TRUTH AND THE PURSUIT OF MEANING

A new Bible should start with the origin of life and the evolution of species


The Bible has been a one-off historic accomplishment without precedent and most likely without any legendary literature of similar magnitude ever to follow. One could argue that only the Koran comes close but then, the Koran was largely drawn from Biblical resources.

Of course we could think of new religions in the distant future which feed on legends of their own making. They would however have to compete with the kind of factual records of history that Biblical writers lacked from the time of Abraham well unto the early years of Christianity. The absence of a mature historic tradition established the Bible’s immediate credibility as a historic document and as a source of religious inspiration.

In the mean time history and archeology have either corroborated Biblical claims of truth, sometimes only contextual, or they have added substantive question marks to them.



Especially the Roman Catholic tradition has been very keen, throughout the centuries, to defend both the factual truth of the Biblical accounts and its own authority in their interpretation. Even in hindsight we can still ask why. What interest did Rome have in its vehement assertion that Earth stood at the center of the Universe rather than being a mere planet circling an accidental sun in a vast galaxy? The answer has been obvious, for acknowledging this would principally undermine God’s unique position in the process of Creation. The same is true for accepting the facts of Earth’s geological history and the origin of life.

However, even though this position may seem evident, we might also argue that knowledge about the position and the origins of the Earth, including the origin of life, could have been around at the time that the Bible was written and still, God could be placed at the center of it. But this is only true if, at least in its contemporary use, the Bible is most of all seen as a metaphorical source of truth rather than a source of real facts. Even so, many Christian believers remain keen to know the ‘reliability’ of the Bible as if only factual accuracy can persuade them to appreciate the Bible’s underlying messages. The ongoing debate in certain circles, especially in the United States, between “creationists” and “evolutionists” reflects an extreme example of an unnecessary antagonism.

At the same time, and perhaps only to underscore the last observation, our geological and biological knowledge has been vastly extended over the centuries, but this hasn’t as yet solved every mystery. The spectacle of our Universe and the detailed view we have of its evolution still leave many questions unanswered. Moreover, the processes which led to the advent to complex living organisms have been unraveled only to a point. There remains an instant of ‘creation’ of which science might never fully uncover its actual nature.

Given above, I see no basic contradiction between accepting the fruits of discovery and science on the one hand and nourishing a belief system that embraces the concept of divine creation on the other – of one so wishes. It follows too that – in my view - ongoing efforts to disprove one with arguments of the other are futile if not outright ridiculous.



Should everything therefore remain where it is? First of all, there is no reason for any religion to adopt history or science as its foundation. Truth is a very broad concept if only it isn‘t used in absolutist terms. But, secondly, I believe that any religion could draw many salient points at the heart of human morality from them and add a broader sense of purpose or meaning to them. Neither can be provided by science or by any ‘knowledge’, not even at a distance.

People have a choice to embrace (or not) a religious impulse in their lives to provide these underlying answers. The ‘reliability’ of biblical stories or similar books nor the debate about the factual history of our planet will ever satisfy them in this respect. I am tempted to say, on the contrary. Facts are arbitrary and never absolute. It is what we make of them that counts.

But even this may not suffice to broaden our perspective in addressing prevailing conflicting claims of religious versus secular antagonists. They may well never be resolved as long as their arguments fly cross-purpose from one side to the other. There may well be as many good arguments to re-design the concept of religion as those relating to the scope and implications of science.

One can not expect that such a process would readily arise out of the established traditions on either side, even less so given the present-day persistence by which certain religious leaders and scientists profess their certainties.



But we could also say that it is a people’s choice. We could make it a collective project, to write a new book of human inspiration, the assembled wisdom of all humanity. I, for one, would take the logic and the beauty of evolution – such as the fundamental urge to live that we share with all other living things, plants and animals – as its basic premise.

The more I think of it, the more I believe this is a good idea.

A FUTURE THAT CAN ENERGIZE

Let’s make good use of the world wide talents

In November 2010 New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman commented on a recent poll among Americans by Rasmussen Reports, showing that 47% of the respondents think that “the best days are in the past”.(*) Friedman noted that just before President Obama was inaugurated, 48 percent said our best days were still ahead and 35 percent said they had come and gone. “This is a disturbing trend”, he observed. I can only concur. It is most likely that this trend is not limited to American citizens only.

Tomorrow is humanity’s unborn child that most of us today would rather abort than nourish to its healthy arrival. We fear the future, collectively. We see all the challenges that we seem incapable to overcome. Our main reflex is to defend what we have and to give way to reactionary impulses whenever change threatens us. US President Obama’s campaign yell “Yes we can!” has been smothered not merely by the vocal forces of domestic Republican conservatism. He faces a much more profound and widespread spiritual paralysis. Across the globe, progress-as-once-we-knew-it has come to a grinding halt amidst an ever rising pile of unpaid bills and unresolved conflicts. We have amassed manifold agendas that (largely because of this) have become overburdened with demands to which we can not effectively respond: the need for clean and sustainable energy, the need to address major climate issues (I dare not speak of “climate change”), world population, international peace and security – just to give a shortlist. (*)

Along the way we drain the resources required to groom and inspire the next generation – our schools and universities – beyond repair. We allow the distribution of wealth and power to grow more and more distorted. At the same time we – willingly – submit ourselves to mass serfdom in the hands of ever larger corporate interests with ever diminishing accountability. We do it willingly, because we do not want to control the very source of their power, our own insatiable material greed. If I were a God fearing Christian, I would say that we can now see what God desperately wanted to help avoid when he warned Adam and Eve against eating from the tree of knowledge.


Utilizing every source of knowledge

But we can not wish to go back to paradise. There is no future there. Only knowledge will help us forward. More knowledge, applied in greater – collective - wisdom. If we wish to fight the ignorance that allegedly threatens us from outside, cloaked – as we see it – in vicious terrorism, then indeed wisdom our best weapon, not bullets. We should recognize that today’s terrorism is an expression of a widespread outrage, even among reasonable people, against the ongoing usurpation by ‘western civilization’ of almost every corner of the Earth, its resources, its culture, its mindset – and its sense of deprivation. If we look at the balance of happiness in our present world, western civilization has done as much to enhance it as to destroy it.

