge for material wealth and power and put their talents to more enlightened use.

The trouble is that because of our animal origins we are all programmed (by our genes) and conditioned (by society) to be respectful, fearful, envious and desirous of material wealth and power, despite our protestations to the contrary and modern democratic society providing considerable, although still wholly inadequate, protection against their misuse.

In the West, the pursuit of wealth and power is regulated, albeit very inadequately, by the rule of law, but the underlying animal drive is ruthless and lacking all humanity, as exemplified by the tobacco industry's long, tenacious and continuing fight against regulation of its addictive, harmful, and for many lethal, products.

But it is not just the tobacco industry. Virtually every industry and everybody places their own (or their family's) material and financial self-interest above everything else, is encouraged and expected to do so, provided it is legal, of course.

Wednesday 7 July

The "problem" with nuclear energy, which Patrick Wintour and Paul Brown refer to in today's Guardian ("Blair reignites nuclear debate") is not "that it is both expensive and the industry takes a decade or more to find sites and get planning permissions", but that - in human hands - it is inherently dangerous and poses an unacceptable level of risk, not just to ourselves, but to coming generations for thousands of years to come.

Certainly, "projected" energy demands cannot be met without it, but to take the nuclear path will be entering (or rather, re-entering and confirming) a pact with the Devil, which our descendents will surely curse us for.

We are at a cross-roads. Either we can carry on the way we are already heading, have been heading since the beginning of modern times, pursuing perpetual economic growth and ever-increasing material wealth for ever more people (including motor cars and frequent air travel for at least 6 times the number of people who "enjoy" them now), which is already placing a non-sustainable drain and strain on Earth's limited resources and finite carrying capacity and must inevitably lead to our downfall, OR we can begin a radical reappraisal of our situation and of the materialistic (more animal than human) values, attitudes and aspirations which got us into it, because on which our economy and lifestyles are based.

If we were worthy of our scientific name, Homo sapiens (wise man), I would have no fear of nuclear energy. However - and this is the essential point, about which most people, especially those at the top of their professions, are in denial - we are not worthy. Even the most cursory glance at our history or the current world situation, with all its manmade conflicts and madness, should make this blatantly obvious. That it doesn't is because we are in denial of it ("No one is as blind as he who will not see"). It is always others - never ourselves - who are responsible, or co-responsible, for the madness.

A far more appropriate name for our species would be "Homo stupidus".

Individual men and women can, of course, be very wise, at least from time to time, although the wiser among us know how stupid even we can often be. And unfortunately, it is our collective stupidity which dominates, far more than we realise, over our collective wisdom; again most people, especially the more clever and talented, are in denial of it. Understandably, we all like to focus on what we see as our successes, greatly playing down, if not downright denying, our short-comings and failures.

If only we can muster enough wisdom to recognise and accept that we are not yet wise enough (knowledgeable, intelligent, clever enough yes, but not wise enough, not by a long chalk), to make safe use of nuclear energy. Any use we do make of it should be kept to an absolute minimum, at least for the foreseeable future, until social and economic insanities, injustice, war, terrorism etc. have been banished and we are worthy of the name, Homo sapiens.

Saturday 12 June

In response to an article by Karen Armstrong in today's Guardian, "From Buddha to Beckham":

"Throughout the ages we have had the heroes we deserve", you say. Really? I remember being told something very similar about countries and their governments. It puts those of us with fine heroes and progressive governments in a good light and on a high place from where we can look down on the less "deserving".

Celebrity is to a very large extent a product of the media, which makes its fortune by selling it to us, along with sex, violence etc., as a drug, on which many, perhaps all of us, in one form or another, are dependent.

We do not hesitate to blame drug dealers for plying their nocuous trade, and to see the addicts as (deserving?) victims in need of help. Why should we be less damning of the media, who, just like drug dealers, are doing it for the money?

Notoriety, you write, has become an end in itself. I don't think so. There is an infantile part in all of us which craves attention, while the media makes its living from getting people's attention. These, not "notoriety", are the ends.

"The wealthy lifestyle of our celebrities, proudly flaunted on websites and in Hello magazine", is not just "cruel and insulting" to those who lack the basic necessities of life, it is also a (perhaps the) major obstacle to achieving sustainability on our imperilled planet, Spaceship Earth, and thus a mortal threat to us all.

Celebrities act as role models for 100's of millions of people, whose extravagantly materialistic lifestyles are already altering Earth's climate, depleting its natural resources and decimating its biodiversity. Eventually its carrying capacity will be exceeded, the consequences of which will be a drastic reduction in human numbers, perhaps even the extinction of our species.

