Season's greetings I'm afraid it's that time of year when I tend to lean towards sloth and hibernation. The looming spectre of full time employment in the new year has also made it even more difficult for me to pry myself from a smoky pile of blankets in front of the XBOX, but here I am.

Thing is, regardless of my lack of physical activity, my brain is always ticking away. Once an idea occurs I have to let it loose somehow to stop my head from bursting ala Fist Of The North Star and this blog is the perfect vent.

Read an interesting piece in the current issue of ADBUSTERS(1) the other day called, 'Drink Fresh Snow', predominantly concerned with the growing distance western society puts between nature and itself. It included a minor piece of historical trivia to illustrate the point but this particular nugget set me off down a totally different track of thought.

The author mentions how, in pre-industrial England, it was the norm for most couples not to marry, and therefore not have kids, until a house became vacant in their village. This situation provided a kind of natural birth control and restrained the growth of the local population.

What occurred to me was that we tend to see the progress we have made since then, in terms of personal freedoms and opportunities, as a 100% positive and the 'old life' as nothing but the tyranny of hardship. Turn on the TV or open a newspaper however, and you'll probably hear about 'the pensions crisis'. Our society is starting to struggle because there are increasingly too many of us.

This was a specific example of a more vague inkling I'd had for a while. Take manners for example, highly valuable and important as far as I'm concerned but seen as stuffy or outdated by many. Well, earlier this year there was a brief debate about the language used in parliament.

Some people suggested that the mandatory formal phrases used in both houses served only to mystify proceedings and further alienate an already apathetic electorate. Pondering this I watched some debate in the Commons and realised that these strange words are much more than empty tradition.

Being required to address your opponents respectfully (eg. the right honourable gentleman) and via an independent authority, (the speaker of the house,) makes it impossible to slip into the kind of quick worded arguments that can become violent.

General manners, it turns out, are a kind of unconscious imposition of a non-violent social structure. The 'magical power' of words can be quite astounding and yet is so often ignored. A personal example of 'feeling the magic' for me can quite often be found when driving a car.

If someone cuts me up for example I might find myself exceedingly angry. Should the cutter-upper make it clear that they recognise and regret their error by apologising however, all that rage instantly evaporates into nothing, as if by magic.

Anyway, there are millions of these examples so let's just get to the heart of this thing. The advances we've made in our society have, without any doubt, brought a great deal of good into our lives. It is clearly nonsense to suggest that we should return our society, and subsequently the average standard of living, to those of over a century ago.

This said however, the unpleasant situations or boring traditions we have so skilfully found our way past, still contain valuable aspects which we have also left behind. Is it really so crazy to think that instead of simply scrapping systems we don't like we should replace them? Apparently it is.

And this is the really strange thing, they're six billion of us each with a unique and, by our own highly vaunted technological standards, super powerful thinking machine. Imagine all the different things a single person can think, the volume and variety of ideas their mind can hold. Now scale that up and try to imagine the sheer capacity for myriad abstract conceptions of our entire race.

This being the case, why is it then that we behave as if we can only deal with one big idea at a time? Looking at how we've behaved over our short history the same situation occurs time and again. We don't like something so we get rid of it completely, losing all its benefits as well as drawbacks and thereby creating as many problems as we solve.

Well I think there is room for a little one, and a whole lot more. We don't have to choose this or that, we can take the best from both and leave the rest. So what the hell are we doing? Well it seems we're just still so obsessed with the whole 'conflict' idea we have to apply the one vs other mindset to everything.

For example, the government is under pressure at the moment over how much cod it should allow to be fished from British waters. Environmentalists insist that cod fishing must, ultimately, stop altogether if the species is to survive. Fishermen, of course, want to be able to feed their kids.

So what does the government do? Choose one side to support? Find a middle ground? No, these look like the only options but they're not, in fact neither of these options are acceptable. The problem here is that the arguments on both sides are absolute.

Sea life must be protected as it is a vital food source. If stopping cod fishing is necessary to do this then it has to happen. Any compromise means that the problem will still occur, it'll just take longer. At the same time the fishermen have to have livelihoods to support their families and communities. Any compromise will lower the standard of life for both.

The answer to this is one that I often wish I had had to hand a few years ago during a conversation about the miner's strike. A peer, and good mate, of mine claimed that the Thatcher government had had no choice in closing the pits as it simply couldn't justify buying British coal when foreign imports were so much cheaper.

The point here is, as I wish I had said at the time, that a government has a responsibility to maintain employment and protect communities as both these contribute so highly towards a stable and peaceful nation. Putting people out of work costs us all in benefits, higher crime and lower health in the inevitably devastated communities.

If for some reason outside circumstances mean that an industry has to be culled, as seems necessary in the current fishing case though perhaps debatable over the miners, the government must find, or create, another industry into which the workforce can move.

Sure this is easy to say but I'm not underestimating the difficulty of putting such principles into practice, the thing is it just seems worth the effort. All it takes is the right idea and we, supposedly, have a system that puts our brightest people in the positions to make these decisions.

If we could finally evolve out of the war bucket and into the sun we could appreciate the lessons of the past, find truly effective solutions to our problems and, best of all, stop perpetually shooting ourselves in the foot at every bastard opportunity!

PS
Just want to wish you all the very best over the holiday period and thank you all, particularly my good blogging friends , for spending your time here this year.

footnote

(1) The current issue of ADBUSTERS is the annual 'Big Ideas' issue, if were only going to buy it once a year this would be the one to get as it's rammed to the gills with valuable info and insight.

