The Hames Report

2020 - The Imprint

As I was driving from my village into the city this morning, a trip of around 85 kilometres, I tuned in to a Facebook Live recording featuring my friend Dr. David Martin from M.CAM in Virginia. David is too dapper for words and devilishly astute. A performer. But under the dazzling surface there is an intelligence that should never be taken lightly.

I share many (though not all) of David’s concerns regarding the various experimental socio-economic agendas being rolled out around the world in the wake of the present pandemic. David is very focused on the US situation of course which, as a citizen and resident, is as it should be. We are global in our perceptions and perspectives, however, and the totalitarian undertones of some government policies, to which we have both been alluding in our very different ways, seem to be growing an undeniable momentum.

Although his preferred style can lean towards the instructional, on this occasion I was struck more by the intensity of inquiry David was using into the conditions we have countenanced in dealing with COVID-19. If we continue to allow the politics of fear, the repetition of dogma, and the erosion of liberty to drive isolation and compliance, he argued, we will submit to an authoritarian trait in our society, and be deprived of the individual sovereignty we take for granted today. If we permit beliefs and opinions to substitute for evidence we run the risk of being controlled by the ignorance of others and penalised each time we state the truth.

As each question underscored uncertainties being marketed as reality, and as validated facts tumbled over each other in their struggle to illustrate untold truths, I began to feel distinctly uncomfortable. This, I am sure, was David’s intention.

The case for a pause, in order to reflect on the deeper news, pushed all of my alarm buttons, in addition to letting loose personal convictions going back years. There is something going on in our society that is deeply disturbing and goes far beyond conspiracy. We need to wake up to what is actually happening, without being distracted by ridiculous conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact.

Silent undercurrents point to a disorienting psychology of addiction and self-destruction (at once calculated yet also involuntary) which is at the heart of the human condition. It seems to me we are complicit actors in a tragedy whose end-game could well be extinction. Unless, that is, we come to our senses and rewrite the final act.

Whether you agree with my assertions, or simply regard them as uncritical detours, the main points are sufficiently valid to be given due consideration. Likewise, whether you concur with his contentions or not, one feature always stands out in David’s recital: a compelling finale.

So, as the broadcast was nearing its close, and I was about to switch to some music as a much-needed counterpoint, I waited. I am glad that I did. David made a fairly obvious, yet pertinent point. Irrespective of the path we choose after the dust settles and life returns to a degree of normalcy, we will always refer to 2020 as a pivotal point in our development. Rather like 9/11, this event and date will be imprinted on human consciousness for generations to come. His closing statement was particularly poignant: The future we will have is the future we will make. Let’s make it together.

Issued with such a challenge what would you choose to take with you into the future? What would you leave behind altogether? What would you target for reform? What systems would you identify for reinvention? And what new design criteria would you advocate using?  In other words, if it was up to you, how would you go about redesigning the human presence on Earth?

Part of the problem in answering questions like these is that the data to which we habitually turn, particularly those uncovered by Google searches, seem to comfortable contradict any suggestion that we are living in bad times. Philanthropist Bill Gates, philosopher Stephen Pinker, and Dr. Hans Rosling who cofounded Medecins sans Frontiers, all endorse the notion that life is better today than it was even a decade ago, and far better than we think it is. We are better educated and more literate, they claim. We are also wealthier, healthier, happier, live longer and enjoy greater freedoms. But is that really so?

With a little more diligence and care, avoiding Google as the first port of call, evidence can be surfaced illustrating a narrative distinctly incompatible with the former.

Driven by our reliance on chemical-based synthetic technologies, alternative factors assume greater clarity. To feed a burgeoning population we adopt intense industrial farming methods. This destroys soils and pollutes oceans, as well as wiping out insects and other species that happen to be a critical part of the food chain. So more processed food is manufactured. But that leads to obesity and diabetes. In our commercially-minded efforts to control these, and other diseases, we submit to constant medication, which causes other problems including mental health issues. And so on....

Is it possible that the progress Bill Gates and his ilk sense a delusion? Are we really blind to the consequences of an unwavering faith in new technologies? Is our wizardry in this field actually creating a toxic, degenerative society? Could the combination of untreated sewage, garbage, fertilizers, pesticides, industrial chemicals, plastics and carbon emissions, be generating an uninhabitable world?

Apart from the fact that statistics can always be found to accommodate almost any proposal, however outrageous, three factors concern me when we are exposed to such overly-positive news. First, almost every individual claiming we are better off today was either born or lives in more affluent nations where, by and large, all their needs are met. Second, comparative data being used are snapshots carefully selected on the assumption that human progress traces a linear path. Third, they do not take into account the complexity of evolutionary dynamics and alternative socio-economic and psychological assumptions about human advancement. More critically, none of these factors get to the core issue – the survival of Homo sapiens by design.

We might be more literate, and better educated, but has it led to increased levels of empathy, tolerance, new ways of appreciating and understanding the world, an ability to step into new epistemologies, or to reinvent our world from alternative frameworks? In an age when our key problems are now so complicated that they can only be resolved by applying higher levels of cognitive processing within alternative design ontologies I would suggest our educational systems, however advanced, are still not up to the task.

We might be wealthier too. But if that is the case why are around 22 percent of young people aged 18 and under in the world’s wealthiest nation considered to be living in relative poverty? How can eight white men rationalise the fact that they own as much as the poorest 3.8 billion?

And if we are happier and have more hope than in the past, why is it that so many people are lonely, isolated, anxious and depressed? Why is domestic violence increasing? Suicide rates climbing? Why has narcissism become the most reported psychological condition presenting to psychologists? And why do so many young people resort to hate crimes, cyber bullying and substance abuse?

There is a canker eating away at the soul of society and nobody wants to venture there. This is possibly due to a combination of factors: the absence of a collective purpose and narrative for humanity within which personal meaning can be shaped; a distinct lack of intrinsic motivation; the erosion of trust in what were previously our most esteemed institutions and professions; increased levels of hatred and blame for our perceived ills; and the feeling of being trapped in an unending cycle of desire and consumption, from which there is no escape.

Is the silent, unseen truth, too frightening to confront? If not why we are trying to ignore it and hope that it goes away? It is far too big and too complicated for any single government, trade bloc or corporation to tackle. It is not an issue the World Economic Forum or its ilk will ponder. When it is mentioned the wealthy turn their eyes away. Advertising executives and economists express their surprise or contempt for any suggestion growth should be tempered. Why, this would only take us back to the dark ages, they protest.

Yet this is not an existential crisis. Simply put... If the economy to which we are wedded needs people to buy things they do not need, or even want, and to do more of that each year than the year before, simply in order to keep the whole structure from collapsing, do we not need a different, more benign, kind of economy?

The toxicity of the current system, though immensely damaging, is not going to usher in the end of the human race tomorrow. It might eventually lead to a society in which a few wealthy individuals lord it over the rest of humanity of course. Right now it is a slight tremor arising from neoliberal theories of production within the context of economic growth. But that tremor has made the entire system harmful. And it is becoming more intense by the day.

Almost all of the strategies designed to accelerate growth while lowering the costs of production - including planned obsolescence, off-shoring, energy from fossil fuels, global supply chains, just-in-time inventories, the pervasive use of synthetic materials like plastics, and industrial farming practices, for example - have joined with rapid urbanisation and over-population to create a highly fragile and vulnerable global ecosystem. 

So here is the crunch. Almost every civilisational challenge we see in the world today - ranging from our obsession with innovation and novelty, the need to be employed in order to earn a living, homelessness, the subsequent stress on our most-life-critical systems, the use of politics as an agent of business, and corporate corruption, to the culture of intolerance that so easily results in wars and conflicts, and the maladaptive coping practices we adopt to deal with our own individual psychoses, can be related back to a cycle of desire and consumption driven by a mixture of avarice and over-production.

Sooner or later we will need to address this dual problem. If the developed nations can rein in their desire to manufacture more and more stuff they do not really need, thus slowing the rate of consumption, in addition to recycling and using closed system manufacturing, for example, the tangible benefits will not be hard to sell to those of us pleading for sanity. We have seen a glimpse of what these benefits might look like in the current great pause occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. Lower and slower rates of production, curbing fertility through the use of education, constraining the desire for goods and services that are trendy yet unnecessary, will result in our lives being filled with an abundance of activities other than work. Nature can be given time to heal. Out of the hubris of our age a new society can take shape.

How wonderful to imagine this was the point at which we drew a line in the sand and pledged a new beginning. How amazing for our children to be able to stand in 2050 and look back at 2020, imprinted as it will be on their consciousness, pointing to the generative and empathic society we chose to create back then and the many benefits that have flowed since...

Fewer conflicts and wars. The dismantling of nuclear weapons. The elimination of poverty. A world of greater equality and justice, where anyone can choose the extent to which they work or play without penalty. A world in which alllife is sacred and the dominant desire is to help one another, especially those less fortunate, rather than to horde individual wealth. A slower-paced world in which successive generations can be assured of happiness without the fear it might all collapse like a house of cards.

What will that take? Sentience. We need to wake up. That is all.