Indeed it is a sobering and irrevocable reality: ever since European ships set out to explore the globe, more paradises have perished than have ever been regained afterwards. In the process the regions – nations, people – of our world have grown too interdependent to simply let go- we have no choice but to redefine our sense of a sustainable future together and eradicate existing antagonisms by offering real perspective.


Making life sustainable for all

Most of all there is the need for a perspective, not merely “solutions” or “change”. To overcome present challenges we will need to look beyond them, in substantive terms. If anything, history has proven that policies merely aiming at problem solving are insufficient to mobilize the critical mass of the electorate to support them. Facing the challenges is a condition but not an inspiring, energizing motive under any circumstance. We should have confidence in our ability to utilize every inventiveness, indeed: every possibility which the tree of knowledge offers us, to help our world become a better place for many – not merely for the happy few.

Lastly, however much we have already burdened the lives of our descendants to unprecedented scale, the future still is free. If we withdraw from it, out of fear or out of sheer reluctance to reset our priorities, we will indeed have made it powerless. US President Obama, not any other world leader can effectively rise to that challenge unless the opportunities are offered, ready at hand, with competent people to make it work. I only need to recall the conditions under which President Kennedy was confident enough to announce his “Man on Moon”, a project that inspired many people for more than a decade. It had countless spin-offs in a wide range of industries.

We do not require a “Man on Mars” to match this far reaching ambition. We better focus on our own planet, even though at this point I would hesitate to pin point its nature and scope. Moreover, it seems to me that the process of getting to such project – a wide ranging global ambition in substantive terms – is at least of similar importance as its actual parameters.


Developing clean, unlimited energy

The world has the means – the technology and the talent, indeed: our collective wisdom – to make this a viable proposition We can connect every mind and every inspiration to it. If designing a inspirational future is what the world wide web has been made for, then we truly have proven that our information age makes sense for many generations to come.

----
(*) See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/opinion/28friedman.html?src=me&ref=homepage

REDEFINING PROGRESS

What is the next stage of human advancement?


The political trend across Europe is strong push toward a predominance of the center-right. Although their majorities are generally marginal, the left is invariably weak and divided. In the public debate left-wing policies and preferences have become subject of widespread scorn. It mirrors a similar trend in the United States where right wing conservatives are far more articulate and vehement than those who belong to the moderate left or democratic electorate.


America's right-wing assertion of the nature of the present administration

The underling development however seems more complex than a mere shift to the right. We experience an evolution in many different dimensions – and in many directions. It challenges our opinions and values about the elements that constitute right vs. left-wing or conservatism versus progressiveness as these qualifications have guided our view of our political society over the past decades. At the same time our own values shift. What was considered right-wing thirty years ago can now be a perfectly legitimate opinion of ‘the left’, but the reverse is equally true.

First of all, to describe the political spectrum along one – left-right – axis has always been a gross simplification of the actual dividing lines among the electorate and the political parties, especially in Europe. They can have different views about social and moral issues and economic freedom, about governance (more or less autocratic), about religious issues, personal freedoms etc. in many different compositions. There are dividing lines too along specific issues, such as environment and security, or, especially at this point, minority issues and the attitude towards the Arab-Muslim population. In addition the sentiments of the electorate depend on their current economic and social situation. This may have been the case throughout recent history, but in times of economic adversity it is one of the defining factors that has new pertinence.


In search of new horizons

Uncertainty, economic stagnation and – as I have indicated many times in this blog – an apparent exhaustion of inspirational ideas and concepts stir the electorate on an as yet ill defined path. The conservative or right-wing populace is fighting in defense of its vested interests, or so it seems, whilst the people who traditionally belong to the progressive (leftist) part of the electorate are grappling for an answer with an equally conservative attitude.

The implication of his stand-off situation is that nothing moves at all. Belt-tightening and more stringent legal provisions in respect of civilians and (financial) markets dominate the political agenda. Every idea of social or economic reform, let alone of seriously addressing more wide ranging issues such as energy and environment have been effectively pushed out of view.

The clashes are not any longer about ideas but about the priority of interests to be served. This is a far cry from the notion that there is a future to be conquered in which we enhance the conditions of our societies beyond the horizon of vested positions and obsolete ideologies. Lamentations about this – largely among a dwindling class of intellectuals – are more outspoken in the US than in Europe, where societal issues are most prominent in headlines and columns. But this may be just a marginal difference. On both sides of the Atlantic the public debate has vulgarized and the exercise of progressive idealism has become a highly suspect pastime of an increasingly unhappy few.

This is not because no one cares to listen or their ideas are overruled by the noisy conservative populace, it is rather that at this point it appears to be extremely difficult to effectively formulate substantive, countervailing progressive concepts. In fact, what constitutes “progress” is fundamentally in question. Although in Europe this seems to be a concern for the left most of all, this is a shared issue for left and right, as “progress” is not necessarily a monopoly of the left only. For most of the 20th Century the engine of progress was firmly in the hands of enlightened industrialists, and this included a fair amount of social improvements. Post-war social welfare programs as they proliferated in (then: Western) Europe would have been unthinkable without the solid foundation that was laid in this period.

Perhaps this is what we should remind ourselves of in our own time. The societal fabric is weakening because our economies are halting in their very roots. The engine of welfare generation requires all our attention. The other side of the coin is that our present-day industrialists have a major social responsibility next to their commercial responsibilities. I have touched upon this in an earlier posting (See August 2010: Power and responsibility in our future world). Secondly, as I have indicated in this blog at many occasions, we should reassess the traditional distinctions between our own roles as consumers and as responsible citizens. To a large extent this must come naturally, as in our own private lives we do not readily distinguish between the commercial and the political where it concerns the progress we make ourselves. For instance, the benefits of the Internet are as much a result of private initiative as of public infrastructure.