A first this week as a former Swine Of The Week returns to appear twice in the League. As a general rule I try to spread the piggy honours as wide a possible but this guy just won't quit. At first glance this former Swine appeared to be mending his ways yesterday as he met with the Home Secretary to put pressure on the government to stop the US abusing terror legislation to circumvent regular extradition procedures.

Seemingly fighting the corner of human rights this guy is surely well on the way to making up for his prior Swinery. When I tell you however, that this week's Swine Of The Week is none other than Sir Digby Jones, again, you'll see why it's necessary to dig a little deeper.

Although this is Digby's second appearance in our League of Swine he actually earned his first position through two separate acts of Swinery in one week. A serial offender he shows his usual class this week through the motivation of his protest.

In order to qualify for human rights you need only be human, regardless of who you are or what you've done these are the basic protections we afford to all members of our species. When Digby visited Santa's retarded cousin yesterday however, these were not the rights he was seeking to uphold.

Acting in his post as Director of the CBI his protest was not about the US misusing their terror powers but specifically about them misusing those powers against suspects in 'white-collar crimes'. Apparently 170 of those extradited to the US under the new powers have been business professionals suspected of things like fraud and deception etc.

"This might be acceptable for the bloke who wraps semtex around his body but not for a 62-year-old executive..." Digby is quoted as saying in The Guardian. A true and outspoken disciple of the capitalist faith Digby can always be relied upon it seems, to deliver the stereotypical cash-junky spiel.

The UK has seen too many terrible rail disasters over the past few years and the result each time is that those in charge of the companies responsible walk away, free and clean. According to Digby and his hugely influential ilk, wearing a suit and tie and earning huge sums of money apparently elevates individuals to some higher status than the rest of us plebs.

The idea that businessmen who have committed crimes should be treated in the same way as terrorists or 'normal' criminals is anathema to the business community and there are even mutterings of a business boycott against the US. "Why should I trade with America or invest in America if I might find myself up on remand with a bunch of rapists?" Digby explained.

Bizarrely enough if the business community were to implement such a protest they would suddenly find themselves sharing a bed with the likes of me who also try to avoid buying US products or services wherever possible, albeit for completely different reasons. Of course it is unlikely that such a situation would arise as we all know that before principle or solidarity the businessman looks to the dollar and the US can still afford to buy a whole lot of consciences.

The parallel has been drawn before but it's both relevant and valid: Who is a greater threat to society? The thug who knocks over a pensioner and takes their purse or the businessman who steals a pension fund and leaves thousands of oldies skint?

If I were to be charged with credit card fraud, ie. a financial crime that doesn't involve any direct trauma, I could find myself on remand alongside rapists. So why should Digby or his friends be treated any differently?

Of course extradition requires the consent of both governments involved, ie. if the British government believes one of it's subjects to be innocent they don't necessarily have to extradite them. Is it really so outrageous then to suggest to businessmen that one way to avoid the US's new powers of extradition is not to break the law! If you've done nothing wrong the US should have no reason to want you, and if they make a mistake the UK government can back you up.

So there we have it, for shamelessly perpetuating the myth that the high priests of capitalism are anything other than human like the rest of us, Sir Digby Jones is this week's Sine Of The Week and becomes the first person ever to appear in our League Of Swine twice. Y'know I sometimes struggle with these posts but I'm starting to suspect that if follow I Digby's public career he could keep me in posts for a good long time!

Been down in the city today, Christmas shopping, ergh! Now I don't actually celebrate Christmas myself, for the same reason I don't celebrate Ramadan for example, but I do like the idea of having a party in the middle of winter to celebrate life's triumph over nature. This is, after all, a tradition far older than any organised religion and the only reason 'Christmas' is at this time of year.

Anyway, caveats in place, I did not enjoy my shopping experience. Seeing as I'll be coming off the dole and into a reasonably well paid office job in the new year I've kind of lost any restraint when it comes to using my credit card. I must admit I'm surprised the thing didn't melt given the beating it took today.

I don't particularly like going into the city when it's busy and, at this time of year, it's always busy. Silently but constantly cursing, I made my zigzag way along the streets, cutting round the clumps of ambling shoppers blissfully unaware that they were getting in people's way.

I hate big business for turning us all into brain dead morons and I hate politics for letting them. Everywhere I turned today, and everything I tried to do, seemed to remind me of how self destructively stupid we are as a society. Greed, ignorance and outright idiocy abound and there's just no escape.

Finally staggering out of the supermarket(1), my last stop, I lugged my load over the road to wait for a bus home. It was at this point that my day changed. The only other people at the stop were two women, one middle aged, one elderly. From their conversation it was clear that they had never met before but were just two strangers quite happily just passing the time of day waiting for the bus.

An elderly Asian guy moved slowly into the shelter with his own collection of shopping bags and, seeing him coming, I moved away from the bench to let him sit down. He smiled his thanks and we all continued to wait.

Eventually the bus came and the casual crowd that had gathered melted into an orderly line. As if by telepathic agreement the elderly shoppers were helped onto the bus first before the rest of us filed on. I got one of the last seats and buried myself under a weight of shopping, trying not to take up any more room than strictly necessary.

At this point another elderly Asian guy, this time with a white stick, boarded the bus. There were no seats left and I was just gearing myself up to heft myself and my shopping out into the aisle when a young black girl gave up her seat.

Now these things might just seem like everyday happenings, and they are, but they were significant to me. I'd spent most of the day cursing the greed and selfishness of our society but right then, as the bus pulled away, I was thinking to myself, 'this is civilisation, this is something to be proud of.'