Wednesday 9 June

An article in today's Guardian ("Spacecraft to check on climate") caused me to wonder whether without realising it, we are not perhaps competing for the prize of "Best Species at Monitoring it's own Demise", in with a good chance of earning for ourselves the dubious honour of producing the best monitored and documented self-extinction in the galaxy.

Monday 7 June

The following is an email to the author of an article in today's Guardian, "How to be a world island".

"Economically, politically, culturally, militarily, intellectually, socially we are now inextricably intertwined with both Europe and America", you say, and I agree whole-heartedly, as I do with virtually everything else you say in your article.

I do not wish to wrongly or over emphasise its importance and put myself in the company of racists. On the other hand, to ignore it's importance is asking for trouble, if not immediately, then certainly in the future.

The history (and pre-history for that matter) of Britain, Europe and Western civilisation in general, as Greg Dyke might put it, is "hideously white". Some people may find this embarrassing and the mere mention of it politically incorrect - or even "racist" - but it is important to do so, because most people tend to identify with their own ancestors (I certainly do), and otherwise, we will blindly create (are already creating) the very (racial and cultural) tensions and conflicts that any sensible person would wish to avoid.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Car sharing it seems, is catching on ("Share don't buy. Drivers embrace car-based transport solution"), but the principle argument in favour of it, as usual, is overlooked: in contrast to everyone having their own car (and there will soon be 7 - 9 billion of us), car sharing offers the prospect of sustainability - and survival.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The media have been full of reports relating to the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings on the coast of Normandy, but I remain aloof from it all; not because I think it unimportant, but quite contrary, because it is much too personal and important to participate in through the channels of hypocritical officialdom and a corrupt media, which sullies and degrades everything it touches. The significance, glory, tragedy and sacrifices of D-Day and the whole second world war are what they are, to be remembered and commemorated at a time appropriate to myself, perhaps on a future visit to a Normandy graveyard, but certainly far far away from any officialdom and the media.

The Queen and other pillars of society have expressed their gratitude, quite sincerely, no doubt, but how did we actually show our appreciation to those thousands of young men who gave their lives so that we might live in freedom? We embarked on the Cold War, which brought us within a hair's breath of destroying our entire civilisation; and proceeded to plunder and rape our beautiful, bountiful planet in the pursuit of extravagantly materialistic, and thus utterly non-sustainable lifestyles.

Will coming generations look back with similar gratitude to us? Hardly. Rather, those who survive will have good reason to curse us for our stupidity and selfishness.

Unlike those we are commemorating, we are not called upon to sacrifice or even risk our lives for the sake of future generations - just to modify our extravagantly materialistic, non-sustainable lifestyles.

And are we rising to the occasion? Not at all! Instead we are struggling to remain in denial of our addiction to a growth-dependent - and thus inherently non-sustainable - economy, revelling in the materialistic lifestyles it demands of us and persisting in the plundering of our planet, decimating its biodiversity and increasingly disrupting its climate and life-supporting ecosystems, just so that we can become even richer than we are at present.

If we really want to do justice to and make worthwhile the sacrifice of those who laid down their lives for us, then we must face up to our addiction and start making the radical changes necessary for a sustainable economy and ways of life.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Still on the subject of the D-Day commemorations, it should be born in mind that the vast majority of those who fought against Hitler Germany did so because of an accident of birth. If they had been born Germans, they would almost certainly have fought with Germany. Just as most Germans, had they been born in an Allied country, would have fought with the Allies. And if Hitler had not hated the Jews, but some other ethnic group instead, making them (especially German Jews) his allies and accomplices, one shudders to think how many of them might have behaved. Perhaps Providence was kinder to Jews than she is generally given credit for, since it is surely better to be a victim of murder than to be a murderer oneself.

According to day's NYT the "U.S. [is] to Make Deep Cuts in [its] Stockpile of A-Arms", for which, I suppose, we should all feel grateful. But what insanity, I ask myself, drove successive US governments to acquire so many nuclear weapons in the first place? Why did they force the pace of the arms race and feel the need to be able to destroy the Soviet Union 10 times over? I'm not suggesting that the Russian government was any less to blame. Far from it. But surely, just as we need to understand what happened in Nazi Germany in order to prevent it ever happening again, we also need to understand what drove modern man to a nuclear arms race which might so easily have ended in specicide. I don't think we appreciate just how close we came to it or how lucky we are (so far, at least) to have survived.