Nonetheless, however we look at it, some major – and very pressing – public issues remain which do demand a concerted effort of both commercial and public institutions. Left nor right can escape them, and resolving these issues in my view will largely determine true progress in the future decades.

There are many choices to be made of which some – but not all – indeed will depend on our priorities in political terms. “Progress” nor progressiveness point at one single defined track. We better clarify the various options – and their divergence – next to the narrow options, the choices – we might say – that we do not have. Decisions that we simply have to take in order for our world not to disintegrate in a longer term stagnation. Effective leadership seems to be more crucial at this stage than political denomination.


The UK's new young leadership at the left

In Europe, examples of such forward looking leadership are not absent, but they are a minority, for instance in the UK where young and buoyant individuals, all in their forties, have taken the center stage from left to right. But elsewhere in Europe, the situation seems more hesitant, for instance in my own country, The Netherlands, where many people mistake noisy (and largely resentful) populism with truthful guidance. We will get beyond this, I have no doubt. In the mean time there is ample room, and ample need, for parties in at all ends of the spectrum to readdress their own sense of the future and of the partnerships they require to get there, whether in the political arena or in the private – and most likely: in both.

IN DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY

Across Europe the increasing influence of right-wing extremism challenges the ideal of a civic democracy based on decency and a sense of compromise. It raises the question whether our democracies can survive when the populace votes by stamping its feet in response to ad hoc anxieties or raw self-interest and social exclusion. At the root of this development is the mounting uneasiness with the presence of – what people see as – an alien Muslim culture. This sentiment is further exacerbated by the severe economic troubles that have hit the entire western world. The current circumstances are an eerie reminder of the situation in the late 1920s and early 1930s when democracies were swept away by militant right-wing dictatorships attacking our civilization at its very roots. Of course, the comparison is flawed by many accounts, if only because no such militancy has surfaced in our present day nor are the economic prospects as depressing as in that particular period. But even if in terms of severity our present world is a paradise of wealth and peace compared with the conditions of the 1930s, we should not turn our eyes away from certain current trends which of themselves can not be described in diminishing terms.


New cultural elements cause widespread uneasiness and enstrangement

First of all there are above societal trends, which I would categorize as follows:

• social values have become diffuse as have the societal codes of behavior; there is a marked rudeness and impoliteness in the public debate and a popular culture which heralds hedonistic vulgarism;
• old left-wing solidarity has been rather rudely shifted aside in favor of uninhibited materialist egoism;
• equality and non-discrimination have to be defended against mounting stigmatization and outright discrimination of minorities such as Muslims, Roma

Each of them undermines the integrity of our societies which constitute the foundation of our public institutions and of the written and unwritten rules by which they have thus far been able to serve the common good.

Secondly, I see parallel a trend which in my view is largely a consequence of the above. The past decade has shown increasingly erratic voter behavior, with the public exerting pressure on parties to offer immediate satisfaction rather than sound long term views and nourishing leadership based on populism. This development coincides with a gradual shift in generations. The ideals of the past four decades have worn out but few substantial concepts or visions as yet have replaced them. Ironically the emphasis among younger generation appear to be more conservative than that of the previous generations, thus reinforcing the shift to the right in the broader social-economic spectrum.


Rightwing populist Geert Wilders of the Netherlands

Admittedly, all of the above is a matter of perception too. I am part of the aging Baby-boom generation and thus it is only natural that my observations include an element of regret (not necessarily discontent) about the general drift of our societies and the diminishing relevance of the civic values by which I have grown up. Yet I also believe it is more than just that; more than a mere difference in taste or personal preferences.

Evolution of culture is one thing, but it is very difficult to ignore the potential harmful consequences of societal disintegration and of a lack of responsibility for the longer term. Major challenges lay ahead but they have somehow disappeared from the agenda, in part because of short term financial pressures but also, I believe, because they offer little appeal for politicians to gain – or sustain - their popular support. Issues such energy, climate change, maintaining the fabric of world peace and security, including the fabric of the European Union itself, have almost, so it seems, become suspect. Anyone who raises it with any degree of seriousness as simply cast aside. It is not a conscious process, but it is distinct phenomenon: our real concerns being driven away inadvertently by our short term hypes and anxieties.


Wrung from history: Europe's institution for peace and security

In the end, this will undermine the credibility of our democracies too, and it is in its ultimate defense that I raise this topic. In their extremes the above trends, if unchecked, could well lead to an increased call for authoritarian rule, both as a result of sustained discontent and of even greater challenges being posed on our societies. They may either come from within or outside – or both. Natural disasters, armed conflict at larger scale, mass insurgence against new shortages and so on. Under those circumstances the constitution of our democracies will come under new, additional pressure. It is not difficult to paint a scenario in which all of these different existing and possible future developments arrive at a boiling point in which our democracies crumble largely because we have forgotten how to run them properly.

Civic responsibility and the orderly conduct of our public interests are a concern to us all, whatever preferences we have or whatever choices we make. Political parties should be responsive to the public’s needs but should also be able to project substantive leadership beyond short term pressures. All of it seems obvious and almost needless to say.

Yet so many things that may have been obvious are not any longer. Civic education can not be taken for granted. Democracy requires tolerance and responsibility at all levels, and this includes the voter. Whether or not historic precedents are relevant in all respects, we can at least derive serious lessons from them and steer clear from unnecessary disaster.

THE COSTLY DECADE AFTER 9/11

In the aftermath of the 9/11 commemorations people in America and elsewhere in the world may forget the sequence of events that followed and which in hindsight could be viewed as a disaster at least of similar magnitude. I was reminded of this when some young friends asked me to watch Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 911. It has been a while since I last saw it. “Will we get opinions only, or facts?” they asked beforehand. As far as I knew it largely offered facts, images, but obviously construed in such a way to see the events from a specific angle. And this is what I told them.