Within the tiny microcosm described above was a wide variety of age, race and economic background. We were all total strangers with plenty of popular reasons not to trust each other and yet, without a word being spoken, we organised ourselves so that the lives of the most vulnerable among us were made easier and we all got where we wanted to go with ease and in peace.

It's so easy to forget but there is something else going on out there besides religion, politics and business. Our actions were not driven by spiritual or legal deterrents, or even financial incentives, so what was going on?

Earlier this year I read a book by renowned economist Francis Fukuyama entitled 'State Building'. It was an interesting read that regularly made my blood boil as, just like all economists, the guy relentlessly tries to fit the world into his theory instead of the other way around.

One thing that stuck in my mind were the repeated references to 'norms'. These were habitual tendencies that could not be quantified yet impacted significantly on the bottom line. For example pride in your work, the desire to do a job well, as opposed to just doing the bare minimum required, was a very valuable norm.

These norms could not be definitively measured and certainly couldn't be introduced where they did not already exist. In fact, globally, norms were one of the few things that could not be homogenised, and seemed particular to the local culture.

Religion, politics and business are massively dominant in our society and it's easy to believe that between them these forces wield utter control over every aspect of our lives. Convincing us of this has been at the core of the success of all three and is indeed an impressive achievement because it's not true.

There is something else out there, and in here, and all around all of us. Call it a non-quantifiable norm if you like, I prefer to file it under human nature. We all have it in us to live peacefully and get on with one another, we've evolved that way and for a very good reason:

Helping each other out is the only way we can ultimately survive, anything else is just smoke, mirrors and bullshit.

footnote

(1) Yes I shop at Morrison's, one of the 'big four' but I'm not proud of it. In my defence I buy as much stuff as I can from local independent stores and only get bits and pieces they don't do at the supermarket. It's no good, the excuses don't cut it do they? I feel dirty.

Was talking about evolution a couple of days back and, having had a little more time to ferment, the idea has born further fruit. As backwards as that metaphor is the more recent developments consider the future implications and possibilities within the ideas outlined in the post before last.

To recap the two main points, first there was the suggestion that the laws of natural selection and evolution can be applied to ideas and in particular those linked to social structure. The move from hunter/gatherers to farmers around 6,000 years ago was cited as being the start of a lifestyle conflict that continues today.

The second point referred to the significance of our awareness of natural selection. Once we realise the nature of the system working all around us we have a choice of how and if to participate. The ways in which we exercise this choice are the focus of this next ponderous instalment.

Considering the more familiar physical evolution first of all. We could say we've been interfering with the evolution of various plants, animals and ecosystems since even before the ancient social transition mentioned above. From the gradual domestication of wild animals through to selecting which seeds to plant, we've been working within nature's own systems to tailor our environment to our tastes.

At this point however, it's worth remembering one of the hideously pervasive myths generally attributable to religion, namely that humankind is somehow distinct or above the rest of the planet. With this fallacy in mind it becomes clear that the 'interfering' outlined above is actually nothing of the sort. We have simply been acting as part of the overall system, as tools of nature if you like.

So inherent to us has this position of unconscious cogs in the greater machine become that we have struggled to adapt as, in the space of just a few generations, our impact capability has rocketed. Although we now have the ability to lay waste to the entire planet through the simple combination of a moron's finger and a big red button, we still wander about assuming that the big wide world can absorb all that we do.

An example of this change is the genetic modification of crops. As someone quite rightly pointed out to me recently, we've been doing this for millennia by choosing which seeds to plant etc. so surely the latest GM technology is just an extension of this. In fact Monsanto and the like are just exercising the choice described above aren't they?

There is a subtle but important difference here however. The creation of a new type of plant through the old system would take generations of crops. This timescale ensures that the new species and its environment are kept in sync. The sudden creation and introduction of a species developed in isolation however, is 100% guaranteed to bring with it unforeseen and unwanted repercussions.(1)

The problem with exercising our conscious choice when it comes to physical evolution is that the systems around us are so infinitely complex that we are just not capable of comprehending the full consequences of our actions. What understanding we do have can only be safely applied if we work with these systems, rather than subverting them in the name of some non-existent shortcut.(2)

What of the other evolving systems however? What of the ideas and lifestyles that have competed for survival throughout our history, the great split between construction and destruction etc. Well now this is a very different situation.

For a start it's hard to see how one 'side' or 'species of thought' can ultimately prevail. As mentioned in the post before last, people do not fall neatly onto either side of the split but in fact find themselves on both sides depending on the specific issue at hand. The split itself is in fact present in each individual.

So is it utterly hopeless to think that we can have any real choice about the evolution of our ideas and social structures? Are we stuck with the fighter/farmer split for all eternity? Well thanks to another significant difference between the physical and mental evolutionary systems the answer is no.

When considering the physical we had to remember that humanity is but small part of the far larger system. This was the limiting factor that should have prevented us from introducing new and alien forms of life into the environment.

The mental evolutionary system now being considered however, is entirely based inside human heads and has come about solely through the creation of ideas that, until communicated, were new and alien. Just as physical evolution relies on nature to throw up mutations, which spark competition and thereby evolution, our system relies on individuals coming up with fresh ideas.

There are currently about six billion of us ambling about on our homely little rock and each of us has a unique brain capable of creating unique ideas. The answer to the apparent stalemate of a 6,000 year old social division will pop into someone's head in the form of a new idea, in fact it probably already has several times.

So we absolutely do have a choice when it comes to this system and we can take control without risking apocalyptic consequences. The creation, exploration and communication of new ideas is the key to our progression.