Sliding Into Surveillance

When you take the time to really think about it the communications technologies available to us are quite astonishing. They offer us the capacity for a degree of interconnectedness not available to any previous civilization. In a world of around 7.7 billion people, it is literally mind-blowing that we can connect with almost anyone, anywhere, at any time, and for any reason at all.

Unfortunately, new technologies always bring new problems in their wake. Right now we have a convergence of issues. And these issues are congealing into a moral dilemma.

New digital interfaces, allowing us to locate and to connect, expand our capacity to keep tabs on one another, stay in touch, and communicate at will. At the same time many governments, concerned to improve security, through installing biometric sensors in airports, or algorithms monitoring usage in order to effect more efficient scheduling of public transport, for example, are using these same devices in ways that could easily curtail individual freedoms. Your liberty as a sovereign citizen to choose whom you permit to know where you are, what you are doing, and with whom you are doing it, is at risk.

Both developments are potentially beneficial. Both can be abused. The question becomes: How can these new technologies be used for the public good without suppressing individual freedom? While that is indeed the moral dilemma I have in mind, a number of governments are pondering a different dilemma altogether. Emboldened by the use of facial recognition technologies, they ask: How can we install the capacity to control our society without citizens knowing or being unduly concerned?

Much depends on how the data is used of course, what motivates that use, and how secure the data is. However, it is not just the data that should really concern us. No matter how the system is used, or by whom, what is being constructed here is an architecture for repression.

How would you feel if, under legal edict, Apple and Google were required to install location devices on their smartphone platforms that are incapable of being turned off? In other words, your location was known at all times to anyone with the wherewithal to view the data?

As it happens these two companies, in an unholy partnership, have already developed an app that alerts users if they have come into contact with a person infected by COVID-19. At this juncture, you must opt-in to the system. But it has the potential to monitor about a third of the world’s population. Do you feel comfortable with that?

Would you feel more comfortable if the World Health Organization told you that such a level of real-time surveillance is part of what is required for life to return to a sense of normality in a world without a vaccine? In responding to this question be aware of any unintended consequences. Emergency powers often fail to live up to their potential, yet long outlive their emergencies. Civil libertarians are already cautioning that the public has little ability to challenge any such authoritarian calisthenics once the immediate threat has passed. Besides, it is far easier for a bureaucracy simply to keep the technology on hold, ready for the next pandemic or crisis.

That is not to say that mass surveillance methods could not save lives around the world. In fact, improved monitoring and data sharing would probably allow us to track and curb the spread of future pandemics with a speed and accuracy not possible today. But how would we ensure that the data was not misused?

This is not a comforting question to pose in a world where trust in even our most venerable institutions is rapidly eroding and the members of a small, obscenely wealthy and influential plutocracy, are fearful of losing everything they have devoted a lifetime to create.

Any global crisis is bound to send shockwaves through society to the extent that ordinary citizens begin to awake to new possibilities, including alternative ways of living. We can expect new trends, themes, and strategies to emerge from the current pandemic – just as they did in ages gone by. The Black Death in 14th century Europe, for example, hastened an appreciation of personal hygiene and sewerage systems in urbanized communities. Likewise, the H1N1 flu pandemic of 1918, which killed between 50 million or more, gave rise to the deployment of a social welfare safety net for those caught in the poverty trap.

It is interesting to consider what might now arise out of the current interruption to normality. While there are usually benefits arising from emergencies of this magnitude, it is also highly probable that we will face a few unwelcome surprises.

Existing power structures invariably grab hold of any opportunity to roll out their authoritarian schemas, usually under the pretext of safeguarding ordinary people. This ploy is most evident in cases like the US Patriot Act following 9/11, for example, but has been the norm throughout history. We also know that oppressive programs are typically already well developed before a crisis hits. Furthermore, in modern capitalist societies, the lobbyists for large corporations and banks have already worked out what their demands of the government will be far in advance of any emergency or economic misfortune.

The reasons for such plans are obvious when you think about it:

1. Our most life-critical systems have reached the end of their shelf-life. They no longer work for humanity as a whole. So change is inevitable.
2. The powerful are afraid of the public, and even more terrified of losing their wealth and influence. Their fear is justified. Revolutions are not conjured out of thin air. They arise through a chafing between the dominant narrative, created and sustained by those in power, and the sense of deprivation and unfairness felt by society.
3. On top of this already volatile mix, there is now a convergence between widely-held popular frustration and our ability to network and share our personal pain in real-time.

The environment is ripe for a popular uprising against the status quo. The exploitative nature of the economy, together with an awareness from many millions of young people that they are going to be worse off than their parents, has created a seething fury. A culture war, not among differing ethnic groups but between ideologies, is imminent. We have already witnessed anti-government and anti-corporate protests emerging everywhere from Chile to Hong Kong. We will most likely see more as they link up and the rage is amplified.

In this milieu, leaders are already skittish. Western media have gone into overdrive in a vain attempt to control the reactions of the populace. Internet censorship is being ramped up. Meanwhile, China watches patiently, slightly bemused perhaps, yet largely untouched by the Western ruckus, a benevolent friend to those countries most in distress from the pandemic. Anti-Chinese propaganda from the West merely fuels our own paranoia. They wait...

So how will this moral dilemma, to which I originally referred, most likely be resolved? The escalation in censorship, surveillance, corruption, authoritarian edicts, and the massive wealth transfer from ordinary taxpayers to banks and corporations, are all just a last-ditch stand for control. Policies brought in today are not intended to be repealed after the emergency fades. We are now safely in our homes. Our interactions are constrained. Our mobile devices are being monitored with ever more enthusiasm and intrusiveness. If you were Rupert Murdoch or any of the ultra-rightwing populist leaders we have currently installed, what would your next move be? 

And you? What will you do?

America's Got Talent

Because of my oft-vehement critique of US foreign policy, it is often assumed that I must be anti-American. While that is simply untrue - the allegation always elicits a chuckle from the many close friends I have in the US - there needs to be a clear distinction made between a society and those who find, or put, themselves in positions of authority in the context of that society.

Where I am critical of America, it is not explicit individuals or groups I have in my sights but the talent of those in charge to use their power in the corrosion of an ideal once held sacrosanct. My annoyance arises from how corporate and state institutions of power are conceived, who they really benefit, what precepts are used to organize and lead them, and why propaganda is so shamelessly used to prop them up when they have become an impediment to something better.

Few will argue that the image of the US as an emblem of liberty, freedom and entrepreneurial drive was inspiring to many, especially the many hundreds of thousands of immigrants who, at the birth of the 20^th century, took their adopted country to be a beacon of hope for the future of humanity. The concept of America was extraordinary enough, while the vitality of US culture was envied and emulated around the world.

The founding fathers had imagined republicanism as an antidote to greed and the lust for personal prosperity. They fully expected elected politicians, drawn from a principled elite, to act as fair-minded guardians of the public good. And that was how it was, or appeared to be, up to and including the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. But then the mood changed. As with many previous civilizations, deterioration set in with a convergence of military, financial and cultural power exercised by self-serving plutocrats.

Following the end of the second world war the US began to cultivate a sense of supremacy in its mythology of national identity. Hollywood helped cement the new narrative. A volatile mix of self-righteous xenophobia, of might in the face of evil, morphed into a narcissistic desire to control others for their own sake even when those “others” were thousands of miles distant from American shores.

A thriving industrial-military sector, riding high on victory, saw immediate strategic advantage in promoting the US as incomparable within the global community of nations. An ingenuous public, always eager to absorb government propaganda, began to understand their nation’s most exalted role as that of protecting those under threat of autocratic despots that had no love of American culture nor any desire to emulate the American way of life.

As US mores became conflated with universally-desirable virtues, a new enemy materialized in front of our eyes. Communism! Never a resolution taken by one administration, but a gradual metamorphosis of mind, the claim for unipolar hegemony took shape against the perceived threat of socialist rule in the Soviet Union, China, and South East Asia.

Declaring its true colours, the US brazenly became the playground bully on the world stage. It gave shelter to the Shah of Iran, tamed Fidel Castro after several failed assassination attempts, took out Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, executed Qassem Suleimani and Osama bin Laden, imposed sanctions on every poor country that refused to bow to its command, and allowed the CIA to run riot in the destabilization of so-called enemies of the US state, wherever they happened to be.

Today US imperialism stands defiantly against any alternative to US supremacy. It espouses freedom but only that determined and endorsed by the US. It argues for free trade, but only if it benefits the US. And it advocates peace, but not for the countries that flout US demands or threaten its exceptional self-belief.

Because of that stance the United States needs to constantly be at war. It is the only country in the world that has been at war for over six decades. It has become essential to the economy. Notwithstanding the recent closure of hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US still maintains around 800 military bases in 70 countries and territories abroad, spending around $686 billion annually on preparing for or prosecuting wars.

The proposition that encouraging America to step back from ruling the world would allow China or Russia to step into the void is baseless conjecture. Indeed, the common Western conviction that China aspires to such a role is an illusion based on nothing more than Western neocolonial norms, projected onto a nation that has never held those values. The fear that this could happen, however, means we continuously turn a blind eye to the bullying, surveilling, bombing, torturing and war mongering carried out in our name by the American state.