My young friends are adolescents now, but at the time they still were kids. So this was the first opportunity for them to observe and evaluate for themselves the successive actions of the Bush Administration after September 2001, ultimately leading up to the military intervention in Iraq. They ware truly horrified. Of course, in this documentary Michael Moore leads us to see the pre- and post-9/11 events as one huge conspiracy in which President George W. Bush served as nothing more than as a dumb witted pawn in the hand of corporate interests out to get as much profit our of Middle East oil as they could get their hands on. The dramatic onslaught of 9/11, in their eyes, served as a blessing, not as a tragedy. The Republican-Corporate elite concocted the case for democracy and freedom in the Middle-East to the benefit of their own pocket books and in the process sacrificed the lives of many more American people – young men in particular – than the number of people who lost their lives in the initial terrorist attack. And even though this is a very subjective, highly cynical interpretation, it is very difficult to escape the notion that the American people were misled in believing that in toppling the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, something effective was done to avert a substantive and immediate threat to their own security. It was by no means a response to an actual, immediate threat of terror but rather a pre-emptive action to safeguard America’s economic interests.


The great sacrifice after 9/11

I have been highly critical of the Bush Administration throughout its tenure and even though I would not readily concede to conspiracy theories or to US presidents serving their own interests only I can not help but see the entire history of the years between 2000 and 2005 as a tragic mishap for which taxpayers and citizens world wide are paying a colossal price. What strikes me most of all is how we tend to forget this and blame the current economic slump and lack of new progress on the present-day administration.

Massive military spending, hundreds of billions of dollars, went into a war that as been questionable from the onset and it has drained the American – and world - economy to such extent that it wasn’t able to sufficiently counter the burst of the financial bubble that ensued in parallel. We got stuck, in America and elsewhere, and much of it is to blame on the expensive illusions that have been kept alive, indeed by very self-centered interests – not merely of politicians and corporations - throughout the past decade.


The president is who is largely blamed for the consequences of the past

It will take the western economies at least another decade to recapture sufficient financial strength and inspiration to get on with the job of making the world a better place. The implication is that a great many urgent innovations in energy, ecology and market efficiency will take much longer to materialize and that they will only come about if governments accept sustained austere budget policies for a considerable period. All of this will keep people across the world – including people in areas of conflict – on a tight string and this may again trigger new outbreaks of violence.


When will new stability and growth return?

Seen from this angle, I much regret that I can not tell my young friends that any time soon the outlook of our world will substantially improve. Many uncertainties remain and thus they too will pay part of the bill of the wasteful previous years. At the same time it is important that they grasp the historic context in which they make their own decisions, from every possible viewpoint. The conundrums of their world are not an act of God but the result of willful actions of people, both for better and for worse. They too can dream of their own contributions and learn from the judgments of people in the past.

POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY IN OUR FUTURE WORLD

Whom should we look at to clean up the mess?


This blog is an ongoing exploration of the factors affecting our longer term future, not merely in terms of economy, politics or private wealth but in its fundamental parameters. It is often said but I will repeat here that this exercise is not about predicting the future but, in essence, about getting to grips with the present. Secondly, if we want to have an understanding of where we are today we can not go without some basic knowledge of how we got here, in short: of our history and of the key events that have shaped it. To some extent the exploration of our history is just as speculative as that of the future. One can have many different, viable perceptions of it. And invariably they evolve over time. Thus however we go about it, it is an ongoing effort indeed, every time and again.

The history of the past century can be described in terms of shifting powers. From the early to the late 1900s a momentous transition has taken place from ancient nation based autocracies to power structures on a global scale, in part supported by national democracies, in part by private enterprise. The 20th century saw citizens become mass consumers at the same time and it is a matter of debate whether their influence – on average – on the direction of their future, their immediate environment and the general conditions affecting their welfare has increased or, to the contrary, whether they have in fact have been reduced to mere statistics in a global system of mass slavery. I have elaborated this viewpoint in an one of my previous postings (See Archive: March 2010 Unleash your shackles; slaves ought to be free).


The source of all current power

At another level the global shift towards internationalism has brought us a new tension between the private and the public sphere of interests. The resolution of this tension in my view is the major challenge for the next forthcoming decades. Again I should refer to an earlier posting (See Archive December 2008: The society of owners vs. the public society) in which I addressed this topic much against the background of our present-day financial problems and the need for ensure that the financial (and industrial) world become less driven by mere short-term profit rather than longer term sustainability.

But there is a more profound issue at stake and perhaps we should call this a crisis too: the crisis of responsibility. The underlying reality is not dissimilar from the one that caused massive peril a hundred years ago, when power was exercised by those who didn’t care to take true responsibility for the world on which they imposed it. And perhaps this is a theme running through the longer stretch of history when time and again power rather than need -the needs of the people, for instance – determined its actual course. This is as much true for the instances at which such power eventually was overthrown. The struggle against irrational power can be seen as one of the major spoils in the story of humanity. And even though we may not perceive our current challenges in the same light, much of what happened in the past can still happen to us today, or tomorrow. Do we ever anticipate a new war on European soil? And whether we answer in the affirmative or otherwise, why?

We are facing irrational power that stems from our own guts, our own desires, our own hypes and fads. We are fed the goodies we want in exchange of our non-interference with corporate power. Not as a mere consumer, that is. Which is what most of us are. The challenge is not power – its distribution or concentration – in the first place: it is what we want ourselves.

If the previous history was about the role and responsibilities of labor versus capital, it is the consumer versus capital now. The consumer who is a citizen of the world and of his country as well.

Do we continue to consume at the expense of our planet’s very existence as the harbor of humanity? Much of my blog content revolves around this theme. We may be increasing our knowledge about infinity, but our need is to accept its opposite as well. When nothing is left, nothing is left.



Who has the true power – and the responsibility – to effectively help to curb this trend of global depletion? Can we truly sustain many more billions of people on this planet. Or should more drastic measures to control birth rates be taken? From a humanitarian point of view this seems self-evident, but from the point of view of logic it is not. Accellerated death rates, war and devastation would be more logic and more effective. It is the other conundrum that constitutes our humanity. Will we control it?