Now it may seem naive and idealistic to insist that the world tomorrow could be infinitely better than today, but when you consider that the world tomorrow is guaranteed to be different one way or another maybe it's not so crazy. The more human beings in a position to be able to think(3) the better our chances of finding solutions to our problems, simple as.

footnotes

(1) Predictions both abundant and ignored have recently come true as the first strains of GM weeds have been confirmed. Desired crops were GM to make them more resistant to pests and pesticides but, obviously, they cross pollinated with other plants and now we have weeds that are resistant to weed killer. Doh!

(2) Objections such as these were steamrolled into the dirt during the 'debate' over licensing GM research as the companies involved waved pictures of starving kids in our faces. GM technology must be allowed to progress, they insisted from their self righteous sop boxes, because it will give us the ability to develop super crops with which we can end world hunger.

These noble intentions promptly vanished of course once the legal constraints were overcome. After all there is no profit to be made from feeding the world. Sun dried tomatoes that can be transported without bruising and stay fresh on the shelf longer however, are just the thing for cornering a bit more of the western middle class's money.

(3) Being in a position to think requires a variety of circumstance. For a start people cannot explore abstract ideas if they're hungry or cold or in fear of their lives. Secondly people have to be furnished, preferably as children, with the skills of critical analysis, ie. the ability to structure their thoughts.

Finally their social environment has to welcome and encourage thought as a valuable pastime and educate them as to past achievements that can inspire or even be built upon. Just like Newton, we will only reach beyond our limits by standing on the shoulders of giants.

In his recent Nobel acceptance speech Harold Pinter spoke at length about the US and while not everything he said was negative, the compliments will probably not be well received. Besides their rampant global crime spree of the last half century or so, Pinter points out that the US has done exceptionally well at managing its image throughout.

Having got away unchallenged with so much for so long we are now to point where, as Pinter describes so well, the US "...no longer sees any point in being reticent or devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent..."

This assessment has been show to be painfully accurate during the re-emergence of the 'extraordinary rendition' issue that has once more reared its ugly head. Nineteen jets(1) either owned or chartered by the CIA have used UK facilities apparently in the process of moving 'suspects in custody', or rather kidnapped civilians, from one country to another to facilitate torture.

Now Condoleezza Rice's defence of the practice focussed on three main points. Firstly she absolutely denies that the US uses torture, but does so in the context of the US's own definition of the word torture which excludes things like half drowning people for example. So what she's saying is that she wouldn't call what's happening to these guys torture even though she knows full well the rest of us would.

Secondly there's the defence of, 'just fuck off!' Not only has the practice been standard policy for ages, the governments of the European countries involved have all been in the know. Also, even if it is a bit dodgy, she gives us her word that the practice has saved European lives so we should quit the bitching and be grateful I guess.

Finally there's the argument that extraordinary rendition is necessary, 'in instances where local governments did not have the capacity to prosecute a terror suspect, or in cases where Al-Qaeda members were operating far from an operational justice system'.

From a woman who's cited as a worldly wise academic these are some pretty lame arguments, it really is as if they just don't care. The slightest application of considered thought is enough for all three points to crumble away, watch:

Of course they're flying these guys around to have them tortured, what other possible reason could they have for going to such effort? If the questioning is to be up to acceptable standards why not just take them to the US? This is surely the most obvious flaw and they choose to counter it with a semantic technicality.

The ends justify the means huh? Nope, that's as weak as it is old. Finally, if what Condi says is true, then how come guys like Maher Arar are being kidnapped from New York, JFK airport to be precise, and flown to Syria? Is she trying to tell us that Syria has a better capacity to prosecute or perhaps a more operational justice system than the US?

The truth is they really don't give a monkeys and clearly resent what lip service they do have to pay to the international community. Had a minor discussion with some peeps a few posts back about regime change. I asked how we could go about removing dangerous regimes without slaughtering the people they oppress and two solutions were offered.

One was assassination about which I had some qualms but, regardless of those, is not appropriate here. If Bush was shot through the head he'd become a martyr and the right wing backlash would be even worse. That assumes that a direct shot to the head would kill him, I'm not convinced there's much in there to damage to be honest.

The other suggestion was that the only way for a country to be freed was by a rising up from within. In other circumstances my concern would be the moral problem of leaving people to be oppressed but in this case it seems the only way.

No amount of foreign pressure is ever going to change the US, they are a nation built and weaned on bloody warfare, conflict and pressure are their elements. Our only hope is that the new silent majority, that half of the US that didn't vote for Bush, the half that we know must be there and yet never hear anything from.

So you, the US left, Democrats, Independents, radicals, whatever, where the hell are you guys? You're the only ones who can get your runaway wreck of a country under control and if you don't we're all in the shit. The darkest hours of the eighties are starting to echo, nuclear proliferation, space based weaponry, it's coming back and this time they'll go all the way, unless you guys do something!

Without a sudden and fundamental revolution among the left of the US there is only a single chance left for the world and it's not something I'd be prepared to put any money on. There is a theory you see, that if US citizens keep gaining weight at their current rate then eventually the whole middle section of the North American continent may sink into the sea...

footnote

(1) And here are their registration numbers, anyone who has the opportunity to notice jet registration numbers keep your eyes peeled:
N129QS, N368AG, N368CE, N478GS, N829MG, N85VM, N970SJ, N8068V, N379P, N313P, N4476S, N8183J, N2189M, N173S, N4009L, N187D, N196D, N4466A, N6161Q,

Had an interesting idea the other day quite by accident. I was thinking about the pervasive polarised view of the world, ie. left/right, art/science, modern/traditional etc etc yawn. Now I've written in the past about how dangerously limiting this worldview can be, an example of the 'cushion'(1) mentioned in Harold Pinter's recent and excellent Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

The greatest danger of this system is that it does actually seem to be partially based in reality and subsequently people tend to feel instinctively that it is accurate, which in turn blinds them to the simplifications. The truth is that the much reported split that has existed in the US since before it's birth can be seen in one form or another throughout mankind.

