TOTAL FALL-OUT, OR NEW PROGRESS

The conundrum of a huge horse shit problem

Early 2001 I was in the mood to say to a young history student: “We will experience another Middle Ages!” I knew it was an exaggeration to utter such a prophecy but I did foresee turmoil and confusion before, not much later, it actually hit us. Things were going ways they couldn’t last, I felt. And bang! 9/11 happened and there was a subsequent burst of the economic bubble. It is not a delusion coming out of wisdom by hindsight.

Every since, the world has been too optimistic about the immediate future. A bubble had burst, the world adjusted to a point – but by far not enough, Afghanistan and Iraq were overrun by the Western world, many tens of billions of dollars are drained from the world economy and after a few years the bubble sizzles again, big time… and things as yet are getting worse. Still, we are led to believe that our leaders are on the right track.

The crisis that we experience now is going to be a long one, I am convinced of that; long and still more painful, not less, both for the stagnation in our economy and for reasons of world politics.

But does this all amount to such disintegration or disfigurement of our world that real times of darkness and strife lay ahead, a world – a western world in particular – going out of control? Anyone contemplating such prospect would find it both highly unlikely and plausible at the same time. On the one hand we are too sophisticated – in all dimensions – to let this happen. Whatever forces of disintegration may challenge us, our societies have too many vested interests to uphold their intricate structure, their governance (at all levels) and infrastructure, the organization of our markets and services and so on. But all of this at the same time is our great vulnerability. If only we think of a worldwide failure of the internet (however this may happen) or of the potential fall-out as a result of secondary consequences of Global Warming. None of it may be around the corner, but we can not rule them out. Increased interdependence at ever increasing scale in terms of systems, governance, markets and supplies inevitably offers us as many opportunities as it offers the potential of great peril.



Dali's pessimistic view of our world

At the same time we have severe unresolved conflicts in our world and the responses thus far have not brought us close to a sustainable resolution by any measure. The combination of age old regional strife, a long history of Western interventions, and protracted social and economic stagnation in the Arabic world is a major complication in our present time. We tend to reduce the antagonisms which plague the Arab world, including their considerable adverse spin-offs in our world, into simple – indeed, often medieval - terms of political and religious conflict. Our interest – more than ever – is in grasping its complexity, in many more than mere political (or religious) dimensions. 1)


A future of our world as we wish to see it

The underlying failure of the Western world is to come to terms with its own role, indeed in a long-winding history going back more than a century, in the creation of these antagonisms, with the impact of its current (largely military and political) involvement and with its true interests in the longer term. I am not suggesting that all of this is negative or driven by our own interests only. Nor am I suggesting any excuse or justification, for instance, for the violence caused by countries and people in the Arab world itself. Again, there is too much complexity to put it into terms of good versus bad. We do have interests of course, which can not merely be expressed in our desire to secure peace and security in the world, let alone our projection of freedom and democracy as the best recipe to affect these. One such interest is the continued exploitation of and access to the remaining oil resources.

But if it is true, as many contend, that the present state of affairs – and the daily draining of huge resources needed at least to not make it worse – is an exercise without end, then only some thorough rethinking on all sides will ever get us out of it. Mere pacifism and idealistic benevolence are insufficient and will prove just as ineffective as a protracted projection of military might and corporate muscle. But this is only self-evident. The key first of all is understanding, not any immediate solution or intervention.

But however this may be, the political climate to really rethink our concept of sustainable solutions for the multifaceted issues between the Western and the Arab world on our side is not helped, to say the least, by the images we hold (perhaps first of all of ourselves and) of Muslims, the Islam in general and of the general character of Arabs. Deep down many of us nourish the sense of their backwardness, cruelty, lack of imagination and their obstinate refusal to align with the modern age. When we see them, in increasing numbers, walking on our own streets, occupying our space, erecting Mosques and draining our social resources, and there is an outcry: stop the Islamization! A single sentence that summarizes the mind prison that we have allowed ourselves to be locked into. But it isn’t as if the armies of Iran or Egypt stand at our front door, the reality is quite the reverse. We call it upon ourselves if our medieval prejudices lead to the disintegration we profess to counter. Without sympathy we will never succeed.

Every time I think of the seemingly insoluble issues of our time – resources, population, economy, security, all up to and including the very sustainability of life on our Planet – I am reminded of the greatest issue facing the government of New York City by the end of the 19th century: the cumulating pile of horse manure, caused by increased traffic. It wasn’t solved, eventually, by effective “horse manure drainage provisions” or traffic policies of any kind. The issue simply disappeared from the agenda by the advent of the motorcar.


The true solutions of many issues are still hidden in the Chrystal Ball

Perhaps, in hundred years time, historians will look at our issues much in the same way. We struggled to win a lost cause, but were saved by one or the other innovation, a new perspective, perhaps a common enemy, or a combination of all. We can not foretell. But I am convinced that by merely wishing to solve the issues of the Middle East and related issues, we will not succeed. Intrinsically this would offer noting, no true perspective beyond the known horizons to the people involved.

All of this seems to point at magic as the single force that can save our world. Indeed, how Medieval can one become? To a certain extent, we have no alternative, at least if we are to sustain our material prosperity. Some breakthrough in the search for new, durable energy capable of lighting and moving the masses, is obviously required. But in a time when Facebook has decided to run its servers in part on coal, this prospect should for be projected at considerable distance in the future.

In the mean time, it is better not merely wait for the magic. What counts is not when solutions are found, it is the commitment and (self-) confidence that we need to get there. Otherwise indeed the slope downwards will be one without end.