In this light too the question of power and responsibility in our world becomes paramount. We have many international institutions but they have neither. Multinational corporations have far greater impact, in both dimensions, but they lack the essence: full accountability. We have only recently had the first instance of great corporate accountability of BP in the aftermath of the Mexican Gulf oil spill.

Perhaps a serious attempt should be made to critically assess the current world situation of power and its corollaries. It underscores the need to come to new terms between the private and the public interest, the latter meaning: us all, together or similarly. Fresh air, clean water, security, education, etcetera. All of this against our true private – individual - needs.

And as already indicated: it all starts with (and within) ourselves.

ALL OF NATURE

Unattainable: the paradise of legend

This summer one of our last surviving American uncles visited my family in The Netherlands in a short European trip. He is ninety years of age and was born in 1919, the year of the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty was discredited by many at the time and thereafter for its shortsightedness and its focus on retribution and revenge rather than on the true needs of the future.


Versailles 1919: not the wisdom of these men could make the world a better place

As a teenager I had a correspondence friendship with my uncle for a time. Invariably he and I exchanged our views and experiences of the main events in the 1960s. And very much in the same spirit we spent a late afternoon, upon his visit to my place, discussing the events and challenges of our present time. In many respects, I observed, our present time very much resembles the fin de siècle – the period preceding the Great War. Our world leadership may not be as misguided as the ruling class in those days, especially in Europe, but so far it has failed to set the path to effectively face our present-day world wide challenges. “They are unprecedented!” my uncle exclaimed. “We are taking a massive responsibility for many future generations – in terms of our natural environment, resources, our (nuclear) waste, overpopulation and so on – but we have no true solution for any of these.”

My uncle has visited The Netherlands in various successive stages of his life; as a teenager in the 1930s, as an American Army officer immediately after the liberation in 1945 and at regular visits in the years thereafter. For most of this period my grandparents’ residence in Amsterdam served as his prime landing place. My uncle’s mother and my grandmother were sisters, born and bred in New England. “Your grandparents were true mentors to me,” my uncle said. “Now my dog is my mentor, “ he added with a smile.

Old age has gradually slowed him down physically but his mental abilities are undiminished. The dog is symbolic for the essence of his belief, not in any God or in biblical tales but in “All of Nature”.

It seems a sobering perspective in the last stage of long life. Humanity is facing great peril, more massive and inescapable than at any time in history. We may wish to reach the closing years of our life in a spirit of optimism and confidence in human kind. Yet I didn’t observe any particular disappointment or sorrow in my uncle’s expression. It rather came to me as the personal evaluation of a realist who is well aware that at one point in our lives it is truth that counts, not merely our hopes and wishes, and that we have to let go in a spirit of restful abandonment.


Judgment day for Planet Earth

Is it true, then, that God can offer us no better prospect than the mere forces of our primal instincts? In my own life too, I have little need to answer this question. God is the product of our very own human fallibility. It can not transcend it, however much we might pray for it. Even reptiles are capable of better wisdom. Thus, if I had a dog, like my uncle, I would sit down and look him in the eyes as deep as I can.

WILL PRESIDENT OBAMA BE AMERICA’S NEXT JIMMY CARTER?

One defining issue: the Middle-East (President Obama and Palestine Autority President Abbas)


President Obama is making every effort to help America get out of the present-day economic slump and to contribute to the broader stability of our world. Thus far much criticism accompanies his administration. It is not my competence to judge his performance nor is this my intention in addressing above question. However, it occurred to me that Obama’s presidency and the reputation it has gained to date have much in common with the days of Jimmy Carter.

I was reminded of this when just recently the newspaper reported Washington’s demand to President Abbas of the Palestine authority that he should visibly move towards new talks with Israel. If not, the item stated, the US would be less than forthcoming in continuing its current relations with the Palestine authority. It is the kind of diplomacy that most people who are familiar with the history of US Middle-East policies will find all too familiar. What must be said, has to be said.

President Jimmy Carter achieved some notable results during his presidency, especially between Egypt and Israel, but otherwise got hopelessly stuck in the broader process in the Middle-East after the gross misjudgment in his time of the revolutionary events in Iran and of the forcefulness of Muslim retaliation after decades of dictatorial, US sponsored, rule of that country. It caught him by the tail and this – directly and indirectly – added to his reputation as an ineffective president.

But my point is not the similarity of the pressures which Obama has to face in comparison with those that faced Carter. They are numerous nonetheless, both in terms of international politics and economy. One could say that Obama faces them in even more forceful terms and that, like Carter, he has to do so against much political “Washington adversity.”

I am rather looking at the potential – further – similarities ahead. As time progresses, the pressure is mounting towards Obama’s campaign for a second term. It will be by virtue of a second term that his presidency can rise in stature and remembrance. No doubt many stalemates by which his administration is being pestered today will only be resolved in the event of Obama’s re-election.

Jimmy Carter stumbled over much bad luck, whatever his good intentions or efforts. One of them was the advent of an impressive, ultimately successful competitor by the name of Ronald Reagan. A caliber of similar weight will be needed to topple Obama, I am quite sure. There is no indication as yet whether the Republicans will bring out such a caliber – it is too early days – but it is a serious possibility nonetheless.

Obama’s predecessor Jimmy Carter gained his ultimate stature most of all through his post-presidential initiatives, up to the present day. His presidency may linger in the shadows of history but the person does not. He his highly regarded for his stance in humanitarian affairs and for his role in international dispute settlement. This is by no means irrelevant, for any individual.


Jimmy Carter, a highly effective former US President

Thus, however his presidency may work out, Obama – in principle – will still have an entire life after it. It would not surprise me if his greatest contribution to America’s welfare and to the stability of our world will only be made in his post-presidential years, reaching both beyond Carter’s and Bill Clinton’s, whose status may well have dwindled under pressure of merely being the husband of Obama’s Secretary of State.