The manipulators of US foreign policy understand this only too well. They grasp the fact that the field of foreign policy is too abstract, too remote and vast a topic, for the average citizen to comprehend. Unless, that is, the public is shown how their taxes are squandered to pay for military aggression. US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan have cost US taxpayers $6.4 trillion since they began in 2001. That is money not spent on urgently needed domestic programs such as education and healthcare.

One only has to glance at the disunited states of America - the crumbling infrastructure, the revolving door between Capitol Hill and Wall Street, inadequate healthcare and education, corrupt politicians, voter fraud, the unsustainable gap between the wealthy and the poor, the opioid crisis, long-term unemployment, insane gun laws, a parlous welfare safety net, violent crime, homelessness, the weaponization of the US dollar, and the raw pursuit of money, to see that this is an empire in a state of physical and moral decay. While the stars and stripes fade, the cries for help grow louder every day. The US is close to becoming a failed state by its own definition of that term. And the only response those in charge can muster is to blame others.

To rant and rail over China’s economic progress while bewailing its record on human rights is nothing short of hypocrisy. China is a nation that has created a middle class of over 600 million in the space of 30 years. A country whose citizens are unusually united behind the government and its long-term vision. A society growing in confidence, where everything works, and crime rates are much lower than in the US.

Is it too late for America? Although we have long spoken about the Asian century, it is only now that the reality is beginning to sink in. The West lost any sense of moral authority years ago. China, along with other countries in Asia, has a progressive vision of the future which is very different from that in the US and Europe. In many respects Eastern countries have already begun to set new standards of moral courage, social respect, and entrepreneurial activity, that are likely to eclipse the past glories of old empires.

The death spasms are likely to be both slow and agonizing in a country as divided and as prejudiced as the US is today. My hope is that at some stage America will be able to move past its psychoses in order to rise like a phoenix from the ashes of misplaced imperialism. But only when it has abandoned its rough outer skin of terror and brutality, only when it can find renewed solace in the ethos of the founding fathers to embrace humility and compassion once more, will it be capable of taking its true place as an equal partner, rather than a dominant aggressor, in a just and fair society of nations. Whether such a transformation is even possible remains unknown. Only time will tell.

How Long O Lord Will You Forget Me?

From the age of eight, I was a church chorister. Although I turned to Buddhism at the age of thirteen, when it occurred to me that the Bible was a work of fiction brazenly marketed as an implausible sequence of historical events, I cannot claim I felt indoctrinated into the Christian religion. The experience washed over me like a wave, leaving little substantial in its wake, apart from a curiosity in rites and rituals. And myths of course.

The only exception to that indifference might have been when Miss Allen, headmistress and respected spinster, gave me six strokes of her cane across the palm of my hand for not being able to recite the catechism with the precision she obviously desired. This stinging rebuttal to my latent precocity, I felt, was undeniably unkind.

To be fair, on that occasion it might have been more to do with my penchant for impulsive wisecracks. For when asked What is the chief end of man I did not hesitate before replying Having sex - as a witty substitute for the more conventional response which had more to do with glorifying God and enjoying Him forever. In that moment I had imagined my answer to be a valid substitute. But possibly not quite good enough for Miss Allen’s pedantic sensitivities.

On the whole, though, I cherished my childhood, developing a love for church music that remains with me to this day. I particularly enjoyed singing psalms. They were far more beguiling than hymns. Furthermore, it did not occur to me that these ancient verses were in any way unrelated to my own experience of life. On the contrary, they had everything to do with me and my surroundings. They were about my own social inadequacies, the love I received from my mother, my father’s sense of theatre, my brother’s irritations, my friend’s unhappiness...

Even more than that, though, they dealt with what filled the newspapers during the post-war years, and still fuel our attention via social media today… the disillusioned voter, the outcast’s fear, the oligarch’s greed, the leader’s tyranny. Yet 3,000 years have passed. Is that truly the extent of the progress we have made? Are we still attending to the same old problems, reacting with the same levels of emotional maturity, and continuing to behave in a manner that would not have been out of place all those centuries ago?

In a piece I wrote only yesterday, entitled The Wisdom of Generations, I expressed faith in the desire of humanity, and young people in particular, to join together in reinventing our presence on this planet. Today, I feel less optimistic, mostly because of another question. Is it realistic to expect that a family of 7.7 billion hominids can, in the space of a decade, or perhaps two, effect meaningful change in how they inhabit the land, govern their affairs and relate to one another? If we look to history for the answer we are bound to be uneasy.

How quickly, do you suppose, will we be able to embrace a form of entangled humanism, where ingrained reciprocities between humans and other life forms are recognised in law, and a new constitution relevant to sustaining life, can emerge? Our most sacred purpose, simply because no other species has the capacity to accomplish it (unless super-intelligent machines take this matter into their own hands in sheer frustration at our apathy) must be a passion for civilisational renewal - evolving world-systems that easily preserve life within accepted planetary boundaries. How long will that take do you suppose? How soon will we accept the need to turn against brutality and bloodshed in order to wage peace rather than war? How quickly can we turn tribal rivalries into global cooperation? Hate into love? Hubris into humility?

Uncomfortable questions such as these flare more brightly within the bleakest corners of our experience: the insatiable cycle of desire and consumption; the contempt for all life exposed by totalitarian states; acts of terrorism and persecution; economic discrimination entrenched within a universal system that privileges few; mental health problems arising from bullying, or anxiety, or just the simple need to deal the best we can with the malaise afflicting so many in the world today...

These skittering sparks, invariably draw our attention once more to the human condition, to the material world we have constructed that might not be as benign as we had hoped, and the profound issue of how human nature must change - even though how much is even open to being changed is in doubt.

It is hardly surprising that the socio-economic world we have constructed over the past few decades is one that many young people are rejecting. From Chile to Thailand, from India to Russia, and from Hong Kong to Iran, increasing numbers of young people refuse to embrace the fantasy we have so carefully fashioned. Why?

Because they know that meeting the essential needs of each person on the planet - based on current relations between resource use and human well-being - must entail violating several ecological boundaries. They can see this so clearly. This is why they are pointing out that the emperor we worship, neoliberal capitalism, is both naked and limping along on crutches.

We can insist all we like that a majority of citizens worldwide are more prosperous today than was the case a century ago. Carefully selected statistics can be found to prove that point. Of course, those statistics do not account for family violence, terrorism, autism, mental health, political narcissism, or just deep-rooted feelings of unhappiness that hang in the air.

We can also instruct our children to shut up, grow up, and accept reality. But the world we are demanding they tolerate is the one we created. It is our world - not theirs. Clearly they do not detect a viable future, or one that they would actually want, from their collective vantage point. All they know is what they see, and feel, and tell each other: a reality that benefits fewer and fewer people. A world torn apart by greed and inequity. One in which business corporations unduly influence state institutions, and where prejudiced media constantly reinvent the news. A world steered by unelected oligarchs who are reliant on a global economy that is extractive and damaging to human wellbeing. A world of dissolute socio-political models they will need to redesign, if that is still possible, once we decide to get out of their way.

In summary, this is how we can explain why there is so much outrage, targeting incumbent leaders, from young people today. That is why they are showing us their frustrated anger. Little wonder their exasperation spills over into screams of how long o lord will you forget us? What we always forget, or put to one side, is that through our actions we extinguish their hope. We steel their future.

Left unaddressed I would expect the youthquake we are seeing around the world to grow and escalate into civil resistance, riots, insurgency and, quite soon, into political and social revolution. And perhaps such an uprising is the burning platform we need to come to our senses. Perhaps it is the shock that can jolt us out of our arrogance and complacency.

Much of what we understand and accept is contextual of course. I remember explaining to a group of young middle-class entrepreneurs a few years ago, well before the internet had a grip on our awareness, that an increasing majority of their peers could not possibly share their optimism that things were getting better, or that social progress was palpable. The group in question were amazed. They could not comprehend how people their own age, in their own city, were feeling isolated, anxious, depressed, and alienated when life was so good for them.

The two facilitators of this group, both women, were infuriated that I could suggest such an idea. They instantly dismissed it as being incorrect, insisting that I must be mistaken. They even went so far as to accuse me of treachery: implanting dangerous notions that could easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy in the unsuspecting minds of their young charges. I explained that the previous day I had been working with homeless kids, trying to help them find a few shreds of hope for a better future when many of them could not even be sure where their next meal was coming from. But this was considered irrelevant. A truth not to be spoken about too loudly. A world that was best kept hidden lest we are overcome with compassion...

We do not like alternative truths to intrude too much on our daily lives – especially if they chafe and scrape against our most sensitive beliefs. We can be so fragile when we are challenged in such a manner. But fragility can lead to ignorance, while ignorance almost always gives way to apathy. And that is a problem. Apathy is the last thing we need in an era when an unprecedented environmental breakdown is being aggravated by equally exceptional socio-economic, political and cultural stresses.

Personally I welcome the frustration and outrage being displayed by youth globally. It is open and honest. Their heartfelt calls for change are a sign that our species can and will survive. Whether it is religious persecution in India, pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong, or strikes against climate change right around the world, actually matters very little. I applaud any determination to oust corruption and injustice, and any attempt to shame us into informed action.