---
(1) I find myself greatly inspired, for instance, by Robert Fisk, Arabist and celebrated journalist of “The Independent” and author of a number of books on the history, nature and underlying complexities of the present-day conflicts in the Middle-East. In one sentence he describes the insoluble reality of the US presence in Iraq: “America should leave Iraq, it will leave Iraq, but it can’t leave Iraq”.

WILL RELIGIOUS FERVOR EVER RISE AGAIN IN EUROPE? - PART II

An exploration of the future

This is my second posting on the role of religion in our present day European societies. My first posting, under the same title, can be read when you scroll downwards.

Having attempted an overview of current trends the question remains what the developments described in the first part of this essay – both the remaining role of confessional institutions in our public life and the increased presence and articulation of Muslims in our Western world – tell us about the prospects for the future in respect of the role of religion and religious institutions in our societies.


Christianity and the secular world
Perhaps, in response to this question, a first note to make is about the nature of secularization. We tend to think of secularization as a process undermining Christianity or its legacy. But we forget that in fact it is its very product. Even in our secularized world we harbor most of the values and principles which were established in the heydays of European Christendom. (1)We have largely absorbed them as the core of our humanistic values. There is no fundamental hostility between (Christian) believers and non-believers and when it comes to it we will jointly defend the entire achievement of our civilization. Christianity and European civilization have been synonyms ever since Charlemagne. The main divergence is between the dogmatic Catholic version of Christendom and our broader, protestant and secularized (and humanist) sense of it.

However, the actual dividing lines may shift over time, whether as a result of internal forces or external. The post-war decades of political and social liberation (including sexual liberation) may be seen as an example of internal pressures shifting the main divides within our societies. Today, as indicated above, we experience external challenges to some of our fundamental postulates and this may lead us to re-assert the heritage of our values and convictions and perhaps even to re-embrace Christianity as our guiding legacy in more explicit, though still primarily secularized terms. And thus we may forge new bonds between the various segments of our society which in certain periods of our history were divided, especially on the boundaries between church and state. To be clear, I am not saying that this is what necessarily should happen. I am only stating that such a prospect is more plausible at this time than has been for a long period before.



Confusing State and Religion started here, when Jesus appeared in front of Pontius Pilatus


State and religion
At the political level in Europe, as indicated above, Christian-democrats have all but relinquished their post-war balancing role in the wider political spectrum. I take the developments in my own country, The Netherlands, as an example. In the mid-nineties social-democrats and liberals embarked upon the much welcomed experiment of a coalition and many believed they could once and for all reduce Christian-democrats to insignificance. Ironically this was called the “Purple” coalition (red mixed with blue), a color most often associated with papal Rome. But eight years later, Christian-democrats were firmly back in their seat, not so much because of an outright failure of the purple coalition, but because of new political developments, within and especially outside The Netherlands (e.g. 9/11, the killing of a popular political leader, economic stagnation). Voters associated Christian-democrats with security, order and the kind of moderation needed to ease tensions in our agitated society. Over time, further cracks emerged in the memory of “Purple” and - rightly or wrongly – people increasingly have come to discredit its achievements.

The political realities are similar in many other (most of all northern) European countries, most notably in France, Germany and even the UK. (2)It is reflected too in the strong representation of Christian-democrats (European People’s Party) in the European Parliament, where they occupy almost 40%, the largest single segment of the seats.


The Roman Senate was a profound exercise in secular rule

Although in essence the re-assertion of Christian values is fed primarily by conservative, perhaps even defensive sentiments it would be a mistake to qualify this development as merely reactionary. I may also refer to Mueller’s observation (3)at the political level (France, UK): “Especially in the face of the financial crisis, religion has been presented as a source for what Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have called the project of moralizing capitalism.”


Re-assessing the role of religious institutions
As indicated above, in the past decades the institutions of Christianity have largely been a force of moderation and social responsibility – in politics, education and other societal institutions – and they should rightly be seen as a vital, though never exclusive, factor in maintaining the overall fabric of our societies in the foreseeable future. I tend to stress this especially in the face of massive global inequities, not simply between rich and poor, but between our materialist pursuits and the actual possibilities to sustain them over the longer run.


Let's not send him away

But even without dramatizing this gloomy reality and most certainly without advocating the role of Christian – religious – institutions to come to our moral rescue, the prevailing challenges of our societies demand an inclusive approach. Governments would do nothing wrong in re-engaging religious institutions both at national and local levels to help ease out tensions between the various segments of society and in the process re-enforce a sense of common values. (4) What is stressed here is the potential future role of religious institutions (including Islamic institutions) as a moderating force, and not as government sponsored missionary agents.


Spirituality, religion and the public’s mind
My last main point concerns the things that are going on in people’s minds. For as much as my own education was driven by “rational observation, disciplined thought and rigid analysis” (see introduction) this is not necessarily the common denominator in our societies at large. And even the staunchest atheist can harbor a superstition or “belief”, often fueled by personal experience, which takes him close to a sense of divine providence (example: surviving an accident, or having escaped a particular accident). Those who deny that they are susceptible to this at least to some degree should be met with considerable scepticism. In short: when it comes to it, we are all human. Moreover, I believe our irrationality is what feeds our spirituality, our imagination and sense of romance – all of which are vital in the further progress of our societies. A purely scientific world would be an emotional wasteland, prone to total stagnation. In our quest for the meaning of life, of our own lives, and for ‘purpose’ we know that we have to look beyond science. In fact, I would contend that this is what drives the progress of science itself, however rational and rigid its actual process must remain. (5)


We are all on our own road to inspiration and spiritual enlightenment

If anything, events in the past decade have proven that public sentiments can be still be stirred in unexpected magnitude, for instance when a disaster has occurred or when people wish to share their response to specific events, happy or otherwise (as has for instance become apparent after the tragic death of Princess Diana in 1997). The time is long past when religious institutions, by virtue of their community and social functions, held a monopoly in channeling such collective emotions. Mass media have firmly established a prime function in this respect, however much we may contend that they also serve to nourish false sentiments, creating a world of fake exaltation and solidarity. But none of these and similar phenomena of themselves point at the media as feeding grounds for the re-enforcement of anything in the neighborhood of common religious or moral values. (6) Most of all they appeal to the human needs of community and belonging rather than to his craving for collective myths.



Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we should be interested in the pursuits of our younger generations who are perhaps the least impressed by epic myths and legends yet spend much time dwelling in them – in their computer games, in the movies they watch and in a popular culture which offers abundant pulp fiction and staged stardom. Their most predominant pursuit, I believe, is in communicating with one another, across varied networks or platforms, exploring their individuality and that of others. It is their key process, overriding all other processes, whether at school or at home, in which they develop their own sense of life and of the world around them. Neither religion nor its denial bears any significance for them, so it seems (7). They largely live in urban environments which so obviously are the product of the human hand, so totally devoid of any remnant of divine creation, that for them the whole question of religion indeed is here nor there. They are more immune than any previous generation to institutionalized influences or indoctrination. Over time this may well constitute an entirely new level playing field for all institutions that wish to contribute to sustained social and cultural cohesion and to any common spiritual language capable of rallying the people’s minds to causes of common interest. For that matter the twenty first century could see a total obliteration of religion the way it is still in existence today as much as its rejuvenation.


On further evaluation and conclusion
I have started this exploration with an open mind, simply asking myself whether religion, however defined, is here to stay and whether there is any reason to expect a renewed upsurge in religious sentiments in the future, affecting our public order . I have addressed this question out of curiosity, very much because I realize that the course of history can never be taken for granted. Out of ignorance rises enlightenment, facts, figures, reason and tolerance – and thus shall it ever be. This is not necessarily the only plausible future of our history. Nor do I contend that religion and ignorance are synonym in all respects, however critical one may be to this day about certain postulates of Christianity and other theologies. Nonetheless, the increased vocalization of religious fanaticism, not merely out of the Islamic world, inadvertently revives our attention to the very presence and impact of religion in our societies. Our key interests are progress and the improvement of the human condition in rational, factual terms. Our situation today seems more remote from that promise than ever before, both as a result of our own actions and as a result of onslaughts from outside. It is only natural that one seeks for countervailing forces. This may explain my positive attitude to religious institutions as a constructive factor in our societies.

As it stands, I nonetheless arrive at an ambiguous outcome. The greatest challenge is to look at this subject – as much as possible - in objective terms. For true objectivity indeed is extremely difficult. No doubt, my essay no doubt reflects the bias of those who wish issues relating to religion (and institutions inspired by it) had disappeared from our public life altogether.

Another difficulty in assessing the picture is the fact that most research on this topic and the majority of publications are the effort of religious institutions themselves. On the other side of the spectrum I find the people who take issue with religion as if the Reformation and subsequent secularization in our part of the world have not yet taken place. This is how I look at the eagerness of certain scientists, with Richard Dawkins as their main proponent, to claim their ultimate victory over religion on topics such as evolution versus creation. Why should we wish such a victory? I don’t see any point in bashing religions for their misguided concepts, if only they don’t bother us with them. But I do say this as the citizen of a country where the real plague of dogma has effectively been eradicated a long time ago. It has to be recognized that to this day in our part of the world the error of dogma and superstition does perpetuate itself, as Dawkins e.a. have amply demonstrated, especially through education, and there is all good reason to openly expose and counter this wherever it still occurs.

I also realize that all of the above is an essentially European outlook. Although we are united in what we call the Western world, the difference with the American outlook is astounding, more so than we care to admit. This runs through every vain of our existence – in the public domain, in our communities and even in the way we present ’science’. For instance, for a European it is appalling to see a serious and respected institution such as National Geographic treat biblical stories as if they actually happened, full swing, without reservation. Similarly it seems utterly strange to us when we see American public figures, including their President, frantically embrace God as a common truth for all Americans. Well, to a large extent, God is the common truth for Americans. (8)

For the European mind it can only be highly disconcerting that this American religious conservatism in fact determines the way in which on a global scale conflicts, especially the conflicts which largely evolve around religious issues, are handled. Indeed, there is more reason for Europeans to be a little more vigilant about the prevailing religious dogmatism in the US than about the remaining ignorance of Catholics in respect of the true age of our planet Earth and the origin of species.



In conclusion it is clear that the impact of religion and its further prospects in our world constitute a far more complex theme than could have been envisaged a few decades ago. Demographic developments and social and cultural change in our societies interplay with factors and events in the wider global scene. One could say that this is a historic constant and not a discontinuity. Present day conflicts in which ethnic and religious play an important role challenge our civilization in some of its most fundamental precepts. It is insufficient to respond to these challenges merely in defensive terms. The object is not to reconcile religions or religious traditions. Our main concern should be that whatever religious sentiments persist in our societies, they should be freely celebrated in a public order which safeguards each and everyone’s rights and responsibilities regardless these sentiments. It seems a platitude, but it isn’t. If it were, we would not have politicians, as for instance in The Netherlands, who take up battle against an entire religion, thinking that they have a cause to win, and we would have concentrated our efforts in the public sphere to securing responsible citizenship full stop, without entangling ourselves in the conundrum of integrating people’s minds and attitudes in dimensions where they should remain perfectly free to make their own choices.

