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.

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.