Of course individuals will find themselves on both sides of the split depending on the specific issue being considered, and this is key point missed by polarisation. Put in perspective however, as society-wide generalisations, the two-way split is worthy of investigation, especially when you've had some random gold dart of an idea land in your brain that seems to explain the whole thing.

But wait, let's consider the split in a little more detail first. It can be thought of through specific opposing tendencies, eg:

trust in thought vs trust in action

co-operation vs competition

understanding vs winning

Now both sides have their pros and cons but I've always found myself in the left, (the above arrangement is not coincidental,) category. I must admit at this point that I have often thought this category of behaviour to be more advanced, in terms of social evolution, than the right.

I immediately feel uncomfortable with that suggestion, but hang on, I'm going somewhere. It is of course tempting to say that whatever system you aspire to is the direction intended for mankind and that all others are backward ignorance. With this in mind the above assumption needs to be justified with decent objective reasoning.

My picture of our evolution is the same, I would guess, as most people's. We started out as animals and gradually changed into creatures more upright and aware. A lack of forward planning and an instinctive reliance on violence are characteristics, I would say, of both animals and the right hand category above.

I guess this still seems pretty arrogant but at least I'm not alone in my snobbery. Every major religion in the world preaches a path to enlightenment or salvation that requires the follower to leave violence and hatred behind and embrace peace and kindness. Widespread human opinion over the last few millennia seems to point the arrow of progress firmly from violence to peace.

Anyway, I was sitting downstairs having a little smoke and considering the stereotypes that abound amid the practice of polarisation. I was thinking of a soldier as being representative of the right, not simply a professional soldier, but more a symbolic warrior embodying the creed of strength and action.

Turning my attention to his opposite number I found myself initially a little stumped until another figure appeared through the smoke, a farmer. Creating not destroying, feeding not killing, working with nature not against it, the more I considered him, the more the farmer seemed to fit just right as the soldier's reflection.

This was not the golden dart but we're getting close. Now until about 6,000 years ago we were hunter gatherers, like chimps for example. We'd wander about, eating what was to hand and occasionally hunting something for a bit of meat. Then, archaeologists tell us, we started to settle, to plant as well as pick, and agriculture was born. The thing is that while this is a lovely and simple story it is clearly not complete. The devil is, as they say, in the detail, so maybe my flash of inspiration, now to be revealed, has a demonic tint.

OK, here we go: Archaeologists base their ideas of life millennia ago solely on what they dig up. Now clearly the vast majority of remains are either destroyed over time or become inaccessible, ie. we can't dig up every single human who lived six millennia ago.

While some of us started farming all that time ago, we certainly didn't all make the switch simultaneously. It's probably fair to say that there was a period of at least a few generations wherein farmers and hunter gatherers lived in the same areas.

The HGs will surely have had ancient animal social structures based around physical prowess, while the farmers will have started to learn patience and forward thinking. Human society split right here, around 4,000 BC, and it's still split today!

Many of us talk on a regular basis about how small we are and point out how ridiculous our assumptions of dominance are. Even taking such a view of humanity however, it is hard to get your head round the idea that many of the problems we see around us today are the result of a social process that began over six millennia ago.

It's a bit of a mindfuck I know but even the most rudimentary understanding of natural selection supports this idea in two important ways. Firstly think of the timescales over which evolution functions, we're talking of the order 10-100 million years. Six lousy millennia is nothing on a timescale like this.

Secondly, we are quite comfortable with the idea of natural selection and the subsequent evolution of physical creatures, why not apply this to social drives as well? Seen in this context the split is simply to different 'species' of idea still in the process of competition.

Now it is in the interests of those currently in power, both political and economic, to convince us that we are the end product of humankind, that we have arrived. There is, obviously when you think about it, no reason for this to be the case. We're still getting a little bit taller every year(2) and if we're not done changing physically why should we be done changing mentally or spiritually?

The instinctive assumption here seems to be to wonder where things are headed, after all if we've identified a trend we should be able to predict its direction. The problem with this of course is that once we become aware of the situation we can choose how or whether to participate. Knowledge, for which we're all born with an instinctive thirst, always carries with it the responsibility of choice.

So that's it, the thought that occurred. Not sure how valuable you'll find it but I'm hoping to tie it in to some other thoughts about social development soon so maybe it'll prove more useful in the future. Tell you what though, if I could find someone to pay me sacks of cash for thinking up this bullshit I'd happily spend the rest of my life utterly lost in thought.

footnotes

(1) Pinter was referring specifically to the US government communicating with it's own people, he said: "The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable."

(2) The fact is that, overall and on average, people find height attractive so taller people breed that little more. This is one of the only examples of traditional natural selection left in our society today.

Watched Luc Besson's 'The Fifth Element' last night, for about the millionth time, and found it's still a great film, visually sumptuous with joyful direction. One of the earlier scenes of a futuristic New York City set me thinking with it's super skyscrapers and layers quite literally upon layers of flying traffic.

While TFE is a particularly novel piece of cinema in many ways, this picture of the future is a fairly standard one. For what seems like forever now, technology has been advancing and changing/improving, depending on your view, our western lives in one direction.

It is understandable then that when we envision what lies ahead we simply extrapolate the trend we find ourselves in off into the future. We've seen progress in the form of more people being able to own and run cars for example, so it's no great leap to assume that, at progress continues, in the future everyone will have a car.