Having said this, I would see Obama’s strategy for becoming a respected and influential ex-President being of no less importance than every strategy he designs to win a second term.

THE 21ST CENTURY AS YET REMAINS UNDEFINED

A defining moment in history - 1789


In every age there is a turning point
A new way of seeing the coherence of the world
(Jacob Bronovski, 1973, in “The Ascent of Man”)


When in the history of mankind have there be true instances of a fundamental paradigm shift reaching across society? One such instance immediately comes to mind. In many ways it is the one on which our world today is largely based. It didn’t take place in one sweep but in stages, near the end of the 18th century, and in three dimensions: industrial, social and political. It is interesting to note that it also had three distinct yet related trigger centers: the new United States, Britain and France. And even though in Europe, after the Napoleonic wars, a severe restoration was enforced of the old order, the revolutionary processes still constituted a road on which there was no return.

Yet however much we can identify these different stages in their various aspects, it is difficult to assign one single turning point in a history that took at least a number of decades to unfold. Along the way there was – and is at any time – continuity too, in people’s minds, their habits and in their broader culture.


A new challenge: catering for an aging population

But perhaps we should look at the evolution of our human societies from a more distant perspective. Over past two thousand years there may have been just two or three substantive shifts which constituted a profound redefinition of our world and of our existence and outlook in life, including the key arrangements of our political and social institutions. The advent of Christianity and its broad embrace in mind and spirit of the people’s of Europe most certainly was one of them. It was the single defining factor in our history for some thousand years. By the same token one could say that Christianity’s loss of its social and political predominance was the next main watershed. And perhaps there have been no other. Science, free thought, liberation on all fronts, the institution of democracy in our western world – all have been its consequence. The people of our age are still the offspring of this broad history. We have made no fundamental turn in any of these dimensions over the past two hundred years. History, with all its upheavals in the mean time, progressed along the precepts of the Enlightenment.



How will our young people move?

Today we live in anticipation of a new defining moment. It is key theme of this blog. Our world is challenged at its root assumptions. It has been debated that – our – history will soon end. But can we really expect – or even desire - a turn any time soon? If anything, most of our energies, whether effective or not, are driven towards continuity rather than to revolution and our younger generations do not appear to be motivated otherwise in any respect. We still herald the main accomplishments of our forebears in material and in spiritual terms. If anything the way to overcome the threat of global scarcity – in energy, raw materials, fresh water – is to counter this through accelerated advancement and throw all our trust in our capability to mobilize our technologies and political institutions to that end. This is what we firmly believe or at least desperately wish to believe.


Not the future, hopefully

In the mean time we are faced too with a militant and determined countervailing force – largely coming out of the Middle East – which many in our world view as nothing less than an attempt to throw us back into a new age of religious absolutism and deliberate global attrition. Again, historic antagonisms stare us in the face and it is far from certain that we can overcome this by the same force of reason and enlightenment that guided our history over the past centuries. But we also need to provide a satisfactory answer to the downsides of a rational world which leaves many people living in a spiritual void and encaged by extreme consumerism. We herald individualism and human liberties but they have not made us happier as human beings in our larger communities.



Thus, both from within and from outside, the ingredients of a substantive upheaval in our prevailing conventions seem abundant. But we can not say that we are truly standing at any historic doorstep. At no time this can be foreseen with any degree of certainty. History is written by hindsight. For that matter the next decades could well be an ongoing muddle, one way and the other, without a substantial breakthrough in any dimension.

Yet, breakthroughs are in great need. Clean, infinite energy; political resolutions, food for all… it can hardly be just a shortlist. If our younger generations do not wish for a revolution, then at least let them groom the leadership with a vision that can make this century the most memorable of all – preferably in the most positive light.

UNSPEAKABLE FUTURES

It is difficult to escape the notion that our in our present time we experience a new threshold of history. Much can go wrong, much can still go well. And many interests worldwide are at stake. Today’s financial muddle is just a symptom of a more profound and substantive historic agony. It extends beyond mere economic stagnation or ‘climate’. Our world – our planet – is on the verge of a burst. We have arrived at a stage where every inspiration, every ideology, every invention and – most specifically – every resource has reached its near exhaustion. In baffling speed we have broken down the traditional fabric of our communities to the point where either we secure the continuity of our advanced, high tech and interdependent global society or we fall back to the greatest disarray that humanity has ever experienced. In both scenarios we pay a considerable price.

Continuity implies great adjustment. This includes a sizeable investment in new technologies to sustain the level of material comfort to which we have become accustomed – and in which most people living today were born. Previous generations lived through adversities – both in material and in humanitarian terms – which we consider unthinkable. All we – should – know is that there is nothing romantic about a world falling into collapse, with everything that is bound to follow.

But a future of sustained welfare and ongoing advancement is far from certain. We truly have come the end of a history that is crying for another rebirth. Before we know it our world of privilege – particularly our Western World.- will find itself in the same position that some hundred years ago the elite of kings, emperors and their entourage found themselves in: abundant, ignorant of the true needs of their people, consuming wealth they did not really earn. At a global scale, we are now that elite, potentially oblivious of the needs of the rest of our world, its huge population, its dying wildlife and its barren fields. Are we going to defend our privileges at all cost, our access to the last remaining oil wells, the last gallons of fresh water, our last kilos of beef and tons of steel to just continue as we are?



I am not in the habit of being a doomsayer. It is merely a contemplation of possible futures that occupies me. My understanding of history – at every stage – in the past thousands of years is that it very much derives its character from discontinuity, manifold perils – not limited to the perils of war and conflict – which caused humanity to readjust, not necessarily for the better at every instant. It can be a gradual, creeping process that suddenly hits, or it is an unexpected great disaster. The Roman Empire took decades if not a hundred years to finally collapse, both from within and outside. The old European world of Kings and Emperors required one irreversible shot to trigger its demise, however much it was a world at its end anyway.