Life-affirming defiance is an inherent part of adolescence of course. The youth of every era find it in their blood to unsettle the established order. I myself joined the occasional anti-nuclear weapons marches from London to Aldermaston as a teenager. But my motive was the fear of nuclear war rather than anger targeting specific grievances to do with work or inequality.

These new waves of youthful protest are qualitatively different. What we are witnessing is a phenomenon made possible by globalism. The expectations of these people are much higher than in previous generations. They are connected, well-educated, politically charged, mutually aware, more attuned to universal rights such as free speech, and far less likely to be bound by social and religious conventions.

Whether these separate movements will eventually merge, ushering in an age of rapid evolution, or perhaps revolution, is impossible to say at this stage. But the fact there is no discernible common denominator, each social upheaval differing in its detail, other than the factor of youth, is certainly fascinating.

Of one thing we can be sure. In this tide of social unrest and intensifying activism, those in power will not remain impassive for long. Democratic governments are already showing a readiness to lie, manipulate and disinform their citizens, in what will ultimately be a futile effort to manufacture consent. Meanwhile, the pushback from the ruling elites in totalitarian states will be forceful.

Let us hope that youth ultimately prevails. Let us pray, too, that their “lords” (and ours) will not forget them. Are we really so arrogant and stupid enough to believe that wisdom resides only with those elected or appointed to lead when that leadership is so obviously failing us? Instead of sidelining them, or simply putting up with their transgressions, let the next step be us working together to help overcome our blind spots so that we are better able to make the urgent transition from exploration and degradation to curation and regeneration.

The Wisdom of Generations

Did you know that at the equator, the Earth spins at a fixed rate of around 1,000 miles an hour? Probably not. The reason you cannot feel it turning is that, along with everything else on the surface of the planet, including the oceans, the forests and the cities, we are all spinning at the same constant speed.

Movement and synchrony are signs of vitality and of progress. Clues that we are alive. They are one of life’s constants - even if we do not notice them. To remain static is to be moribund. Or dead! Although we are not usually all that sensitive to the pace of change, and certain events, like the nine months gestation period it takes to grow a baby, do not vary much, it is remarkable how human knowledge and expertise have been accelerating exponentially since the dawn of history. Let me give you an example from my own life.

I stopped writing music in 1984 – a year before my 40^th birthday. Although this was an intensely poignant decision at the time, since I had been composing music almost daily since the age of five, there were a number of valid reasons for discontinuing. For one thing I felt the urge to experiment with words rather than sounds. I had become jaded by the solitary nature of composition, and the competititve nature of the profession was sapping my love for the art of music-making and performance. But mostly it was because my music, dubbed by critics as part of thenew complexity - a surefire way to kill off any interest on the part of concert-going audiences incidentally - was played by fewer and fewer musicians. Meanwhile the number of people who were inclined to attend concerts of “cerebral art” was shrinking. I had to face facts. Being a composer of modern classical music had become an indulgence I could no longer afford. What is the point of relating this story?

The last piece I wrote was a 24 minute music-theatre work called Quete - for percussion. It had been commissioned by a brilliant student of mine at the Victorian College of the Arts. Peter Neville, a member of Elision Ensemble, lauded internationally for its virtuosic flair and courageous programs, was one of the most talented young musicians in Australia at the time. Regrettably, the piece made so many demands on the performer, and required such dexterity, that it was pronounced unplayable.

Quete remained unheard for the next 32 years. Then, in February 2016, Kaylie Dunstan, a final year student at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, decided to include the work in her graduation recital.  She played this incredibly complex piece from memory, to a highly appreciative audience, with a precision and sense of maturity that was breathtaking.

The same story in terms of skills development can be seen in sport. Jackie Charlton, who played in the soccer team that won the World Cup in 1966, recently acknowledged that the current England team would most likely demolish his old team with their superior use of data, intensive training techniques, spontaneous inventiveness, individual skills and levels of fitness. I imagine that the same principle would apply to most fields of endeavour where performance expertise, physical endurance, mental toughness and agility are on display.

A related issue is the time it takes for entire societies to adjust to new technologies and to adapt to changing conditions. In our modern world the interval between conceptual design, commercialisation, and market uptake is extremely compressed. In 1995 hardly anyone knew about the Internet. Barely a decade later it had become so ubiquitous that we could not imagine life without it. At the beginning of 2007, nobody had even seen a touch-screen smart phone with a camera. Steve Jobs unveiled the first ever iPhone in January of that year. By 2017 over 66 per cent of the population owned a smartphone with its music streaming and photographic capabilities considered the most important components.

Each of these trends represents a radical shift in the ways we are able to live, play, work, entertain and engage with each other. But there is a deeper, more profound pattern here that links to my initial ideas about new skills acquisition and development. For underlying each shift is the astonishing rate at which knowledge is discovered and applied. The just-in-time industry vogue of the 1970’s has given way to a real-time actuality in diverse fields. The ultimate leap forward in this regard is the noosphere of regenerative consciousness, which is already informing the reinvention of failing systems including energy, agriculture, education, social wellbeing, human relations, and so much more.

This is exceptionally good news for humanity. It is symbolic of our flexibility in the face of circumstances that threaten to disrupt every organisation and institution on the planet. Of course there are tricky pathological disorders still to be overcome – like our inexplicable readiness to espouse scientism as the only means by which society can establish norms and epistemological values. But at least we can now have renewed confidence in our potential to address those worse case scenarios that have so many of us throwing up our hands in horror and declaring the end of life as we know it.

Obviously the difference between being able to deploy knowledge rapidly, aided by the digital development of both human and machine acumen and skills, and wisdom (that is accepting the need for substantial change in the first place) raises further issues. But even then the situation is possibly more optimistic than not.

The youthquake of activism and civil disobedience spreading around the world is a sign that young people everywhere are refusing to become heirs to the avaricious world we have been so busy making on their behalf. They see through our hypocrisy and have no intention of being bullied into compliance by unelected oligarchs. They are making their voices heard and I doubt they will want to compromise.

If we can avoid gender-biased coding and diverse ethical traps, artificial intelligence will be used to make the world work for everyone. New modes of organising, such as peer-to-peer models and revitalised cooperatives, will erode the more predatory aspects of capitalism. Experiments with how power is exercised will eventually offer more engaging forms of democratised governance.

But the greatest hope for human durability and prosperity is a barely-visible tipping point: the speed at which we will agree to cooperate to redesign human presence on Earth.

The darkest hours are just before the dawn. And dark forces of destruction are stalking civilisation today. I believe these will be transitory and that a new dawn is on the horizon. We must be thankful in that regard for the various crises afflicting us – from our addiction to materialism, pressure from 7.7 billion people causing the failure of our most life-critical systems, the culture of fear that incites us to blame others for our predicament, and the anxiety and distress that perpetuates the illusion buying more and more stuff will bring happiness, when we already know that is not the case. For while these burning platforms are certainly dangerous, and pose a very real risk, the determination to resolve them is becoming a tsunami.

The regenerative impulse lies deep within the human soul. Although the future is a fairly meaningless concept for most people, the decisions we take tomorrow will be critical. For it is then we will realise the need to let go of those parts of our nature that are destructive and bring us only pain.

Instead we will find ways to inhale the joy of what it actually means to be a sentient human being. The most powerful emotion we can harness is unconditional love for life. That, and the realisation we are not separate from each other, nor from the planet in which we all live, will free the most profound renewal of the human species in our history.

It will not be forced. Nor can it be engineered to any great extent. Ironically that fact alone is sufficient to alarm those among us who try to control every outcome.

This transformation will be born of its own accord, in its own way, in its own time. How can I be so sure? Because there is simply no other way if we are to avoid extinction or living in an environment that is toxic to health and well-being. Only as a unified family, rather than separate competing tribes, will we rediscover the wisdom of generations, and use this to transcend history and our own prior accomplishments.

War in a World Manufactured by Men

Like it or not we are all related to one another. As homo sapiens, sharing a home we call Earth, it is not surprising that we should exhibit similar desires, and voice almost identical needs. The patterns of our collective experience are remarkably similar. Those factors that separate us are not so numerous, nor as implanted, as the elements that unite and define us.

We are remarkably adaptive and resilient. Inventive too. Indeed, our resourcefulness seems to know no bounds. The inspirational art and music we craft, the extravagant structures we engineer, the fictions we conjure up, the science and philosophies that engross us, and the intricate systems we design, mark us out as an exceptional, if not unique, life form.

So why do we find it so hard to get along? Why is it so difficult to reconcile our differences, particularly when these are often so trivial in retrospect? Why are we fearful of each other when diversity is primarily responsible for generating the insights and breakthroughs we use to develop how we think and what we do? Why is it that we devote so much energy battling and defending ourselves from each other? What are we frightened of?

Is it really the embodiment of an advanced civilisation that we resort to slaughtering each other at the slightest provocation - particularly when we have access to such a wide variety of modes of expression, including sophisticated tools for visualisation and analysis, that can be applied to resolve almost any dispute? In theory it should be easy. So why do we find it so impossibly challenging?