This theory is flawed however as it based on three pretty shaky assumptions. Firstly, our current technologies have not been advancing 'forever'. In fact our entire way of life has really only just been born in the grand scheme of things.

We've been farming for about 6,000 years, for example, now that is a reasonably established practice. Our current practice of mass production and computer technology on the other hand have only clocked up a few decades making them practically newborn. Our problem is that once something has outlived a few generations of people we tend to see it as having been that way forever.

The significance of this becomes clear when we start to extrapolate. Extrapolation can be a risky business at the best of times and to maintain some degree of validity it is important that the trend being stretched off into the future is as stable and long running as possible. Otherwise we run the risk of basing our predictions of what's to come on a temporary blip.

The second problem is the assumption that 'progress' is a smooth and linear process. This is clearly not the case and the reality of technological progress can be demonstrated by considering the advancement of music technology in what I've called the Sawtooth Process:

Ignoring the red line for the moment, the first steep part can be thought of as the invention of the vinyl record, a sudden leap forward. After the initial discovery there is a period of slower progress, the next shallower part of the line, where vinyl technology is gradually improved.

This reaches a limit however, whereat vinyl simply cannot get any better. At this point there is another leap when magnetic tape is invented, bringing with it a sudden advance in both sound quality and practical ease of use. Again the quality of magnetic tapes is then slowly improved upon for a while until the invention of CDs and on and on.

It is worth noting that all these technologies are driven by a constant desire to listen to music, ie. we're not really changing in ourselves. It's also interesting to recognise that, in their own time, each type of technology was thought to be the be all and end all of sound reproduction.

This is the problem of losing perspective as outlined above. When we fall into thinking that we've reached the best we can, eg. if that's what we'd thought about vinyl at the time, then when we extrapolate forward, the red line, we find our predictions become further and further off course as time goes on.

So we've rewritten the past and misunderstood the present what's the third flaw? Well amazingly it concerns the future. As mentioned above we have seen our western lives developing in one direction for a short while.

The simple fact is that there is just not enough stuff to go round, it is physically impossible for the human race to all share in the lifestyle we consider the status quo. In fact for every human being to enjoy the average lifestyle of a US citizen, for example, we would need five more planet earths.

Simply put, the picture of human achievement and potential we have been spoon fed all our lives is an out and out con that crumbles under the slightest inspection. The only explanation for the widespread success of such an illusion is that it is a particularly comfortable illusion to live within.

There is much talk, though little action, at the moment concerning industry and the environment. Onn one side of this debate there are still many who would have us believe, though they probably honestly believe it themselves, that our short lived tradition of paying each other to wreck stuff can continue ad infinitum.

The advancement of technology will continue and find solutions to all our problems, life will go on just as it is except getting a little bit better every day. Increasing numbers of people however, are beginning to realise that this is just nonsense.

Things cannot continue like this, our present systems are fast approaching their own inherent limitations, just like every other system we've every developed. Over the next few years/decades we need to find the next steep edge in our approach to living on this planet.

We need some fresh thinking, a new approach that will deliver the same change in quality of life that tape to CD did in quality of sound. Unfortunately the more of us that are caught up in the unsustainable and self indulgent fantasy of modern living the less likely this is to happen.

Of course the benefit of finding that next all changing tooth on the saw is the thrill of the unknown. A future where everything's the same only a bit shinier is surely so safe as to be dull, dull, dull. How much more exciting is the thought of a future containing the currently unimaginable?

Ginger troll and full time Home Office apologist Hazel Blears(1) finally takes her long deserved place in our League of Swine this week. As you may have gathered I have a congenital dislike for this woman and no-one is more likely to get me shouting at the TV.

Last year the Court of Appeal, considering a case brought by eight inmates in our Belmarsh Gulag, decided that the state had no obligation to investigate how evidence was produced. Basically this meant that as long as our Special Immigration Appeals Commission only suspected that the evidence before them may have come from torture they could use it to lock people up as they saw fit.

Many of us hold our highest institutions in pretty low regard, particularly when it comes to upholding the common sense and rationality that can be found in the real world outside the political one. It was especially nice then, when yesterday the law lords(2), ie. about as high as you can get in British law, decided that this was all bullshit.

Now the first government response I saw to the ruling was the Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister of State and MP for Salford, saying how pleased the government were with the ruling and the clarity it brought to the situation.

Now what really boils my blood about this woman is that, in a time where our government and the Home Office in particular are becoming increasingly and dangerously authoritarian, she's always out there in front of some camera or another trying to make it all sound perfectly reasonable.

I truly believe that had the law lords ruled that, in their carefully considered opinion, Hazel Blears should be taken to the street and buggered with a red hot poker, she would still have chirped on about what a great result this was for the government and how reasonable her and her colleagues were.

As usual our government distracts us by subtly changing the question. They would like us to think that is about whether we should torture people. If this were the question then their self righteously vehement answer of NO would be right and, more importantly, popular.

The actual question of course, is do we have a responsibility to GUARANTEE that we are not benefiting from, and thereby or otherwise encouraging or facilitating the practice of torture? Now I saw yes and the law lords agree, as do, I would guess, a lot of people. The government, judging by their behaviour anyway, apparently do not, suggesting that perhaps 'torture evidence' is too important a source of information to them.

I remember baring my teeth at Hazel Blears a while ago when she tried to defend the 'memos of assurance' the government would seek from certain countries that individuals deported there would not be tortured. What really sickened me about this tissue thin attempt to placate the opposed, was my experience of being on the dole.