---

1) For instance: Six out of the Ten Commandments constitute general moral precepts which are fully absorbed in our civil and penal codes (the other four being of purely religious nature).

2)Jan-Werner Mueller – The Return of Religion to Europe, 2009 - Project syndicate. His article can be found: www.project-syndicate.org.

3) Jan-Werner Mueller, ibid.

4) I have avoided to use the term ‘morality’ as this is a highly loaded term. But we should not deny that it is aimed at a shared morality at least to some extent.

5) Most enlightening especially in respect of present day spirituality and – the transformation of – religion is offered in “The Future of Religion” by Graham Ward, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 74.1 (2006) 179-186.

6) Nonetheless, with the advent of Radio in the nineteen twenties, religious and ideological institutions were the first to establish an organized broadcast function of which in The Netherlands the remnants exist to this day.

7) This is a sentence I have actually copied from an observation made by Jonathan Miller in his BBC series “A Brief history of Disbelief” (2004) when he walks around in Paris in search of traces of people long dead who played an important role in challenging Christianity’s claims to moral supremacy and truth. If I had been in Miller’s place I would rather have dubbed his series “A Brief History of the Arrival at Reality”. Interestingly, on the website dedicated to this program there is a poll on the question “Do you believe in God?”. 15% of the respondents say yes, 85% say no.

8) It is interesting for those who wish to gain a better understanding for the American outlook on religion to watch the documentary “The God who wasn’t there” (2005) – wwww.watch-movies-online.tv.

WILL RELIGIOUS FERVOR EVER RISE AGAIN IN EUROPE? - PART I

A personal exploration


This essay follows the theme which I took up in my posting of March 2008:The origins and future of Christian Europe. In it I attempted to address the various issues affecting the continuity and future of our European civilization. The following exploratory essay takes this topic from a specific angle. However much we may consider ourselves to be part of a secular world, in which everyone has his own freedom of belief and worship as much or as little as one wishes, we cannot dismiss religion as a phenomenon of mere private interest. This is both because of sensitivities arising out of the ongoing social and cultural evolution of our societies but also because of the increased presence of people with a different religious background, most notably Muslims.

I have embarked upon this essay with an open mind, i.e. without any predetermined conclusion that merely required substantiation. I am not even sure whether the question raised in this essay, in the end, are the truly pertinent ones. The only point to make here is that, even though I respect each and everyone’s private inspirations of whatever attribution, I strongly cherish the secular outlook of the society in which I live, especially where it concerns the handling of our common public interests. Hence, when I raise the issue of renewed religious fervor, it is in that context that I wish to address it. Whether people become more or less religious is not of itself my immediate concern nor do I harbor any prejudices in this respect (1).


An overview of current trends


Most people of my generation have taken the ongoing secularization of our society largely for granted. This includes the rules and values that guide our public and social life and the key choices in our private life. Our understanding of history is the ultimate demise of dogma and superstition as a source of power and authority in the modern world. Indeed, our entire education was founded in the victory of rational observation, disciplined thought and rigid analysis and most of all in our freedom of expression and association. Gods nor priests had any serious role in this process.

God is not dead
In the mean time religion has all but disappeared from our public life. In part this is due to the revival of right wing religious sentiments, and secondly, largely as a result of massive immigration out of the Muslim world into European countries, we are forced to deal with many more people who are motivated by their religious dictates than have been around for considerable time. In essence the culture of Islam is felt by many as an alien reality in our society and this sentiment has as much fueled today’s social and religious antagonism as the Muslim culture or Islam may have fueled itself. Obviously the conflicts between the Arab world and the Western world have played an important role in filling people’s minds with the idea that in fact we are faced with an ongoing and age old religious strife rather than anything else.



Still, across the board, we can not say that religion itself has again become a major topic of consideration in the conduct of our public institutions. Our main response thus far has been to guard and where necessary to tighten the constitutional and legal framework both at national and European level aimed at securing the irrelevance of religious arguments in our public domain. At the same time we wish to secure everyone’s freedom of worship as a matter of our greatest privacy.

Remaining footholds of religion
Nonetheless, there are those who are not convinced that this framework is sufficiently solid and unambiguous. First of all the political spectrum of continental Europe includes a significant segment strongly associated with the various (Catholic and non-Catholic) denominations of Christianity. Although the parties concerned may be guided by religious convictions, their actions are by no means dictated by their religious institutions and authorities. They rather tend to secure their – predominantly center right - position through moderation and through a power strategy in which their ability to communicate and deal with all other segments of the political spectrum plays a key role. Any overt religious dogmatism would obviously stand in the way of this. Nonetheless, they do act as the guardians of the Christian legacy, not merely by emphasizing Christian values (which in fact are non-exclusive, as many are shared by other political parties) but also by securing all remaining constitutional arrangements in which Christianity has kept its foothold, most notably in education.



This is the second major reality. Although in most European countries the position and financial entitlements of Christian (catholic, protestant) schools are founded on the – liberal - principle of freedom of education, these entitlements nonetheless constitute a fixture in the overall fabric of schools and academic institutions. They have thus far been able to retain certain privileges, especially in respect of the selection of students and teachers. These privileges have become subject of increased scrutiny. For instance, in The Netherlands, the fact that certain Christian schools refuse to engage homosexual teachers or fire them if they ‘come out’ is severely criticized on the grounds of the principle of (and constitutional entitlement to) non-discrimination.