Whenever I have posed this, or comparable questions, in the past I have invariably received bewildered looks. It is as though the question itself is either invalid, or that the answer is so obvious that I must be demented for asking it in the first place. From the responses I usually get I might conclude that aggression is an innate human quality - the impulsive exercise of unconcealed rage on a power spectrum ranging from deference to defiance. In other words, it is just human nature - like breathing or sleeping, it is hard-wired into our very being and consequently true, about every human, every time.

If that really is the case, we can forget about becoming less violent. It is commonly accepted that human nature is inherently fixed and almost impossible to change. This bundle of ways of knowing, feeling, relating and acting is the core of who we are as human beings. It follows that if a proposition runs counter to human nature it is bound to fail.

But I wonder if that is always true. Are we attributing more to human nature than is actually deserved? If so, could we be using it as an excuse, in order that pursuits best suited to some sections of society can prevail unchallenged?

We know that societies develop and change. Indeed, this is why torture and execution as a public spectacle is no longer acceptable. A growing aversion to brutality, too, means we have less tolerance for conflict today than we did a century ago. Increasingly war is regarded as immoral and barbaric. But is that type of societal impulse accurately reflected in personal preferences? We are told that individual temperament changes only slightly over an entire lifetime - unless we actually want it to, and do something to cause such a shift.

On the other hand, basic traits, a synthesis of our genetic heritage and the environment in which we grew up, are merely the starting points for our evolving identity. The impact from continually changing external conditions can alter any epigenetic predispositions we have at birth. Moreover, the brain's plasticity allows for its reconfiguration - both functionally and structurally. Taken together, this means that while social norms and institutions invariably influence and condition individuals, each one of us can help shape the society of which we are a part. It turns out that human nature is not static, but a dynamic condition that adapts and morphs over time. So why would we not deliberately set about changing our relations with each other in order to be less aggressive and more compassionate?

Perhaps we do have an innate antipathy to some things. We are constantly told that certain emotions - like greed, envy and selfishness - are hard-wired. But is that really the case? Take selfishness for example. If it is in our nature to be selfish, how can we account for the many volunteers, carers, and rescue workers that give their time, and occasionally even their lives, helping others in distress? Given that these are unexceptional individuals, not some super-human of the kind to be found in Marvel comics, we must conclude they are either atypical of the majority in some other way or, far more likely, that selfishness is actually not intrinsic to human nature.

A far more observable trait is that the things we learn to think, believe, say and do together often display innate group characteristics. Thus, it is a more acceptable notion that cultural norms, rather than human nature per se, once formed, are innate. Members of a music club differ from a rowing fraternity, for example. One university college will diverge from others on the same campus. The energy in a government agency is dissimilar to that in a high-tech startup. Their cultures are different - and noticeably so.

Sometimes these differences are subtle. At other times stark. But they invariably have two qualities in common. They are all shaped by particular sets of beliefs; and they all cultivate distinct impulses and behaviours - usually fitting the expectations and needs of members.

Now let us return to the question I posed at the beginning of this essay. Is human aggression and the impulse to fight wars an intrinsic part of being human? Or is it more likely to be the shared cultural characteristic of a particular group?

At the risk of offending half the population I am opting for the latter. The class I am pointing to comprises roughly 49 per cent of humanity. It is the male genus. There will always be a few individual exceptions. But, by and large, wars are conceived, overseen and fought by men who are excited by other men. This is not simply a statistical fact. Pluck and bravery remain an early part of male conditioning - aggression imbuing the adult male psyche as toughness and fraternal courage.

Before my male readers become apoplectic and leap to collective outrage, let me set this proposition in a more granular context. That of design. It matters little what aspect of public and private life we choose to examine. Research overwhelmingly shows that we live in a world designed by men for men. In that world merit is a myth and the default design bias is male.

From orchestral auditions and job promotion to urban transportation, algorithms, medicinal doses, medical diagnoses, fashion, disaster management, government policy, public toilets - even the language we use on a daily basis - the majority of objects, places, spaces, strategies and processes we use have been designed by men and are biased towards men, with scant regard paid to the needs of the female gender. The lives and experiences of men have been taken to represent humanity as a whole. They are the default.

As Simone de Beauvoir said: Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with the absolute truth. [1]

How does all of this relate to the issue of aggression, and the urgent need to attenuate our primitive fascination with war? Is bellicosity, and the urge to manufacture more destructive weaponry, primarily a cultural impulse to be found (not exclusively, but predominantly) in the male population? If so how should we begin to design for a world in which aggression becomes less valued than empathy, for example?

Over the centuries war has gradually lost all purpose. Today it makes absolutely no sense - even when all else has failed. War is costly (financially and psychologically) and provides no benefits to society - it does not guarantee freedom, prosperity, or even future peace. On the contrary its legacy is social dislocation, the loss of innocent life, environmental destruction, and moral bankruptcy.

Most modern military leaders, with few exceptions, acknowledge there are no longer any advantages to be gained from aggression of this kind - not from regime change, and certainly not from invasion and occupation. Rape and pillage are crimes against humanity while the costs of war - including dispossession, humiliation, and trauma, simply generate resentment and further provocation.

Besides, the amount we spend on preparing for wars, fighting them, and dealing with the devastation caused by war, could mitigate climate change, eliminate poverty, and provide free education and healthcare for every person on the planet many times over.

So how should we go about designing a world in which war is largely eliminated? If it is not in our nature to go to war, but only a default cultural mechanism within one sector of the society, then surely the way is clear for a leap of consciousness in how we evolve without resorting to aggressive behaviour. The first step might be to elect many more women into positions of power.

In that respect it will be instructive to keep a close eye on pioneers like Jacinda Adern in New Zealand, Sanna Marin in Finland, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex in the US. Will their presence lead to more gender-neutral public policies? And, if so, will they counteract the inherent bias for aggression and war-mongering, which warriors past and present insist is simply human nature? Or will they, too, submit to conventional wisdom - that aggression and war is an innate part of what it means to be human?

 

[1] Further examples of male bias and their effects can be found in Caroline Criado-Perez's recent book, Invisible Women: Exposing data bias in a world designed for men, published by Random House, 2019.

In Memoriam - Christmas 2019

For those who have died in the fires currently ravaging Australia, and for those brave souls who are fighting those firestorms.

The things you do for yourself are gone when you are gone, but the things you do for others remain as your legacy ~ Kalu Ndukwe Kalu

It really only struck me a few days ago how hopeless our situation actually is. I was having a late breakfast at my hotel in Melbourne, scanning the pages of the Bangkok Post. I had just spent 15 minutes on a live cross to a breakfast show in New Zealand speaking to a television audience about the enormous firestorms currently engulfing Australia, in addition to other global events that signify a grave deterioration in the conditions necessary for human life.

I am not sure whether I turned to the newspaper as light relief or to confirm my own biases. In any case I found almost every article, editorial, and advertisement reinforced normalcy. My deepest concerns about the future were not being contradicted - just reframed as a part of a pattern that could not possibly ruffle feathers or cause excessive anxiety. That, I venture to suggest, is part of the problem we face. Our narrative is enmeshed within business-as-usual.

We do not take kindly to imposed change. The thought of extinction is ridiculed or dismissed as inconceivable. Change of any kind inevitably sets off warning bells. It signifies loss, inviting dread and resistance. The thought of calling a temporary halt to our own economic growth in order that people a world away might benefit from a slightly higher quality of life is simply incomprehensible.

Preferring to hide in ignorance or history, where answers were always found to the problems of the day (even though many of them were shortsighted, unwise, and even barbaric) we continue to patch up the present as best we can, preoccupied by the repetitive and delusional routines from which we take comfort; all the while hoping that “she’ll be right”.

Commentators tell us to remain optimistic, ignoring the massive failure of imagination and emotional gridlock we suffer from. My own critics constantly tell me not to harp on the bad news, or to be so negative. This will only repel your audience. People need to hear good news, they insist, concerned about my state of mind. But what if business-as-usual, and even good news, which is there if we know where to look, just gets in the way of hearing a truth we need to hear. What if our nostalgia for normalcy is impeding the decisive actions we must take concerning the really, really, intolerably bad news?

The truth that hardly anyone dares utter is an unthinkable and unlivable reality. Our society is in a state of collapse - precipitated by a predatory disregard for nature and an inability to find an acceptable balance between economic sufficiency and human well-being. This is probably most evident in the abusive and divisive ways we treat each other. We are one species. Almost everything we cherish is under threat. Yet still we seem unable to escape the urge for self-destruction.

It is possible there is no way out of the mess we have made of the environment. Although there is a plethora of solutions available, we are not deploying them at the scale and speed necessary to avoid catastrophe. Advised to prepare for the worst by many leading scientists, we are not even up to that task.

In these circumstances it is difficult to refrain from deriding others, attacking their motives, drawing attention to their many shortcomings, and calling out their banality, incompetence, ideological leanings, or lack of courage for the situation in which we now find ourselves. But hate and derision are a part of the problem. Attacking others might fill us with a false sense of self-importance but it is pretentious and will ultimately make matters far worse.