Hotspots of our present world

One could also look for examples in history where progress was achieved beyond prevailing paradigms without any cataclysm. Can societies arise above stagnation by the force of their own energies? Some civilizations did manage to do so, at least to some extent, but never without great sacrifices amongst themselves, such as the Chinese. But we can also think of the Renaissance of Europe, in the 14th and 15th centuries. Battlefields and disease did accompany it, but it was a substantive transition.

Paradigm shifts are called for, in many fields, whether or not technology will help us to overcome the emerging material scarcity. We should ask the question whether indeed we can allow the pressure to mount, populations to grow, resources to remain exploited in the way we do now. We actually know that we can not.

Among the futures that we face are those which we better do our utmost to escape. We are world filled talent and youth to achieve this. At the same time we tend to waste it and we allow our consumer habits to rule our interests as human beings living on a lonely but highly precious planet. We accommodate sizeable migrations, there seems very little choice, but we fail to invest sufficiently in blending newcomers into the rhythm of our societies.

Vulgarization, alienation and complacency may threaten us more – from within - than any present day conflict or natural crisis may do from outside. To sustain what we have and what we are is not enough. Stagnation means disintegration. Strong, forward looking ambitions should guide our world to a new horizon. It will demand every leadership and inventiveness available.





My sincere wish is that such leadership will also take us away from the antagonisms that plague our present world and articulate new, inspiring missions for humanity. Traditionally we look at the Western World – the US or Europe – to mobilize the critical mass to this end. But this another great question mark. It is not because such leadership may be absent, but because we have become too self-interested to understand its necessity.

The world in 2050 will be vastly different from the world we know. By reasonable reckoning I will not live to see it. I am nonetheless as much concerned about that world as anyone belonging to our younger generations. We have to be. Most of the decisions – and hopefully: breakthroughs – of the next couple of years will determine the parameters for the longer term. We either strike out the potential for disaster, or we will have to embrace it.

WHY NOT TAKE THE DEEP DIVE TO PROTECT LIFE ON OUR PLANET NOW?

A new age of invention


Looking beyond the current crisis

Our world is bogged down by a financial crisis at a time when forward looking investments are most needed. We need to move towards a clean global economy as rapidly as we can. The sooner we reach it, the least disaster we risk and the better quality of life we achieve.

My question would be whether the crisis should not be a trigger instead to make us take such a move with even more pressure. Investments in sustainable wealth will make us prosper beyond imagination – if we succeed. This is a certainty.

I just read the announcement of a new car made in China: it is a car powered by electricity. The article suggests that China may be pushing harder – harder than we do – towards a green economy. Most likely, if this were the case, the country will be stronger in our world because of it.

Life preservation is wealth. This should be our economic axiom. We should create richness for every natural habitat we preserve and for every new habitat we create. If need be, we pay for clean air. Let’s make clean air an element on the DOW Jones Index, but in reverse. The lower its share value, the cleaner we have become.



The 21st century should become known for its ability to advance on the merits of the 20th but also for cleaning up its downsides. We should pass a clean, sustainable world to the 22nd.

This, in my view, is the kind of inspiration too that can in fact drag us out of the current financial problems and the stagnation this has caused. Financial institutions, industry and commerce have a large role to play in reducing waste, increasing product relevance, in enhancing the entire habitat of life, and in making it a joy for all humanity on this planet.


What's in the bag?

But is an effort too which can not succeed without our own contribution. Humanity has gone haywire in its use of the markets. We are being led by many needless, wasteful things. Just look at what goes out, week after week, with the garbage collector. We can be more pro-active, as a consumer, in dictating the market and not allow us to be simply exploited by it. In a sense, as I have indicated in my previous blog, consumers should at least in part be producer too.

There is lots of talk about innovation and new invention. There should be. It is best achieved if we are imaginative in our needs too. How do we really want to run our lives. What are the thins – materially and otherwise – I really need and what should they be like? What can make my life most “nature friendly”? What, today, is the state of the art?

I do believe that if we let our imagination go wild over saving life on our planet, new economic growth will follow to the benefit of many

UNLEASH YOUR SHACKLES, SLAVES OUGHT TO BE FREE

In a truly democratic economy, we can take production in our own hands


I have been meaning to say this for a long time. It is one of my main intellectual preoccupations. Something I can not solve in my own mind, or just by myself.

As I see it, our present day consumer society is nothing different, but much more pleasant to live in, than the ancient society of Roman slaves. The instrument of our submission is our seduction by manifold commercials and attractive contracts of labor. The key force behind our slavery is our very existence as a consumer.

Can we have it otherwise? I think we can.

For instance, I believe we do not need to stand passive when bankers and CEO’s of big companies cash in monetary benefits far beyond their actual added value. It is outrageous that we allow people to be paid huge sums for exercising powers that they should not have in the first place.

Secondly, on the other side of the fence, I think we are able to say no in all clarity to the massive waste that is produced at high cost every day in terms of useless products, superfluous advertisement, unnecessary packaging, meaningless diversity and senseless illusions, which we are expected to buy and to pay for.



Thirdly, it is my firm conviction that we have allowed our public interest and the interests of our markets to take a much too divergent course. We should re-assess what in our own minds, as citizens and as private individuals, is the true distinction between things which are relevant for us all and things in which we wish to retain our private choice.

But when I follow through my thoughts about these issues, I can almost not avoid – at least in my own mind – to end up in the construction of an utopia that would dwarf communism in most of its further implications.

What was so bad about communism? Essentially it was the arrogance of ‘state’. The gruesome inefficiency of centrally planned demand and supply; Its degeneration into murderous absolutism and its inability to rise effectively above collective poverty and mediocre industrial performance. The Trabant, the only car of fame built in the former East Germany, is the icon of the chronic lack of incentives to constantly improve as it persisted throughout the former East Block world.

Nothing of that we should wish for as an alternative to our present state of consumer slavery. Nobody would vouch for it, obviously. We rather cherish the illusion of our happiness than undermine it by the force of a terrorizing war against superfluity.