The British government currently, though not for much longer, pay my rent, council tax and give me about £50 a week. In order to qualify for this I had to sign various statements and agreements to the effect that I was eligible for the benefits and looking for work.

This same government puts a great deal of time, effort and money into checking that these agreements are upheld, with detection of benefit fraud a recent hot topic. My point here is that our government is prepared to go much further to ensure I'm not cheating them out of £50 a week than they are to protect a human life.

These issues and the terrible shadows the cast upon our society, seem to have been coming thicker and faster as time goes on and through it all there's that damn woman, insisting that everything is calm and reasonable and that the government really does care and absolutely knows best.

So Hazel Blears, Minister of State and MP for Salford, you are this week's Swine Of The Week for your persistent efforts to convince us that it is in our own interests to set ourselves on fire or other such gibberish to that effect. We're not all as stupid as you look.

footnote

(1) If you want to know more about Hazel Blears you can read her biog on the parliament website: http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=4&lev2=37&menu=45&biog=y&id=25738
or on her very own website: http://www.hazelblears.labour.co.uk/
and if you fancy dropping her a line: http://www.locata.co.uk/commons/mail.asp?cons_id=386

(2) Specifically: Lord Bingham of Cornwall, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Lord Hope of Craighead

Feeling rough as a badger's arse today so I'll be keeping this one short. I've had a couple of conversations recently which have both strayed into the nature of effective communication. Firstly I've finally been back to my GP and taken the plunge into depression counselling, hopefully avoided the need for meds in the future.

Secondly, having lived here for a couple of years or more, recently met one of my close neighbours who's an anarchist and a freelance translator. In both situations we discussed communicating and I was reminded of a point I've often made in this blog, replying to a comment the other day for example.

If we wish to communicate effectively with a large number of people it is not sufficient for our arguments to be simply valid and well founded. The method of presentation is also key, to communicate we must also inspire and stimulate.

There are endless examples of such a need, including issues vital to the state of our society. How many political parties and religions do you hear about who are desperately searching for ways to 'reconnect' with the public. Getting people interested and involved in our political system is a persistent and, so far insurmountable challenge, while ignorance generally is at the root of so much suffering.

How can we engage with the masses? It is clearly possible, the retail, service and entertainment industries for example, manage to get their own messages across very successfully. We are faced with the quandary that has beaten our most influential grey faced men beyond memory, how do we make politics fun or religion cool?

Well I really don't feel up to trying to solve this particular riddle for the ages right now but, suffering on the sofa earlier today, another dimension to the problem did occur to me. Watching music videos on TV can be a nice way to ease into the day but I could find very little to satisfy today. The Hendrix riffs currently bouncing about on the other hand are doing me the power of good.

The one video I found that was definitely worth watching was 'Imagine' by John Lennon. Now it's a song I love, partly because it sounds good, but also because the lyrics are practically a manifesto for my own personal beliefs.

While watching the great man and his weird little missus I thought myself, however, that Lennon seems to have written that song to get people to think outside their own little box for a minute or two. No great demands for sweeping reforms, just a simple suggestion to consider life without the walls we see as eternal.

Now while 'Imagine' was recently voted the best pop song of all time, by some spurious poll or other, and is clearly exceedingly well known and popular, has it achieved its apparent purpose? Unfortunately, probably not. Just as any word will dissolve into a meaningless and abstract collection of lines if looked at a sufficient number of times, the sheer popularity of this particular Lennon masterpiece has rendered it mute.

So how remains as important as what when it comes to getting a point across but we must now also be aware that simple mass exposure is not mass communication. In fact if the how is too successful it will actually overshadow the what. If were to add porn to this blog for example, I may well attract larger numbers of visitors, but would that mean a correspondingly larger number of actual readers? Obviously not.

This observation may at first appear to make an impossible problem even harder to solve. In fact, it serves only to define the delicate balance that needs to be struck and, in the long run, the more accurate the picture of the desired end product, the more likely it is to be achieved.

A delicate balance seems to accurately describe the state of most contentious issues around today. With this in mind it is increasingly hard to see how we are going to get much further with the sledgehammer shaped ideas most of us insist upon relying on.

So David Cameron is the new leader of the Conservative Party, not a great shock, taking 134,446 votes and demolishing David Davies' 64,398. Now I must admit that, as someone who hopes never to see the Tories in power again, the election of Davies would have suited me just fine. Cameron, on the other hand, is a worry for various reasons.

For a long time I've been pondering the potential future Tory threat, not content to just assume they could never make it back from the brink. In my earlier considerations I described what I saw as the their only way back, namely a young and telegenic leader who can reinvent the party while carrying the old guard with him.

I had always pictured Michael Portillo in this role as he is one of those terrifying Conservative MPs, like Ken Clarke or Boris Johnson, who I can't help but warm to. As it happens Cameron is possibly even better placed than Portillo was a few years ago.

He has been elected under a 'new broom' flag, presenting the image of the fresh faced moderniser ready to bring his party into the 21st century and finally leave Thatcher’s shadow. The facts that Cameron is an old Etonian and worked under Norman Lamont around Black Wednesday, making him about as old school as they come, is a testament to how far a candidate’s image can be skewed during a campaign. Poor old born-to-a-single-mother-on-a-council-estate-Davies must be seething.

These facts also provide Cameron, however, with some solid credentials for the blue rinse brigade. His whole operation so far has been to keep a foot in both camps of the terminally split Conservative movement. He has managed this very well so far, flirting with the hard core and the modernisers, making each believe that they are his true love while he’s just keeping the other happy for everyone’s sake.