We need all our energy to focus on how to get out of this mess. Censuring incumbent leaders for lacking the wisdom we ourselves could not muster if we were in their shoes is misguided and akin to the vituperative murmurings of a madman. Individuals are not to blame. Like us they are trapped in a prison of our own invention. It is called capitalism and it is killing us.

If we are to step back and look objectively at the causes for our contemporary predicament we can identify systemic flaws embedded within our shared worldview. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out to me on several occasions, some of these “flaws” (the instinct to compete, for example) are intrinsic to our nature. To which my response is emphatic: if we find it impossible to change these aspects of human nature, or at least to channel them to be less destructive, then we have already lost. In that case our destiny will, and deserves to be, extinction.

Right now, making this point on the evening television news would invite outrage - stirring up apprehension in those who cannot bring themselves to face such an outlandish proposition. It would be irresponsible. In any case, the media’s propensity to coat everything with honey, glossing over anything that smacks of an existential nature, would result in such a topic being normalized for mass consumption – by being placed amidst excerpts from the latest Marvel movie and yet another faux celebrity scandal.

Although some of the drivers of human behaviour etched into our shared worldview could constructively evolve into others, compassion and cooperation replacing hate and division perhaps, it is not simply these factors that are at fault, but the overarching narrative we use to design systems that then reify these values. The most insidious of these is materialism- explicitly the addictive cycle of desire and consumption to which we submit daily.

In 1945 the planet felt empty. Only 2 billion humans inhabited Earth. In the space of 75 years the population burgeoned to over 7 billion people – all seeking a better quality of life under the auspices of market capitalism. Unimaginable stress was put on systems essential for our mutual well-being and prosperity. Not designed to cope with such numbers they began to fail. Back then we barely noticed, distracted by our newly-acquired wealth and seduced by the power that wealth brings.

Unaware of potential consequences we were urged to follow the credo of economic growth. And we did – buying new goods and seeking novelty as though our lives depended on it. Our compulsion became pervasive. We threw away stuff with causal nonchalance as easy credit and inbuilt obsolescence conspired to replace the old with the new. Materialism spread to become a global faith.

Almost without noticing things started to go wrong. Aided and abetted by corporate media’s ability to generate indignation and outrage we found an easy target for our anger. We began to blame others for our predicament. Perhaps they did not look like us. Possibly they prayed to different gods, or just spoke an unfamiliar language. But the insidious nature of loathing quickly became socially corrosive. Fear turned to apprehension in the minds of individuals. Anxiety and depression quickly followed. Eager to hide our mental fragility we resorted to extra medication, junk food, alcohol – along with more financial debt. We tried everything. Nothing made us happy. Suicide rates continued to climb.

The illusion is perpetuated today through the manipulation of marketing. Our apprehension, envy and anxiety can be cured, we are told, just by consuming more and more stuff. Wealth will make us happy again. Happier than before. The reality is that increased spending has led to increased pressure on the systems that are now in a state of collapse.

Thus, the cycle of desire and consumption was born. It still intoxicates the human mind and deceives us into believing that materialism is a solution. Actually, it is the problem and there is no solution in sight. It is also the reason we should not blame individuals for our plight. That path gets us nowhere, exacerbating the destructive nature of the cycle, thus making our exit, if that is possible, even more difficult.

There are other equally destructive cycles that follow a similar course. Unending conflict and war leading to the further fracturing of humanity. An obsession with unrestrained economic growth resulting in environmental destruction. The tacit pact that allows wealth to translate into power and that eventually leads to a few individuals owning most of the world’s wealth.

None of these cycles are sustainable. They can all be traced back to an overarching narrative of self-righteousness and hubris that animates them. It is this narrative that must change.

We can do the easy stuff now. We can connect the dots between events and outcomes. We can experiment with a range of new prototypes. But there our ingenuity stops...

Only when, with great effort and persistence, we are able to put aside prejudices, stepping into different design ontologies to craft systems that work effectively for village farmers in the developing world as well as shareholders in our wealthiest nations, can we be assured of enduring. Why is that?

In order for these new systems to endure they will need to be generative and restorative. That is impracticable if we are unable to step into new epistemologies of understanding and to reframe what it means to be human. For that to happen we need to take a giant leap of consciousness: to see ourselves for who we are, and who we might become, in order to see the world differently.

I hazard to suggest that nurturing a generation possessing a self-generative consciousness is the next step in human evolution. But as I keep pointing out, and being shouted down, such a leap of consciousness depends upon human nature changing its most fundamental impulses, or at least redirecting them to more constructive ends.

This is the greatest challenge of our time. At this point anything else is a distraction. I am told repeatedly that it cannot be done. That human nature is what it is...

So, I can only resort to hope. But please do not ask me to inspire optimism every time I get up to speak or write an article. Do not plead with me to look on the bright side or to ignore science. I prefer to face the truth – even if that truth is an intensely agonising burden.

That said, I still believe we will eventually come to our senses. I do have faith in the young generation. And I do believe we will be wise enough to survive our own success. Eventually. But not tomorrow. I fear there is much pain and catastrophe to come before we feel compelled to act.

 

Sorry for the Inconvenience....

Sorry for the Inconvenience... I am just trying to imagine a better, more affluent yet transparent, world. One that works for everyone. I know that does not necessarily suit some people. Particularly those who are content with the way things are.

The utopian mind is trapped, along with capitalism and industrialism, in a self-reflective, but ultimately disconnected state, obsessed with the need for material growth. Initially this mindset brought some of us great wealth. Generally speaking improved health and wellbeing followed. But now the same mindset has turned toxic. The context is changing but we are not keeping pace. In fact we have become addicted to our own deceits and are blind to the consequences.

We are assured by advertising gurus and manufacturers that the never-ending spiral of consumption and desire is bound to make us happy - eventually. If we are downcast then spend a little money on the latest iPhone and happiness will be restored. Feeling lonely? Treat yourself to a Caribbean cruise or a long weekend in Bali. You will feel much better - for a while at least.

Sorry for the inconvenience. I suspect we are deceiving ourselves. The essential costs of living, such as mortgage payments, gas, electricity, and food, which were originally the reason we laboured in exchange for money, no longer excites us. It is now burdensome. The fact is most of us no longer want to work long hours, in repetitive jobs, that have few benefits, other than a pay cheque each month. We remain disengaged and disinterested. The real motivation for turning up to work is our craving for a stream of new stuff. Novel gadgets and little luxuries, items we do not actually need, driven to some extent by envy, fuels such avarice. This impulse has assumed dominion over us. Little by little it devours everything else we once valued - including simple joys such as talking with friends, sharing a meal, walking together in the shade of a forest. Even our sense of belonging.

Given the identity crisis this is causing, particularly among the young - the increasing rates of anxiety and depression, suicide, narcissism and antisocial behaviours psychologists are dealing with today - perhaps we could redesign our worldview and its impulses from first principles, putting life and everything that sustains it, before everything else.

Sorry for the inconvenience. I do not mean to shout. I am simply trying to get your attention. As we watch coral reefs die, entire species become extinct, extreme weather events become more common, and glaciers melt, world leaders convene to discuss the crisis, nod their heads in sage agreement that something must be done. Then sit on their hands.

Perhaps they believe the science is wrong, or dismiss it as a socialist conspiracy. Possibly they feel we have left it too late to do anything much anyway and that any action from them will lose them votes. They might believe new technologies will come to our rescue, saving humanity in the nick of time like the best Hollywood blockbuster. Or perhaps they have so much faith in capitalism that they assume the huge amounts of capital needed to decarbonise the economy will eventually be coughed up by others when there are no other options.

Sorry for the inconvenience. But waiting for more information before acting is a folly when your home is burning. During the past decade venture capitalists have poured billions of dollars into disrupting the hotel, taxi, office-space and restaurant industries. Well done them. They became much wealthier. Governments on the other hand targeted fiscal parochialism, their myopic eyes glued to opinion polls and the next election. Meanwhile the climate continues to get warmer and extreme weather events are now more frequent. Some people presume the big energy firms will take the lead. Don't hold your breath. The odds are against that happening. These firms do not have the will power nor the means to disrupt their orthodox business models.

Given rising levels of anxiety among the general population perhaps we should start one or more government-sponsored, privately financed and managed, Climate Action Funds. Global heating mitigation and adaptation efforts can only succeed if and when ordinary citizens around the world are given the opportunity to engage with the issues. And giving the public a chance to buy in, literally, might hasten this process.

Sorry for the inconvenience. I really am trying to get you to think more deeply. Surely not the climate crisis again? Not this time. AI? No. Political corruption? Not exactly. Human rights then? Well, sort of. It's actually a bit of everything you see. I am concerned that we are not awake to the consequences of collective human action.

Everything is interconnected. We know this from quantum science, indigenous wisdom, and the more esoteric spiritual conditions. This means everything we do, every action we take, contributes to the world operating effectively, and as intended - or not!

When I was born there were fewer than 2 billion people on the planet. It felt empty. Today there are more than 7.6 billion of us - all needing fresh air, potable water, nutritious food, empathy, friendship and love. Obviously we would be better off without war and inequity. But the fact is we designed our most life-critical systems to be what they are and to deliver precisely what they produce. If we do not like the results we can redesign them. In fact we will have to do that anyway, because so many of them are under stress and are failing the majority of humans.

