Skip to main content

Happiness is not enough

By economics

happiness is not enoughIn his book Can we be happier?,  Richard Layard advocates that the central driving principle of mankind should be to maximise the  total happiness experienced by all individuals across a society.

It represents a brave attempt by a trained economist to advocate that governments change the objective of maximising GDP growth to one of looking to improve the health, wealth and quality of life of its citizens as measured by their happiness.

I don’t think the author does any favours to his idea by using the term happiness. Happiness conjures images of silliness, unthinking behaviour and short-term enjoyment. This is not what he means. In the book happiness is measured by asking people how satisfied they are with their life. Life-satisfaction, in my view is quite a different concept, in implies a contentment with one’s position in the world. The book should be retitled Can we be more satisfied with our lives?

He says:

The challenge to development economists is clear. Grinding poverty has to be eliminated. It destroys happiness and shortens lives. But it is wrong to go helter-skelter for growth. What is needed is a deliberate process whereby genuine communities are maintained or created – communities which give people the feeling of belonging and purpose.

All this is true but this will not be achieved by focussing solely on life-satisfaction. The measurement is unaspirational, unaccepting of change and self -centred. I believe a better measure of human progress is life-fulfilment.

To quote from Compete or Co-operate:

I believe there are two aims for human society that most of us can support. The first is for as many people as possible to live a sufficiently healthy and safe existence that they can achieve life fulfilling roles in their communities.  The second is to achieve an ecologically stable presence on Earth, one in which the future of humanity is secure and the natural world is protected. The pursuit of life fulfilment is a specifically human objective. It is an expression of the human requirement to have purpose and meaning in life. All humans need recognition and praise for their achievements, however small they may be. Life-fulfilment can be as elemental as bringing up a family, but it also can be gained by work, participating in sport, and providing support to others in the community.  Its outcome is directly related to the needs of society as a whole and not necessarily based on material reward or personal self-gratification.

Concentrating on maximising happiness alone will not be enough to create a successful society.

 

Why democracy is always behind the game

By political thought

Democratic failureOver the past few months, we have seen a glimpse of the future direction that evolution is taking us. Catastrophic destruction of the natural world has resulted in floods, fires and pandemics. We’ve known of this potential outcome for decades. However, precious little has happened to stop it occurring.

Scientists know what needs to be done, technologies have been developed, necessary changes in lifestyle have been identified.  All that is needed is to put these new ideas into effect. Political leaders have, however, failed to react fast enough.

There appears to be a fundamental problem in democracies. They are unable to deal with future risks. Most people are overwhelmingly occupied with day-to- day problems and are naturally less concerned about the long-term. And because only popular politicians get re-elected, democratic leaders are reluctant to propose action ahead of the public consensus. Leaders who have the ability to lead public opinion and inspire the public to alter behaviour, are very rare. Social media and active programmes of disinformation do not help.

Democracies have two main functions, to govern and to represent. At present they are failing on both counts. In terms of governance, they have failed to deal with change in the natural world, resulting in climate change, pandemics, loss of biodiversity.  They have equally failed to deal with changes in the economy, resulting in an insecure workforce, massive wealth discrepancies and an abrogation of power to tech giants. In terms of representation, they have failed to connect with the public and understand how globalisation and new technologies have negatively affected lifestyles. As a consequence, we have seen the growth of the gig-economy, falling life expectancy and a massive change in wealth distribution. In many countries, including the USA and the UK, leaders have reverted to a crude appeal to nationalist sentiment, blaming foreign influence for their problems.

Across the world there is a deep crisis brewing for mankind.  Democratic governments appear unable to react fast enough to the accelerating effects of evolution. They are reacting to change rather than anticipating problems and mitigating their affects. If democracies are to survive, they have to reconsider their operational processes to allow more long-term thinking. However, no democratic government appears able to look critically at its own modus operandi. Procedures once established are rarely changed. Many of the operational rules of the House of Commons were in place three centuries ago. The USA is bound by a constitution established in the eighteenth century.

The crisis is clear. Democracy in its present form appears unable to respond.

 

Utopia

By economics

In his book Utopia for Realists Rutger Bergman despairs of the lack of inspirational leadership coming from the progressive element of society.