Just the same, one could say that such concerns are a trifle compared with the broader issue of an education system which so heavily depends on the availability and competence of confessional institutions. From a purely liberal perspective this could be seen as a self perpetuating force in favor of religious bias among a great many people in each new upcoming generation. However, I do not believe this is such a strong force nor is it one that should necessarily be viewed in critical terms. On balance, a situation in which both public and private institutions run what is essentially a public schooling system seems more beneficial to the vitality of our schools than a situation in which public institutions have a monopoly (2).

The advent of Muslims in Europe
There is a third dimension, next to politics and education, in which those who cherish the fruits of Enlightenment feel less than comfortable, especially in our present day. And it is in this dimension where it can be said that Christians and non-believers throughout Europe share the same or at least a similar embarrassment. It is the echo of a massive embarrassment, especially in view of sacrifices already made to free ourselves from the reign of prejudice and absolutism, which the Western world experienced in the first half of the twentieth century. The terror of fascism and its claims on racial and ideological supremacy are imprinted in our collective memory as a gruesome aberration of history that should never again be allowed to visit us. In its wake we have erected an extensive legal framework to secure our personal freedoms and to safeguard our citizens against every undue discrimination. But now it seems as if we are being slapped in our face because of it. The Muslim world and Muslims living in our own countries are not necessarily impressed by our freedoms and legal safeguards and in fact some feel highly insulted when we use them, as they feel, at their expense.



The case of the Danish Mohammed cartoon haunts all for the massive response it ignited in the Muslim world. Though our freedom of expression is not boundless (especially where it hits other fundamental rights and freedoms such as non-discrimination, and where it leads to inciting hatred against specific groups or persons) we prefer to interpret its scope as wide as possible. This includes our acceptance of expressions that some may find ill mannered, crude or even offensive. We rather tolerate such utterings than make them an object of the law. Still, this is a fine thread and susceptible to social and cultural changes over time (example: the – non – acceptance of sexually explicit images on TV). Also, we employ our sense of humor and sarcasm as an outlet for manifold emotions and opinions and in this respect cartoons (caricatures, comics etc.) fulfill and essential cultural role. We accept the other side of the truth without necessarily losing our respect for our side of it or for any side of that truth. This is the essence of our civilization and of our hard fought freedoms. Thus, the violent threats which ensued from the Danish Mohamed cartoon indeed are an embarrassment for us all, Christians and others, in that they constitute an attack in the heart of what we consider to be a civilized and most of all tolerant world. The worst response, however, is to shy away from it or to make public amends to it, as unfortunately has happened.

If we continue to walk away from the very safeguards against such undue compromises, we seriously risk falling back to the same distrust and authoritarian rule which terrorized our part of world in the past ages. Tragically our fear of terrorist reprisals has further tightened our sense of political correctness v.à.v. the Muslim world but it has also tightened the general belt of our freedoms. More people have come under the scrutiny of justice for their public expressions than at any time in the past decades (3).


Next blog: Part II - An exploration of the future

----


1) A recent overview of the religious trends can be found in H. Knippenberg e.a., “The changing religious landscape of Europe”, University of Amsterdam (2005).

2) At the same time increasing concern is expressed in respect of the establishment of Islamic schools both in terms of their quality and in terms of their (alleged) role in propagating societal and political convictions among the younger generation that go against the grain of our fundamental human rights and freedoms.

3) Example: the prosecution of the Dutch right wing politician Geert Wilders for igniting hatred and for expressing himself in discriminatory terms after speaking in derogatory terms about the Islam and Muslims in general.

AVATAR ACTING: A FUTURE IN MOVIES AND ON THE WEB

Avatar: behind the computer generated skin there are real people bringing the characters to life


We have grown accustomed to the new alliance between animation and acting. It started with Hollywood stars lending their voice to animated characters (e.g. Tom Hanks in “The Polar Express”, Jim Carrey in “Horton hears a Who”, Johnny Depp in “Corpse Bride” and many more). But is has gone a few steps further, most of all by virtue of new advanced computer technology, to a point where both acting and animation need to be redefined. The first character on the movie-screen who became famous as a result is the fictional Gollum of “The Lord of the Rings”. The character indeed is fictional and the product of computer design (called CG: computer generated), yet his performance is acted by a real person, someone who has largely remained unknown. The same principle has been applied to manifold CG characters in ‘Avatar’, James Cameron’s most recent masterpiece (*) of imagineering including its delivery in 3D.


Actor Andy Serkis, who played Gollum in Lord of the Rings

Instead of making actors invisible the way it happens in traditional animation the new technology opens an array of opportunities for actors to exploit the best of their acting talents without being limited by their own skins, bones, body shape – and looks. In fact it can make the art of acting more pure and profound – more credible in the eyes of the public, if the entire appearance of the character is credible.

The idea of allowing people to step into the skin and bones of a (computer generated) fictional character is one that can trigger many new applications or developments beyond the fantasy world of Hollywood – and beyond moviemaking.

One such application already surfaced a few years ago when Discovery Channel used it not to bring fictional characters to life but – cg models of – historic figures in its “Virtual History” documentary “The secret plot to kill Hitler” (2004).


Hitler’s CG model in Discovery’s “Virtual History” documentary

By all accounts we have come to a stage where our own senses can not any longer – readily - distinguish real from unreal. Whatever or whoever moves on the screen by virtue of computer image regeneration technology – indeed, this is not just another ‘animation’ technology (**) - is as real to the public’s eye as any other character who is moving in his own skin.