For example, democracy is in a shambles. Although we pretend everything is satisfactory, democracy is not working as it should anywhere in the world. Indeed the only governance model that comes close to delivering what its architects intended, global economic power through domestic unity, is the modern Chinese political system. Many will condemn me for saying as such. After all, we are supposed to believe that China is the enemy and that the West has a moral advantage. Inclusive, unbiased analysis, does not validate such a claim.

Failures in some other systems are less contentious. Soils are losing their organic richness owing to the excessive use of fertilisers and pesticides. Aquifers and rivers are poisoned. Industrial forms of agriculture can no longer guarantee food security. Marine stocks are collapsing through over fishing. Elsewhere, the socio-political and cultural theories we use for learning, health, journalism, foreign aid, and economic justice, to name just a few, are in urgent need of review.

Sorry for the inconvenience. But we need always to seek the truth. Some people like to blame increasing population numbers for what is becoming a scar on human civilisation. But that is only partly true. It is not a matter of numbers. Indeed, although the population is still increasing in absolute terms, fertility rates have been in dramatic decline worldwide for well over a decade.

The real culprit is the stories we tell each other about who we are, what is important, and what it means to be human. The dominant narrative concerning the human condition is increasingly at odds with the optimal criteria for a beneficial and abundant future.

Sorry for the inconvenience. Perhaps we should pay more attention to the root causes underlying why so many things appear not to be working for everyone. Perhaps we should be redesigning these systems from first principles - expressing clearly what we expect them to deliver.

If all of that seems reasonable we should put more effort into respecting and educating women so that they can take an equal part in shaping our society.

Given how technology is transforming the world of work, we should revise the rationale for schooling and what we should expect from graduates.

We should switch from the apparatus of state governance to a mix of cities and regenerative regional activity, cooperating with each other at a local level in terms of food production, the sharing of energy, and the development of community ecologies.

We should use military budgets, aimed purely at causing destruction, to help regenerate those natural and social ecosystems damaged through war and conflict.

We should also tread more lightly and responsibly on the Earth, contracting the economic aspirations in more developed nations, so that badly needed growth becomes easier in less developed lands.  

Sorry for the inconvenience. Some readers will assume that I am a rabid socialist. I am not. I am not against business making a profit - so long as the community and the environment also benefit. I am not against prosperity or a thriving economy - so long as everyone wins. I am not against the accrual of individual wealth - so long as it is achieved through personal effort and does not disadvantage others less fortunate. I am not against an individual's belief in a deity, or even the tooth fairy come to that - so long as I am not a target for their personal superstitions and delusions.

Sorry for the inconvenience. It is just that I cannot abide ignorance. And while stupidity can be forgiven, I think some of us may have forgotten what it means to be human.

The Failure of Foresight

I am most commonly known for my work as a strategist. Others took it upon themselves to label me a futurist - considered to be a far more seminal profession. I am not sure what I did to deserve such a curse. And I certainly don't want it inscribed on my tombstone.

With the benefit of hindsight, a human life can be most aptly described as that brief moment between birth and death. If only we could prolong that brief moment... Some scientists, like Raymond Kurzweil, are trying to do just that of course.

Yesterday I was young. Today I am just a grumpy old man. But what next? Tomorrow I may choose to upload my mind onto a digital medium, before my physical body totally decays, so that anyone who so desires can experience my personal story in vivid detail - assuming their curiosity can overcome any morbid voyeuristic concerns of course.

I wonder if the future really will be like that? At my advancing age such speculation is immaterial. In any case I believe understanding the present in terms of the past is far more important than tripping out on a future we cannot be certain about until it morphs into the past. I am vexed, you see, not by the fact that the future is an illusion, but that the present passes so quickly. What I said just then is now past. It's weird isn't it? Do you agree?

So, let us turn our attention to the present day. It's a cliché that we live in an era of unprecedented disruption. Uncertainty, volatility and ambiguity prevail. But have you wondered why? I try to explain it as an inevitable consequence of the transition between industrial models, treaties and practices that have stopped working, and a new age.

We are experiencing this transition as a tsunami of chaotic and unpredictable events. It is tempting to point to machine intelligence, social unrest, intensifying civil disobedience, the US-China trade rivalry, religious fundamentalism of all kinds, and even Donald Trump, as the major cause for our discomfort. But it is actually more fundamental in nature. For this is a crisis of consciousness - a breakdown in our appreciation of what it means to be human, and the mindless prolongation of the cycle of desire and consumption that is at the core of how modern society works.

The desires of 7.6 billion people all wanting more and more stuff puts pressure on some of our most life-critical systems that then begin to fail. Meanwhile innate competitive behaviour opens up cultural divisions and social rifts where we blame anyone and everyone who is not like us. Eventually we yield to increased levels of anxiety, depression, and a range of other mental health problems. Suicide rates go through the roof. In the final analysis we feel lost and pessimistic. And so, we resort to buying more stuff in the hope that this will make us happy - for that is what the marketing guys tell us. Thus, the cycle is perpetuated, and the despair deepens.

There are at least three factors amplifying the levels of discomfort we are feeling, and they reinforce each other:

1. The doctrine of assumptions and beliefs we share (our worldview) has become infused with a moral impulse based on monetizing literally anything that moves - from the forests and the oceans to the air we breathe. This manifests as a world-system driven by greed and envy.
2. Many new business models, largely the product of a surveillance capitalism, where the usual tensions between capital and labour have been replaced by frictions between the observers and the observed, are deliberately designed to generate fear, envy, division and outrage.
3. As little more than innovative apes, our cognitive capacity hovers just below the threshold needed to solve the existential problems we ourselves have created. At the same time, we have invented a machine intelligence that is fast outstripping our own ability to think and to act. This leaves us even more stranded in a vulnerable limbo.

Because of all the confusion, ambiguity, and conflicting narratives, we find ourselves caught between a plutocratic status quo - with its unhealthy and unsustainable addiction to business-as-usual - and a world of open cooperation where knowledge could potentially be used to effect generative, second-order change, at scale, ultimately resolving most of the problems those adhering to the status quo choose to ignore, or simply hope will go away.

The undetected pattern that makes most sense in this context arises from the effects of a distinctive metaphysical framework - adesign ontology that enabled the industrial revolution to gain traction and bought many of us wealth beyond our wildest dreams. This framework - embracing Western cosmology, scientific realism, Cartesian logic and, more recently, neoliberal political and economic theory - has now totally subsumed most other cultural mindsets.

Dominant in today's world it influences how we think, how we interpret events, how we shape our relationships with each other (and with the planet), how we bring a sense of orderliness to our affairs, and how we take, or avoid taking, action. Because this design ontology has become a cancer in our global society, infecting our worldview with its toxicity, the world-system we take for granted is in a state of collapse. When both markets and governments fail to provide for the needs of society, it is hardly surprising we are feeling so overwhelmed by the chaos in our lives.

While disruption can certainly be distressing, it is not without value. In terms of human development, the uncertainty within disruption offers us a chance to evolve a more equitable worldview - one that serves all of humanity. But we can only take advantage of that opportunity by positioning problems in a broader evolutionary context - or what I refer to as the expanded now.

The expanded now is a simple model that allows us to examine the human condition by embracing ambient intelligence from the deep past as well as the deep future, while making sense of both in terms of the present. Permit me to give you an example.

The most profound question facing humanity is whether we are smart enough, and wise enough, to survive our own undoubted success. This question troubled me so much that I established the Centre for the Future to interrogate systems that are failing us, design a series of experiments to shed light on how best to go about reinventing those systems, or at least removing constraints that are causing them to behave in a manner no longer conducive to human health and well-being, and prototype the most feasible new designs arising from within new paradigms of thought.

Our first project was an inquiry into the exercise of political power and governance. Given that democracy is not working as it should anywhere in the world today we wanted to find out if representative democracy was even applicable in such a complex multilateral world.

In order to understand the question, we invited a range of insights from trusted sources around the world, venturing back in time to the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and analysing the hijacking of state sovereignty by Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of industrial capitalism a little over a century later.

During our investigation we identified 17 potential flaws in the Westminster model - the source code for most so-called democracies today. We then used a proprietary algorithm to pinpoint how a more engaging form of democratic citizenship might be introduced. Finally, we envisaged how a Steve Jobs, or an Elon Musk would have gone about the task of creating a user experience that was dependable, engaging, secure, and instantly accessible to anyone with a smartphone.

The outcome was a blockchain-enabled voting platform and social movement we call MiVote. Still under development, MiVote offers voters a real-time information and educational platform - allowing them to choose from a range of policy options, thus avoiding the binary ideological trap - just one of many factors turning people off politics as it is practiced. 

The basics of MiVote were tested in the recent Indian elections and will feature prominently for the first time in the next Australian federal election. This is an uncomplicated example of how foresight re-envisaged can be used to reinvent a system, even such a venerable one as democracy, when it is failing us. There is no reason to assume the same method cannot be used to revitalise or reinvent similarly revered systems. Indeed, we are attempting to do just that with our next project aimed at getting military organisations to wage peace rather than war.