Secondly the weakness of my utopia is its assumption that humanity is basically ‘good’: economic, loving, social, cultivating the spiritual rather than the material, and so on. My utopia in other words is too naive to be realistic – as a rule of thumb - from the start.

So here you see my problem. Unless there is no such thing as scarcity (which is a fundamental underlying reality in every ‘model’). we can never be really free. But does this mean we should continue to accept corporate imperialism as it gradually undermines our sovereignty as citizens? Perhaps we should now recognize – at least – that ‘markets’ in our time are not the places of real choice as they used to be. And it follows that as consumers the only way to really counter this, is to become producers ourselves, each of us individually, if we were to restore true market freedom. Our technology in fact could help us along this way. It allows us to tell companies, just by pushing ‘enter’ on our laptop, to produce only as we order, in all dimensions, and give instructions for design as well. If we want to stand tall in the face of corporate power, then let us take the power of supply out of their hands.



The reality is, we can. We only need to put our minds to it. We are able to unleash our own shackles and share every bonus among each other.

In a world in which consumers are the producers at the same time, corporations are – nothing more and – nothing less than arbiters of resources, technology and distribution as we direct them according to our true needs. This seems to me a workable market. It would also mean that consumers push suppliers to be as mean and lean – and only as powerful – as we need them to be to supply us with the necessary goods in the most efficient, sustainable way.

But have I neutralized all my possible objections to the utopia that I have described above? It all boils down of course, however we look at, to our own behavior, the rigid application of our own sense of economy – of our needs and of the means in which we wish to satisfy them – and to our understanding of the bigger picture of the markets in which we wish to be active. This will take time, I have no doubt. But in fact we are already actively testing this in many different corners, however primitively as yet, such as news, clothes, books, photo albums etcetera.

The next implication is a political one. It requires governments to rethink markets and their own role in them just as much. We are on a long road, but I am convinced that in ten years time we will find ourselves much further on this road than most of us would now think feasible.

But perhaps, if we realize that this is about our freedom in all dimensions in the first place, we might feel we have many more incentives ready at hand to make all of this happen soonest.

CAN HUMANITY STILL IMPROVE ITS WAYS?

Homo egoisticus – 4.000.000 B.D.


Many, many years from now, those who will be our descendants might look back at us the way we look at the Neanderthals. They will recognize our advancements and capabilities but they will also see the flaws which after many eons the successors of human kind will have overcome.

Is this a likely scenario? We will never know, of course. But we can speculate.

In essence human kind as it is today is capable of almost everything that it wasn’t made for. This is the beauty and it is our potential tragedy.

It is first of all a recognition of everything that Darwin told us. The clockmaker who brought us to life, was blind and he will always be. Mutations which some 200.000 years ago enabled us to become more skilled hunters, also led us to send a man to the Moon. It is accidental. No intelligent being with a sound mind would ever have concocted the modern human being and let it loose on the planet Earth on purpose to do its work, unbalanced and unfinished as we are.

For instance, why would an intelligent designer think of a life form which is actually a regression from the norm that prevails in the rest of the animal kingdom, which is the natural inclination to preserve life’s balance? Every animal – every predatory animal especially – knows this by instinct. So why not the humans?

Why do humans not have an absolute resistance – and I mean: absolute – against killing off its own kind? One could say, of course: but this is the prerogative of the dominant animal in every other species too. Lions kill the offspring of competitors. Baboons do it too. If you want to have strong genes, needed to maintain the versatility of the species, well, in fact humans are much too kind. So here perhaps is a point in favor too, and not necessarily against ‘us’.

Third: why would an intelligent designer create so much variety, even within a narrow band of genes, in terms of intellect, quality and level of talents, reason, emotion, etcetera? The first answer could be: it isn’t a failure of design, it is a failure of behavior. Humans have cancelled the mechanism of selection on those qualities themselves! They go for stupid things like looks and form. Stupid men prefer stupid blondes. But then, this is the very failure of our design, or it is the handicap that proves the fact that actually there was no designer at all.

I am going for the latter, as people may well understand from my earlier postings in this blog. It is out of pure curiosity, out of my private speculative interest in the future of mankind that I raise this issue. The first issue, of course, is whether in actual fact man is such an imperfect animal in the first place, and whether my alleged weaknesses are not, by further analysis, the inevitable corollaries of our uniqueness – or to put in another way: our very perfection.

We should not get ourselves blindfolded by our own humanity in judging who we are. This is the conundrum. The very qualities which the blind watchmaker, accidentally, ignited in us – indeed: our humanity, our intelligence, our intellect, our variety and so on - in the end both help us to survive and they challenge us, constantly, in our very sustainability. We are destructive and we are kind. One is very necessary to foster the other. Our intellect, which provides us with new ideas, inventions, solutions etcetera, is at the same time our greatest threat. But of course. How can it be otherwise?


We can't just do away with the money wolves, or should we?

Still, the question remains: can we improve? Can we consciously foster the benefits of our qualities and downplay our weaknesses, not just in an individual, but at larger scale, for a longer period, to benefit us all? The dilemma may be whether we can enhance humanity’s beauty – in its widest sense – and relinquish our selfishness at the same time.


Selfless love to the extreme

I am coming back to my first thesis: we are capable of things for which we haven’t been ‘made’. This in fact is a potential of which we haven’t yet seen the absolute limits. We can not say today: this is as far humanity gets; over to some other species. We will never say it.


Is it possible that one day she will walk the Earth?

We can’t look into a million years future. So many things along the way can happen, out of ourselves or just by nature, including out of space. But we do have the capability to critically asses our potential as a species. This is what makes us unique anyway. So why not look at ourselves more critically, in the context that we can reasonably foresee. We can do this in an ambitious way. We can make a treaty to save our planet, as I have been promoting in this blog. But we can also create an agreement, among all human beings, about ourselves. Why wait for another Mozes to lay down some new commandments if we are intelligent enough to make them for ourselves and agree to nourish our strengths and reduce the impact of our imperfection?