The possibility of stepping into the skin and bones of a fictional – CG – character is a gadget that has found its way to some extent in the industry that largely moves parallel to moviemaking: the (computer) gaming industry. Character design, environment and game flexibility (the decisions a player can make in ‘acting’ the plot of the game) have become increasingly sophisticated and ‘real’. Especially with the advent of Wii games (by which the movements of the player’s hands, arms and body are transposed to the events on the screen) the dividing line between virtual and real has shifted by a further step.

I expect that the next generation of computer games will more fully embrace this incorporation of the individual player and the character(s) of the games and their environment. Wii technology and the experiences of Hollywood CG moviemaking will be combined in advanced homebound gadgets allowing our youth to (almost literally) step into another world and ‘be’ somebody else in whatever perilous journey or challenge they choose.

It doesn’t take much imagination to consider similar developments in other ‘virtual’ domains, especially the domain in which many millions of people across the world by now are spending much of their real-life time, the internet. We are still in the infancy of the internet as an increasingly ‘real’ meeting place – the fourth dimension in which people can move, play and ‘act’ through self-created images (profiles, nicknames etc.) and travel to places everywhere in the world without actually moving an inch from their seat.

We connect and talk in manifold “chat rooms”, we can already connect in self-created worlds through applications such as Second Life and SIMS 3, young people already play games with friends who – through the internet – appear in the disguise of a character on their own screen etcetera. The technology is there, the first applications are there. It only needs time to further develop into more realistic but also more adventurous online experiences.


People meeting in a multiplayer online game

There is a difference of course between joining an online gaming community and choose (or create) a fictional character who performs all kinds of fantastic feats in one-on-one fights or entire battles, and connecting with other people on the internet driven by one’s own identity and real-life objectives.

In both domains – online gaming and online communication – I foresee further shifts between the real and the virtual potentially moving to a point where the distinction no longer makes any sense. In fact I believe it would be realistic even today to embrace the virtual world as a ‘real dimension’ and to take ourselves seriously when we move into it, whether our objective is to communicate or to play. In a sense, what may hold us back from fully enjoying the fruits of our present day technologies is not the advancement (or limitations) of the technology itself but the adjustment of our own habits and (social) standards in this fourth dimension of our lives.

To underscore this point I need to go back to Avatar (and similar movies). Although many characters of the movie are computer generated, all characters require the same serious actor’s performance. The experience of the main character in the movie, whose mind and ‘body control senses’ are transported to an alien body and brains (created in a laboratory), is the actual personal experience of the actor as well: it has been just as real (or ‘unreal’) for the actor to imagine himself as for his character to fly giant reptiles, to move through a strange jungle of exotic plants and trees with other aliens, and to kill ferocious beasts. It takes a good actor to make this a fully credible experience.

Similarly, I believe, it takes a serious and skilled communicator to make the internet a credible medium for communication. In contrast, many people prefer to use the internet as a hideout, disguising themselves under a veil of anonymity and using the various platforms for communication to unload their discontent or to express themselves in (often vicious) terms which they wouldn’t dare to use in ‘real life’. Indeed, the key for the internet to fully become a serious medium is the maturity of our own behavior.

But having said this, I could foresee a development in which internet users create their own ‘avatar’ – a figure, a character but not necessarily fictional - by which they move, play and communicate on the internet in such realistic terms, perhaps even in 3D, that we have can serious meetings with people across the world almost as if we are sitting around the same table. And it wouldn’t surprise me if ultimately our mobility and physical congestion issues on the road will largely be solved by new and credible ways to move – and act – on the avenues of the world wide web. In this perspective “working out of home” will – or at least: can – become a way of moving from one place to the other in a much more extensive way than by merely sending and receiving e-mails or by talking via msn and similar media.

Hence, if we take the internet serious and act-for-real our present day technologies bear the promise of a wonderful future in which our human imagination and creativity have boundless opportunities to become productive in almost all dimensions of our lives.

-----
(*) It is a masterpiece most of all for its technical superiority and for the wonderful scenes it depicts. The story of Avatar is rather cliché. Many movies have used the same theme: a foreign power wishes to exploit new lands and threatens to destroy the indigenous population. Some individuals of the foreign power befriend the local people and decide to help them. Pfff... what's new. In fact the story is very similar to one of the first movies ever made, about man's journey to the moon (approx. 1902), and it almost literally follows the script of Disney's Atlantis, to mention another one.

(**) In an interview producer/director James Cameron calls it "captured performance".

NOT THE END, NOT A BEGINNING

Signature image of the 2000s: our world collapsing at the strike of terrorism
(part of a collage titled "Modern History" by Josh Poehlein)


The first ten years 2000 - 2009: a personal review


The first ten years of the 20th century today are known as the fin de siècle: the end period of an entire era. In 1905 US President Theodore Roosevelt had called the old European world of Kings and Emperors “a bygone civilization”. He was right of course, but it would still take another ten years for this old world to finally collapse and thus for history to ultimately appreciate the significance of those first ten years of the century. The same applies to the ten years that have passed in this new century. What will be their significance? As yet, we can not say.


The other signature image: a world connected by the internet

The Great War of 1914 – 1918 and its aftermath triggered an immense turning point in Western Civilization. It was the birth time of our current modern world of democracy, technology and of the supremacy of popular culture. In its initial phase the outcome was far from certain as new absolutist claims to the human society were made both by the fascist regimes in Western Europe and subsequently by communism in Eastern Europe. Their massive impact was twofold: both – highly – destructive and highly stimulating. The Second World War and the Cold War have greatly accelerated the modernization of our world in the second half of the century in every field: technology, culture, markets, governance.