Of course the main way he’s achieved this impressive feat is by not actually having any specific policies. Now that the battle is over however, the war begins and Cameron is going to have to commit to something pretty soon. As soon as he does of course, each policy will be seen as a declaration of loyalty to one end of his party or the other.

In the normal run of things this may be enough to trip the ‘youngster’ up and the centre-shuffle-right-turn quickstep would claim yet another victim. Just like William Hague he’d start off trying to creep into the centre ground until some controversy sends him fleeing back to the right.

The difference now is all about the timing. It seems likely that the Conservatives have finally reached the point where a sufficient number of members recognise that they need to take some risks and make some changes in order to get elected again. This may mean that Cameron is but a little more slack than Hague or IDS.

The other aspect of his advantage can be seen in the worry lines carved daily onto Gordon Brown’s brow. It is looking more and more like Blair would be quite happy for the New Labour project to fall apart after his departure. Obviously this would leave history to assume that he was the sole driving force behind the whole thing.

Whatever the reasons, Brown is looking increasingly weak and isolated and the image of him as Blair’s stronger and more principled replacement is fading fast. This means Cameron will not face the same New Labour behemoth that gleefully crushed the last four Conservative leaders.

Looking back the last two major swings in British politics followed a very similar pattern. The country lost patience with the incumbent party while at the same time the opposition were completely reinvented, much to the dismay of their old school, by someone young and dynamic.

Thatcher fundamentally shifted the root ideals of Conservatism just as Blair did with Labour and both were rewarded with significant terms of office. With the grumbling about the fallen hopes of New Labour increasing towards a dull roar Cameron now has a prime opportunity to take the Tories back to power.

Of course our next general election is years away and much can happen in that time. It’s also worth noting that while Thatcher and Blair both strayed wildly from their respective parties traditions, what they ultimately came up with was actually very similar.(1)

This suggests that even if Cameron did follow suit and rereinvent the Conservatives, things would not necessarily change that much. It says much about a system when the fully possible scope is a choice between two, now almost identical parties. Is this just us?

Well over the next few years the long established leaders of the US, France and Italy will all be changing and with the parties and coalitions themselves shifting and morphing there are just too many variables. This great whirlwind of vast and wide reaching change could be an opportunity to tackle the problems so often debated on here and among open minded souls everywhere.

After all democracy is supposed to put us the people in charge and elections are where we wield that power. Why is it then my gut tells me that even after all this upheaval the new faces of western politics will not take us anywhere new, except maybe slightly deeper into our own shit?

footnote

(1) I’d say these were both instances of economics starting to subvert politics, but that’s another post in itself.

I have written at length in the past detailing my fascination with human communication. Our sophisticated systems of spoken and then written language are by far the most significant advances our species ever made and have allowed us to develop at an ever quickening pace.

Of course all animals communicate with one another in some form and we certainly did before developing our much vaunted comms systems. Now for all the praise I am willing to heap upon our linguistic achievements this earlier form of information transfer is still worth consideration.

I communicate with my cat on a daily basis who, for all that she has an infinite numbers of ways to create mess and annoy, cannot read or understand the spoken word. Through tone of voice and body language however, I can make her understand when something's cool and when it isn't, not that she always takes any notice.

Do I have some super intelligent feline under my roof? Definitely not, I love her but she's not the sharpest tool in the box. No, her comms abilities are simply the aforementioned 'basic' skills that we all shared at some point in the distant past. Now it seems to me that one negative impact of our wondrous comms systems is that they work so effectively that we have forgotten the basics we started with.

The so-called 'magic' undertaken by fortune tellers, magicians and conmen alike is, I am now convinced, simply the rare re-emergence of these skills, ie. relearning how to read the signals we are all sending out all the time. To most of us the way someone walks or holds themselves, the flicker of an eyelid or the twitch of a finger, are insignificant details, rendered invisible by their apparent lack of use.

So what? Speech and writing are so shit hot at communicating info who cares if we have lost the skills we started with? Well perhaps we all should. This situation runs deeper than forgetting how to read someone's posture. We have become so used to having things spelled out for us with no room for equivocation that we seem to have forgotten even how to recognise a non verbal/written communication.

For every second of our lives all of us are in a constant state of conversation with our own bodies. A wide variety of nerves form our sense and these whisper in our minds perpetually, informing us of what's happening to our bodies inside and out.

A headache, for example, is your body telling you that your current situation is bad for your head. Of course it's difficult to be specific with such a means of communication, is your body telling you that you need water? Maybe you need to go somewhere quieter and darker, or maybe you just need glasses. A definite answer is not delivered to you on plate, in the manner to which we have all become accustomed, but instead this message requires some thought on your part to decipher.

Having long since lost the art of reading such signs how do we now respond to such things? A headache holds no information for the modern human, it is just a senseless obstacle to everyday life. We just pop painkillers that cannot rehydrate us, can’t lessen the stress on our eyes and ears or change the shape of our corneas so as to avoid eye strain. All these pills do is silence the warning bells.

Reading in the paper about a couple of women who lost vast amounts of weight through surgery, or the discovery of a new appetite-suppressing hormone, I suddenly recognise the tendrils of this ignorant trend winding throughout our lives. That flab hanging off you is a message from your body, it’s a sternly written letter warning you that your misuse of the form is lowering efficiency and life expectancy.

The increasing levels of mental health problems, lust for oblivion and outbursts of violence are all desperate pleas from our animal forms, our physical shells are screaming at us to change our ways. The lives we have built for ourselves so very recently are simply not compatible with a machine that has spent the vast, vast majority of its existence running about in the open air and only eating what its immediate environment provided.

So what’s the answer, ban writing and talking? Cast aside these systems that ha