Utopia for RealistsThese days the left seems to have forgotten the art of Politics. Worse , many left -wing thinkers and politicians attempt to quell radical sentiments among their own rank and file in their terror of losing votes. This attitude is one I’ve begun to think of in recent years as the phenomenon of ‘underdog socialism’. .  Sadly, the underdog socialist has forgotten that the story of the left ought to be a narrative of hope and progress.

Since the 70’s neo-liberal reasoning has dominated political thinking. Despite the financial crash of 2008, progressive thinkers have presented no coherent alternative ideas that have gained general support. The only economic policy that has gained ground has resulted in a backward lurch towards the protectionist ideas of populism.

Bergman believes that progressive thinkers have failed to effectively challenge the neo-liberal economic thinking which has created tax havens, the gig economy, bloated bankers and bullshit jobs and is building a divided society which is destroying the planet. It is not sufficient to empathise with the poor or to reason and warn of the dangers ahead.  Economics provide the basic rationale for government policy. To confront the challenges ahead we need progressive thinkers to paint a coherent economic picture of the future which provides hope, motivation and encouragement to all.

Democracy is the art of thinking independently together

By Uncategorized

Mejklejohn‘Democracy is the art of thinking independently together’ said the American philosopher, Alexander Meikljohn. If this is true then this art has been lost in the West and democratic government is in crisis as a consequence.

One problem is that the tribalism of party politics gets in the way of effective democratic processes. Too often party loyalty trumps rational decision-making.  A scandalous example of this occurs in the Committee stage of law-making at the House of Commons. This is the stage in which the finer points of a proposed law are discussed and problem areas are supposed to be resolved. Isobel Hardman in her book Why we get the Wrong Politicians describes the process as non-functional: in effect a charade. The government has a majority on the committee. They select the participating MPs, not for their knowledge and interest, but for their compliance; these doormats of politicians are expected to support the Government at all times. During the committee meetings only opposition MPs raise issues. Government MPs, with nothing to contribute, spend their time on other work such as answering emails on their laptops. The Government deliberately side-lines MPs who think independently and actively discourages rational discussion.

Debates in the Chamber are little better, too often political discussion appears to be a process in which the deaf shout at each other. No points are conceded, no questions are answered and no light is shed on the issues discussed. Party dogma and party loyalty rules.

Alexander Meikljohn also believed that democracy should mean self-government by the people; by this he meant that the Government should be involved in an informed dialogue with the electorate.   At the present time, the public is rarely enlightened by political discussion. The accepted art of a politician seems to be avoiding answering difficult questions. Never admit to a mistake is a mantra. New ideas are rarely discussed as politicians stick rigidly to the party line. As politicians waffle non-responses, media interviews frustrate both interviewer and public alike.

The tribalism of party politics is at its worst in the USA. Democrats and Republicans are barely on speaking terms. The American constitutional system was designed as a balance of power, involving discussion and compromise.  Too often Democrats dominate Congress and Republicans the Senate;  the result is stalemate. During the last two presidencies there have been long periods in which Congress barely functions at all.

flatpack democracyWe desperately need cultural change in the way our politicians behave. The excesses of tribal behaviour need to be curbed to allow issue identification and resolution. The remnants of effective democratic processes in the House of Commons survive in conventions for speaking courtesies: representatives must be addressed as Right Honourable and members are not allowed to use ‘unparliamentary language’. But the essence of the democratic processes  have been so degraded over time that there needs to be a root and branch review of systems and codes of behaviour. Politics would be much more effective if representatives listened to other views, ceded points of discussion and reached genuine rational decisions. It’s not rocket science.  It needs good chairing and agreed rules of conduct, such as those suggested by Peter Macfadyn in his book Flatpack Democracy. There is a precedent for change to be possible. According to Isobel Hardman, Select Committees, introduced in 1979, have a different political culture in which members are much less partisan.