Largely as a result of ongoing adversity and conflict, both old and new, it has taken the entire century to develop concepts and institutions capable of exercising shared – regional and world wide – responsibilities in the interest of lasting peace and security. This is still an ongoing process, for instance in Europe - with some countries still waiting in the wings to become EU Member State – and at international level: with the UN and NATO remaining subject of ongoing scrutiny in terms of their effectiveness and longer term viability.

Still, setting aside the institutional struggles, globalization is one of the most prominent forces affecting our lives today, not merely in the Western world. And it does so in almost all dimensions: economically, politically, in our popular culture, our social and professional networks, our language and so on. What started in the early 1900s with telephone, radio, gramophone and the automobile has continued by virtue of an unprecedented and unstoppable surge in human inventiveness, creating mass mobility on the road, airlifting the masses in planes, taking people to the Moon, and offering us a means to communicate through mobile phones and the internet in a way that was almost unimaginable even some twenty years ago.



Will the hybride car secure our longer term mobility?

From my own perspective as a Dutchman I would say that being Dutch and being a citizen of The Netherlands is of much less significance in my life than it must have been for the people of my country hundred years ago. In this context, although there is no “end of history”, as has been suggested no too long ago, I would certainly speak of an end of the history of individual nations, in Europe in particular, but also outside. No country is on its own any longer, not even the United States, or Russia. What will count is our world’s history – and our world’s future. We have become much more aware of our existence as one single humanity on a fragile and very lonely Planet Earth and of the challenges we face collectively to keep this planet afloat as a habitable place for the human masses.

We nonetheless continue to wrestle with our sense of identity, the impact of our nationality and national character both in the face of an increasingly global culture but also of increased diversity – and adversity – in our own immediate backyards. Large scale immigration throughout Europe especially from the Arab Muslim world had created manifold tensions, not in the least because of the world wide assertion out of the same world against the very foundations of our Western civilization. It is impossible at this point to predict the ultimate significance of this conflict for our – future – history.


Diversity and - the need for - mutual adjustment

All we can say now, I believe, is that out of all these various challenges – planetary issues, and cultural (and religious) conflicts – will somehow emerge the watershed event that will divide our era from the next.

In the mean time the ebb and flow of our economies, the successive periods of high growth and recession, leave us largely unaffected in the greater scheme of things. The current generations in the Western world have enjoyed an unprecedented long period of peace and prosperity. In our own minds we live in an everlasting world of material comfort and consumer happiness, however much we may have to adjust in certain aspects.


Consumerism depicted as modern day mass slavery

But in our private lives our liberation from ancient social and cultural conventions continues. We have come a long way from the fixtures of a society of families and segmented, regulated networks to our present day much more loosely connected world, in which national or cultural background, social status, past and future are rather fluid and amenable to who we are to whom at any given point in time.


The networks where we meet

We create or joint our own personal contexts, networks and intimate circles largely beyond our traditional social confines or at least we have many more means to do so. The world that we leave to the younger generations will turn out to be quite a different one from the world they will eventually make of it.

EARTH'S STANCE IN THE UNIVERSE

Do we say ‘hello’ to intelligent life elsewhere in our Milky Way?

Ever since the sounds of our planet became radio waves our world has made itself noticeable beyond the frontiers of our atmosphere. We might speculate whether Earth in fact had already been spotted long before as a viable and interesting place in the Universe by some distant alien intelligence and whether, regardless of our own efforts, we are already object of its close scrutiny. But however this may be, we have grown increasingly noisy for any technologically advanced world in outer space if any such world exists within the reach of the signals that we have sent out thus far.

Most likely, the rest of the intelligent Universe is just as ignorant of our existence as we are of theirs. Indeed, none of this to this day surpasses the borders of speculation and we can not even say whether we will ever know better. We would have to reach beyond many thousands of light years by whatever means and even that may not be enough.


Far out in Space - who's there and how many?

Besides speculation there is calculation. By virtue of the so-called Drake equation scientists have calculated that in our own Galaxy there could be a few hundred, perhaps even a few thousand habitable planets harboring advanced intelligent life. The equation and more specifically all the assumptions that go into it have been subject of intense debate and this will go on without end up to the moment when hard evidence reaches our telescopes (*).

We do know that the process which we call life is a highly resilient process on our own planet and the more we know about its origins the more we tend to think that it is bound to arise whenever and wherever the right conditions are present. But again, this still remains mere speculation, most of all because we have just one sample – our DNA based life – to justify it.

Still, let’s look ahead. I am assuming that indeed one day there will be credible evidence of intelligent life on another planet, and I am assuming that the evidence originates from some stellar system within our own Milky Way. How do we – how does the planet Earth – respond to this?

Scientists have already stated that perhaps our planet should not be so keen as we currently seem to be, to propagate its existence – and its marvels – too far beyond our own solar system. Why should we wish to become noticeable in the first place? And what should we actually wish to do with another planet somewhere many hundreds of light years away from us?

No doubt we would wish to obtain as much information about it as we possibly can. It would help us in our understanding of our own place in the Universe and of life’s processes (or comparable processes) etcetera. It would be a science bonanza for eons to come and so on. But otherwise?

Should we wish to get in touch with other ‘intelligent planets’ at any time in our future? Those who consider our science fiction of interstellar – and even intergalactic – travel and combat as a true projection of the future would have no hesitation to say yes – and prepare for any friendly or hostile interaction that may ensue.


Hi there?