From my perspective the field of foresight has failed to make a dent on the world-system. Incumbent leaders habitually make decisions, craft policies, and interpret events, without so much as an inkling regarding future consequences. We often blame them for not accessing futures methods. But the fault is ours too. We have condoned, and even encouraged, an aura of expertise around our work that is intimidating. We distrust forecasts - in spite of this being the one futures "product" most people instantly understand. The tendency to advocate foresight as exceptional is also regrettable. Outside of academia it certainly hasn't helped our cause or won us many friends. Meanwhile we have become complacent and now find ourselves isolated in a prison of our own invention.

It doesn't have to be that way. If we're to become more influential in helping to effect societal change we must find pragmatic ways of engaging with one another and with our various institutions. It might actually require a clean break from our past, and from our more abstract inclinations, in order to do that.

In my early years I was a professional composer and conductor. Music was my passion from the age of five. I was a pioneer in the use of the computer to generate sound, and one of a handful of composers known for a genre called, somewhat disparagingly, the new complexity.

Then, in 1984, I stopped writing music altogether. It was a painful decision. I had spent years fostering a career as a composer-conductor which I was now about to throw away. But I knew that as my work became more refined, and only a handful of dedicated virtuoso musicians could play my scores, fewer and fewer people were actually listening to the music. I wanted my ideas to reach a much larger audience. Reluctantly I concluded that my art, which I loved, and was so much a part of my identity, was also little more than an exercise in futility.

So, I gave it all away and wrote a book. Improbably, because I knew very little about my topic, The Management Myth was a best-seller, changing how management is practiced in large enterprises today. It had very little to do with music of course. But I had found a way of expressing corresponding ideas in a context more familiar, and therefore far more acceptable, to more people. For me this was a lesson in how to be heard and appreciated using a language that people understood.

In today's world it is more important than ever that foresight is used, and used wisely, by decision makers. But most incumbent leaders, in both the private and public sectors, still do not comprehend the value of foresight and do not know how to access it even if they did. Our craft and tools seem to have taken us down a rabbit hole of indifference. Today I sense the same frustration I experienced as a composer whose music had become irrelevant.

It is time to face an embarrassing truth. We have found the enemy. It is us. The real world remains mostly untouched by what we know and do. I suspect many of us remain tenaciously unaware of that.

It will take integrity, courage, and determination to transcend habits that are not working in order to adopt a different, more cutting edge, foresight practice. Even more so if we are to step into the public spotlight with authority. Familiar tools must be replaced by better ones. A few of our heroes may fall by the wayside as a result. No doubt we will mourn their passing. But there is no other course if we are to avoid being mere footnotes in the story of our civilisational breakdown.

So, here's the crunch. In order to optimize the impact we need to have where it will make a difference (in government planning departments, corporate strategy teams, peak industry bodies, Boards and investors) let us take a few steps back.

I urge us to step away from academic theories and papers that are impenetrable. They are a form of self-inflicted autism. Let's learn to communicate simply instead.

Step away from the use of arcane language that serves no purpose other than to impress. Let's find more unpretentious ways to engage with those who need us.

Step away from the constant litanies of a dystopian future. Let's generate hope rather than fear.

Step away from the cult of discrete futures studies. Compartmentalisation merely distances us from decision makers. Let's be inclusive for a change.

Step away from the tools through which we become known originally. The 2 x 2 matrix is a product of the industrial age and reached the end of its shelf-life in the 20th century. Let's embrace up-to-the-minute methods, including AI-enabled horizon scanning, instead.

Finally let's step away from individual idolatry. It matters not whose disciples we are. The notion of the lone genius belongs to a previous era. It no longer serves us well. Let's use our individual talents towards a more collaborative purpose instead.

The time has come for the foresight community to step into new epistemologies. To step into a new cooperative pragmatism - curating experiences in an "expanded" now in order to prototype solutions previously regarded unthinkable, undesirable, impractical, or too costly.

By stepping into a leadership role, we might just be able to throw off the yoke of obscurity and leap boldly into relevance. If we have a mind to we can help society work out where it has gone wrong and how it still has time to design futures that are inclusive, equitable, empathic and generative.

Understanding how and why we got to where we are today, in order to fathom out which directions can steward us into better tomorrows, then helping those charged with making decisions, as well as those who invest in those decisions, to act, is surely what should guide our mission. Can there be anything more audacious or meaningful?

Who knows, perhaps we can help create a world that actually works for everyone. The alternative is to continue to loiter on the sidelines, watching the wrong game unravel in front of our very eyes, in the belief we are players waiting on the bench for the senior coach to call our name. It will never happen.

This piece was originally delivered during the APFN 2019 conference in Bangkok on Wednesday 18th September 2019. It has been slightly expanded and edited to include what I meant to say but failed to do so. I have also deleted the fact that I prefaced the talk by asking my audience for forgiveness and to reflect on my words as coming not so much from the mouth of a bona fide futurist as from the mind of a heretic.

 

The Noble Art of Sword Rattling

It seems we are all grappling to understand the emergence of a new world order where interactions between democracy, capitalism, technology & social media are generating an emotional fog - driven in large part by fear and deception.

At the end of the cold war between the US and the Soviet Union, a rare lucidity emerged concerning the rules underpinning international trade, human rights and socio-political engagement. Since then we have encountered an increasingly confused set of conditions in which human affairs are being played out, accompanied by an ecological breakdown we are still intent on denying, and the mammon of money.

Perceived through the lens of the pervasive Western episteme - with its obsession on growth and ascribing value to measurable ideals - these conditions conflate and distort the economic and political might of China. Recent waves of right-wing populism now encircling the globe, along with the massive ecological breakdown we are still trying to avoid, have provoked ideological confusion and distorted the geostrategic context still further. So what are we really dealing with in the current trade spat between China and the US? Will it lead to war?

Since 1945 the role of global dominion assumed by the US, bolstered by the imposition of neoliberal values and practices through trade or warfare, has been a charade. We were all taken in. Including the US itself. Yet successive administrations never quite succeeded in camouflaging the act of global leadership as one of pure neocolonial self-interest based on economic and resource imperatives. Chairman Deng Xiaoping was possibly the first to see through the pretense and to begin openly contesting such a conceit. Naturally that did little to win him friends in Washington.

The rise of China has caused concern in the West for some years now. But this is largely because of fundamental misinterpretations regarding Chinese aspirations and intentions. By implementing the Singapore governance archetype (focusing on material wellbeing rather than individual freedoms) while adhering to its core socialist values, China has been able to catch the West by remaining true to its cultural past and future vision. This has to be acknowledged as an unprecedented achievement.

What irritated those in the West far more, however, were breaches of human rights. And because the West holds human rights to be a universally-binding concept, we expressed outrage. Naturally we had to turn a blind eye to our own flaws in that regard. But that was easily done. As a consequence China became a strategic challenge to be overcome, and most probably humiliated, by applying the same bullyboy tactics imposed by the US in other foreign lands.

Of course it is not possible to understand the Sinic mind through an Occidental lens – the optics are just too fuzzy. But the reverse also holds true.

China has quietly been observing Western-style democracies failing to live up to their own rhetoric, failing to achieve their own aims and standards, failing to engage with their own citizens, failing to control their domestic agendas, and succumbing to various forms of graft and corruption. More obviously, the recent growth of Western tribalism, heightened by technology-shrewd activists spreading biased information, weakened public trust in the most venerable of Western institutions, including any deeper sense of unity – or what we might call moral law. To the Chinese, moral law is almost sacred. It signifies the higher purpose which unifies the nation.

It is no surprise then that China interprets all of this as a sign of moral decadence and a weakening of the West’s core societal values. If the West is in decline to such an extent that it loses its own sense of identity and purpose, the Chinese surmised, it has already forfeited the right to preach or to act on behalf of other nations. For the US to profess that it is leading the world towards freedom and prosperity, or to criticise China for its record on human rights, is duplicity of the first order.

Of course not everything is fine and dandy in China. A raft of legacy issues, including air pollution and ecological degradation, could derail the Chinese juggernaut. Second and third order change, innovation, and the role creative destruction can play in disrupting the status quo, is still not fully appreciated in China. Whereas Western economies can usually recover quickly from unforeseen crises, China’s policy mistakes risks can rankle for years. This is why precision and consistency are so vital for Chinese interests.

The China-US trade feud is currently in full swing and seems to be escalating. Pointing to this economic sparring as proof that military conflict between the two is inevitable, however, is dubious at best. The current shows of strength between Presidents Trump and Xi are little more than belligerent chest thumping. Inevitably it will cause damage, perversely to manufacturing and agriculture in the US, but also to investors who are in the wrong markets at the wrong time.

As so often these days, technology is the sweet spot. And 5G, along with disruptive tools such as robotics and machine intelligence, look to me to be the keys to that treasure trove. While we live in an era of uncertainty, abide separation, accept unjust economic stratification and comply with the rules of the extractionistparadigm, there are going to be winners and losers.

In that context we can only be sure of one thing. While technological breakthroughs will continue to stream out of Western laboratories and universities, China will deploy those same breakthroughs faster and more effectively at scale as soon as it can get its hands on them. That is how they will win.