As soon as people identify as a group, tribal behaviour becomes inevitable. A truly effective democracy depends on its culture and its processes to minimise this behaviour and allow rational discussion to take place. In Britain and the USA, at least, these democratic norms have fallen into disrepair. The West’s position in the world pecking order is under threat from populist movements, Chinese militarism and the success of East Asian forms of democratic government. If the West is to maintain its international competitiveness it will need to look again at its failing democratic procedures and revise them to be fit for the 21st century.

 

Misinformation

By Uncategorized

Rational decision making in democracies is becoming increasingly difficult due to the tide of misinformation launched by social media and lobby groups. There are those that support climate change denial, refute the seriousness of hospital admissions due to Covid, anti-vacs’ and many others. The purveyors of these mistruths are a danger to society and themselves. George Monbiot writing in the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/27/covid-lies-cost-lives-right-clamp-down-misinformation argues that ‘claims representing a danger to life’ should be prohibited. Few would disagree.

misinformation

However, misinformation is more than a danger to life, it is a threat to democracy itself. This has been demonstrated with the election of Trump and the continual loyalty of his supporters, despite his lies, and his illegal and narcissistic behaviour. Trump has gathered a xenophobic tribe of followers who cherish his opinions, irrespective of their validity. This is a common characteristic of dictators.

Anne Applebaum in her book The Twilight of Democracy writes:

twilight of democracyAuthoritarians need people who will promote the riot or launch a coup. But they also need people who can argue that breaking the constitution or twisting the law is the right thing to do. They need people who will give voice to grievances, manipulate discontent, channel anger and fear, and imagine a different future. They need embers of the intellectual elite, in other words, who will launch a war on the rest of the intellectual and educated elite, give voice to grievances…. [by] betraying the central task of an intellectual, the search for truth, in favour of particular political causes.

 

Pseudo-scientists that give validity to false and dangerous ideas are a serious threat both to life and democratic institutions. It is they that have given credibility to climate change denial, vaccination scares and downplaying the Covid threat. Taken up by unscrupulous rumour mongers with their own political agenda they manage to confuse arguments, obfuscate the truth and warp decisions.

The BBC, for all its virtues, has given time and credibility to these agents of disinformation in order to give a ‘balanced view’. Contrarian arguments, however bizarre, make for entertaining listening. We all have the right to speak freely but there are limits. The freedom to disseminate misinformation has been exploited by rumour mongers in a way that is dangerous to society.

Lobby groups and malicious organisations who deliberately distort the truth do not support the principles of eco-humanity. It is hard to overstate the danger they represent to our society. We need to take more direct steps to protect ourselves.

Democracy in crisis

By Uncategorized

Democracy is in crisis. Representative democracy, invented in the eighteenth century, is no longer fit for purpose. Politicians have 2 major roles: to represent and to govern.  They are failing in both.

Over the course of history, those elected in a representative democracy have rarely come from a broad cross-section of the electorate.  In Britain, democracy began as a popularity contest between local power-brokers of the ruling class.  In the nineteenth century, as the electorate was broadened, middle-class politicians muscled in on power. In the mid-twentieth century, there was a brief scary period for the upper echelons when working class people were elected and opinions of all classes were heard in Parliament. Today, however, the less well-off are again excluded. Gaining a degree has become a necessary qualification to be selected as a candidate. Britain is divided between those that went to university and those that didn’t. Those without degrees are unrepresented and their opinions are rarely sought. The result has been protest and populism as expressed in the election of Trump, the Brexit referendum and the French gilet jaune.

demcracy in crisis

The recent record of governance by Western democracies is also poor. Good decision making is hampered by the fact that political parties are only guaranteed to be in power for up to five years. This means governments focus on the short term. If there are difficult decisions to be made that could be unpopular, the temptation is to delay. When the pace of evolution was slower in the 19th and early 20th century the problem wasn’t so serious. Nowadays it is disastrous. Every major issue, whether it be climate change, the pandemic or the divided society, is being tackled too late. Only when problems become destructively overwhelming are solutions sought. By then much of the damage has been done.

We expect a lot of our politicians. They are required to be responsive to the needs of their constituents at the same time as looking after the interests of the nation as a whole. They are supposed to stay in contact with ordinary people while simultaneously running the country. We require them to respond to the latest petty scandal at the same time as looking after the long-term future of the country. They are supposed to be excellent communicators with their finger on the pulse of the nation as well as understanding the detailed minutiae of government issues. In office, we expect them to be excellent managers, with no training, expertise or experience in their roles. It is too much to ask.