But I am not sure whether our science fiction should necessarily come true by any measure. Rather, I feel, we should aim for the contrary. As a planet we have no foreseeable interest in investing huge material and human resources in any interstellar conflict or love affair since both scenarios would only end up making us more vulnerable to outside factors than we already are by virtue of the Universe’s known perils. But there may be a need to actively invest in avoiding that scenario other than by remaining passive or invisible. Do we expect other intelligent planets to have a peaceful attitude towards their intelligent neighbors or don’t we. We have no foundation for any answer to this question whatsoever.

It leads me to a viable – perhaps the only viable – option as and when it becomes opportune to initiate any policy. It is the option in which the planet Earth sets the example – perhaps mounting to “Galactic Law” – of peace and non-interference between all intelligent planets, and this could possibly include some kind of protocol for communication as a means to secure this ‘law’.

We can not say at this point whether all of this will become relevant any time in the future: in hundred years time, thousands of years, longer? We have no clue. It might as well lurk around the corner.


Unlikely prospect: combat in Space

We should hope, however, that whenever a planetary policy in respect of other intelligent planets becomes a relevant issue, we have effectively solved the painful issues to which we are still hostage on our own mother Earth. It is difficult to think of any leading role in interstellar peacekeeping as long as lasting peace on our own planet is still a far away dream. What example do we set in the first place?

Just the same, the context in which interstellar matters become relevant for Earth’s humanity may well be entirely different from the one assumed here. The moment may still be many eons away, for instance when Earth is finally suffocating to the point of collapse and the remaining inhabitants do their utmost to find refuge elsewhere in our Galaxy. What peace can you keep under such circumstances?

If my own estimate of the number of habitable, or intelligent, planets in our Milky Way turns out to be correct – somewhere between a hundred and four hundred planets – then we are still many tens of thousands years away from the point when this subject becomes a point of interest at all. This is a time scale in which speculation from our current viewpoint turns into nothing better than a fairy tale. But what a wonderful fairy tale to keep pondering about.

--
(*) Using the Drake equation and based on my own assumptions the number of communicating intelligent planets within our Milky Way would be some 100 – 400 out of 200 billion. You can try it on your own: http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html

ADJUSTING OURSELVES TO THE COMMON GOOD

Siqueiros - The March of Humanity


A global perspective to help secure life on Earth – and a continued well being of humanity


Humanity has taken the interest in the survival of individual humans a great distance. Both our collective morality and our individual drive for survival (reaching to individual supremacy) surpass any precedent in the wider world of animals and plants in which group logic has largely retained its predominance. At the same time this evolution towards individualism brings us to the brink of utter disaster. The individual claims to a decent life of potentially more than 10 billion people in our near future are devastating for our planet and everything that needs space and resources to survive on it. Something’s got to give.


An overcrowded world - will we manage?

I have always looked at our world and the potential for ongoing improvement of our lives from a distinctly liberal perspective. Although I am not a proponent of Ayn Rand, I do believe that egotism to a large extent is the fountainhead of progress (*) and that our morality and social behavior can largely be based on rationality and facts rather than on myths and mere belief. Secondly, without individuals out to move our frontiers, we would still be dwelling in conditions not dissimilar from those of the apes. But it is the social fabric of humanity which ultimately decides its sustainability. We have to be individualists and highly social animals at the same time.

For me this has always been a debate about the right kind of liberalism, not about the choice between liberalism and socialism – the individual versus the collective. It is always both, but in what mix, in what context and by which mechanisms?



They deserve to be nourished

I believe the issue of individualism versus our social responsibility remains a pertinent one in the face of the choice ahead which affect the very fundaments of our world if not our civilization. One could also say that it is about the same concept that was articulated long ago by Adam Smith: that our individual interests are best served if we focus our energies on serving the group to which we belong, our community or society or whatever other interest group largely determines the conditions of our life. Still, this doesn’t preclude fundamental dilemma’s even to the point where we have to make sacrifices beyond our current imagination in order for our group or community to survive.

How far will we be prepared to go ourselves, to truly sacrifice for the common good? I believe this will largely depend on our trust in its consequences. Focused leadership will be the key to any fundamental adjustment. And this is exactly what is being tested in our present day, not simply the leadership itself but our preparedness to follow it. On both sides we have grown substantially weak in the past decades.

Secondly, in our age of information and communication, there is a greater need than ever to well inform the public about the true nature and extent of the challenges we face. This includes the questions as much as the answers. We are currently debating CO2 emissions but the actual scope of the international debate is to establish a common global framework that will lead us to effectively manage (and control) the basic conditions of our planet. Shared knowledge and shared resources to achieve this across the traditional boundaries of nations and (corporate) institutions are essential prerequisites.


An image of the past - hopefully soon

Still, this leaves many questions in respect of our individual lives unanswered. Most of us are probably willing to adjust, to reduce waste where possible, limit senseless consumption, to buy more economic cars or economize on our mobility in general etcetera. But it is unlikely that this will suffice in the end. Any next step will have to be one in which new opportunities and new limitations go hand in hand.

But perhaps it is not the material adjustment that will be our greatest challenge. The pain we feel should as much be a moral one: collectively we should take more care for all. Much of our lifestyle and the daily priorities we make will hang in the balance. This is a longer term process, no doubt, but one in which all factors come to play: leadership, technology and new opportunity, corporate governance, our social institutions, education etcetera

Again, we are far from the end of our time. In many ways, it is just beginning.


--
(*) “The Fountainhead” written by the famous novelist Ayn Rand in the late 1930’s drives the ego to its self-destructive extreme, yet the key message still remains.