The current form of representative democracy isn’t the only possible method of government in which people elect their leaders. If we are to confront the challenges ahead, we need new types of democratic institution which improve both governance and representation. Ones better able to foster excellence, capable both of taking the long-term view and, at the same time, representing the people in a more active fashion.

For more listen to David Runciman on BBC Sounds  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005f8w

Democratic Sclerosis

By political thought

democratic declineA country’s democratic systems of government age over time. It’s operational arteries, unable to adapt to a changing world, become sclerotic, and a cancer of vested interests invades the organs of government. No longer able to function for the good of all, democracies become increasingly distanced from the electorate at large.

This is most apparent in two of the oldest democracies in the world:  those of the USA and Great Britain. The USA’s democratic processes are showing the worst signs of distress. Its carefully structured systems of checks and balances have become gridlocked. Whatever President is elected, because the House of Representatives often has a Democratic majority and the Senate has a natural Republican bias, it is now rare that both Houses of Congress can agree any major legislative programme.

The US Supreme Court, by its Citizens United decision of 2010, gave companies the same electoral rights as ordinary citizens; this effectively allowed lobby groups to legally bribe Congressional candidates. The corruptive influence of money from business and the rich is now so ingrained in the American electoral system that, according to a 2015 poll, 52% of Americans believe that Congressmen are corrupt.

Britain is scarcely any better. In the British system Members of Parliament aspire to become government ministers. Hence, as it is damaging to their career prospects, government MPs rarely vote against their own side. This has given the executive inordinate power over the legislature.  Scrutiny of legislation is poor, allowing Governments to ramrod their bills through the Commons.  Curiously it is the unelected House of Lords which now provides the principal defence against bad legislation in the UK.

In Britain, as well, the wealthy are able to enhance the career prospects of their children by sending them to Private School. This has resulted in the creation of a class-based society based on wealth. For example, according to a Guardian report in 2019, nearly two thirds of Boris Johnson’s first cabinet went to Private School. As only 7 % of the population can afford private school fees, it seems that, as in America, those that have money and influence are able to unduly exercise power for their own benefit.

The result of this democratic sclerosis has been a discontented electorate, poor leadership and abysmal policy making. It is no coincidence that Britain and the USA have some of the worst records of all advanced countries in dealing with the Covid crisis.

The effectiveness of a country’s democracy can be measured by the security, health and wealth of its citizens. During the Covid crisis it has been manifestly clear that East Asian democracies looked after their citizens’ health and wealth much better than the older democracies of Western countries.  It is also clear that Chinese power and influence is growing and poses a major threat to the West.

Western democratic governments need to develop the capability to diagnose the state of health of their systems of government and develop appropriate therapies. They will need to unblock arteries of communication to their electorate and reinvent their organs of administration, if they are to avoid continued decline in world power and influence.

 

The dark forces almost won

By political thought

It’s depressing, the forces of darkness almost won. Even after 4 years of disorganised, divisive and retrograde government, almost 50% of Americans voted for Donald Trump. It seems they didn’t mind the lies and the irrational, racist and illegal behaviour. Although the less well-off were the back bone of his support, nothing had been done to improve their economic or health prospects. His much-heralded financial reforms, merely made the rich, and particularly Donald Trump, richer; his attacks on Obama Care reduced their access to medical support. Despite this, his appeal to the emotions and prejudices of his supporters remained strong and even grew.

Trump and the Republican party still deny the fact that mankind’s future depends on working in harmony with the natural world. Despite all the physical proofs in the form of storms, droughts, heat waves, ice melts, fires and rising seas, the existence of climate change is still denied. The threat of the Covid -19 virus was never taken seriously. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people died and the economy was excessively disrupted. Environmental protections were slashed and removed, threatening bio-diversity and releasing yet more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

None of these issues made any difference to his supporters. Like all populists, Trump’s appeal is to primitive emotions of tribal support. By exploiting the natural fear of change and emphasising threats from others he has built up a tribe of true believers. ‘USA’ is the cry of Trump supporters even though they represent only half the country. Threats and violence underpin his movement.

Trump and his tribe threaten all the principles of eco-humanity: liberty, by undermining the forces of law, egality by appealing to white supremacists, rationality by a barrage of lies, and sustainability by the denial of climate change.  They were not humiliated at this election. Their support has grown. This is a warning to us all.  All those who are concerned about the prospects of a sustained and happy life for our children need to take note and act.

The declining influence of religion

By health and population, Religion

the decling influence of religionThe covid-19 pandemic has exposed how much religion has declined as a major influence in our lives.  In Mediaeval Europe, religion would have been at the centre of the response to the disease. People would have crowded into Church to pray for their loved ones. Priests would have organised special masses for those afflicted. The outbreak would have been blamed on God’s righteous punishment for human sins. There would have been a sense of resignation, inshallah, nothing happens unless God wills it. However, it was OK, those that had not sinned could still get to heaven (as long as they paid priests to get them through purgatory).

Now the attitude is quite different. The disease is understood as a virus that can be overcome. People believe that, in time, medical science will come up with a cure. The churches, temples and mosques are empty. Doctors have said it is not safe to gather together. Few believe that God will look after his flock better than a doctor. This is true of all religions: Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Jews are all foregoing to gather in places of worship. Burials and cremations are perfunctory affairs. Relatives and friends are denied a proper chance to say goodbye to the dead.

Meanwhile archbishops, popes, and imams mouth platitudes to empty churches and mosques, and hope that someone is listening on zoom.

For more read Yuval Noah Harari about the change in human attitudes to disease.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/apr/20/yuval-noah-harari-will-coronavirus-change-our-attitudes-to-death-quite-the-opposite

The endgame

By political thought

Covid-19 is the latest setback for mankind after a year of forest fires and floods. WeThe end game are entering the end game, when human advance can no longer be taken for granted.

History is evolution in action. Human progress has been driven by individuals and communities striving for success in an evolutionary process. Those communities that thrive, propagate their   technologies, skills, organisational systems, knowledge and culture. The unique habits, language and mores of failed communities are lost forever.

The process is known as memetic (or cultural) evolution, and up to now it has been a fantastic biological success story. World population now exceeds 7.5 billion. Complex multi-tiered societies have been formed, amazing new technologies have been created and science has established an understanding of the workings of the universe. We live 3 times longer than our distant ancestors and have massively more stimulating and enjoyable lives. It is true there have been setbacks along the historical path. There have been devastating wars, life-wasting pandemics, famines due to harvest failures and horrendous natural disasters. But thus far humans have recovered from these events and moved on.

Successful communities have to acquire wealth to thrive. We see the force of the desire to both gain and spend money in our everyday existence. Families aspire to acquire nice homes and flash cars. Charities beg us for contributions. Companies compete to sell us ever-more technically advanced goods. The NHS pleads for more money to keep us all healthy.

In this globally interactive world, the rich are accumulating wealth at a rate never seen before. However, there is a limit to the amount of wealth that the Earth can provide.  It appears that the easy years of thriving are now behind us; for every advance there is a setback. Recent forest fires, cyclones, floods, financial disasters, pandemics and revolutions have all taken their toll.

We have reached a pivotal point in human history; it is now apparent that there are environmental limits to the improvement in the human condition. It is no longer possible to pretend that it will be all right on the night, that all the nations of the world will find ways of co-operating and overcoming the evolutionary dangers ahead. Memetic evolutionary forces are too strong. The national, community and individual desire to act in their own self-interest is too difficult to overcome on a global scale. The fact that Trump, Modi, Bolsonaro and many other climate-change deniers have been elected to power is a testament to the challenges ahead.

We are at the start of the end-game, when global wealth will not advance, life expectancy will deteriorate and humanitarian crises will proliferate. As we cope with the coming emergencies, we have big decisions ahead on the type of society we want to become.  The citizens of those nations who believe in liberal humanist values and the need to preserve the environment, need to reach out across national boundaries and work fervently to protect both our values and societies from the traumas that are coming.