Five Worst Inventions

Berlin Wall

A few days ago I was taking my (almost) daily walk along the beach, allowing the water to wash around my feet, ankles, and calves. I listened to the waves lapping upon the shore and the sound of gulls flying overhead. The sounds and sights were pleasant and calming.

As I continued walking and paddling I noticed a man coming towards me holding a mobile phone in front of him, peering at it. When we passed I waved and offered a cheery “good morning.” There was no reaction, he continued on, not seeming to notice his surroundings or my greeting.

I thought to myself, mobile phones have to be one of the worst inventions we humans have ever made. For the rest of my walk I thought about that, and wondered what would be my “top five” worst inventions? What criteria would I use to make such a judgment?

By the end of my walk I had come up with these three criteria for deciding on the “top five” worst inventions of humankind: 1. That the invention had a negative impact upon the earth and our relationship with nature, 2. That the invention served to increase the separation between us and exacerbate our intolerance of one another, and 3. That the invention worsened our mental health and/or our sense of well-being.

With these criteria in mind, here are my “top five” worst inventions. Please note that these are subjective and you may not agree, and may have a different “top five.” Also, each of these inventions may have their benefits, but, as I see it, the harms are greater. What are my “top five”? In no particular order they are:

Fences. The purpose of a fence is to either keep someone or something in or keep someone or something out. Their main purpose is to divide. Archaeological evidence shows that the first fences, often made of earth mounds, stones, or wood, appeared about 10,000 to 5,000 BCE. They arose in conjunction with sedentary agriculture and functioned to keep predators and scavengers out of crops, or to keep domesticated animals in.

Eventually, because of the transition from hunter/gathering to sedentary living, fences became walls around villages, towns, and cities. They were erected to provide security from opposing groups of humans. They also became markers of a new human feature – the privatisation of land. Take a walk in the countryside these days and how many times do you see a sign on a fence that reads, Keep Out, Private Property?

Walls (simply more elaborate fences) are used commonly to separate and divide. In the last 100 years two of the most well known walls have been erected: the Warsaw ghetto wall erected in November 1940 used to imprison 460,000 Jews in an area of just 3.4 km², and; the Berlin Wall, erected in August 1961, which divided the city of Berlin and separated families, friends, and lovers. Even today, walls exist in many cities of the world, and their purpose is to divide also. Most of us do not even think of them – they go under the rubric of gated communities.

Fences serve to separate us. They also serve to maintain our dominance over domesticated animals.

Ploughs. Ploughs are also linked to our domestication of plants and crops. Ploughs allow us to turn a diverse area of land into mono-agriculture, which is dependent upon the addition of pesticides, fungicides, and artificial fertilisers to ensure crop production.

The first ploughs seem to be hand-held plough-like devices used by early Egyptians to clear rocky soil. By the 6^th millennium BCE oxen were being used to pull early ploughs in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley.

As time progressed, ploughs became mechanised and automated. Ploughs have enabled huge multinational agriculture companies to wreak havoc upon the land with mono-cultural cropping.

Ploughs and plowshares are often referred to as the goal of pacifist and peace movements worldwide. The phrase, ‘They shall beat their swords into plowshares’ comes from the Bible (Isaiah 2.4). A statue bearing this sentiment is on display in the United Nations Art Collection.

Yet, as Stephen Jenkinson caustically points out, ‘From the land’s point of view, there is no difference between swords and plows.’ ¹

Guns. The first guns were invented in China around 1000 AD, following the invention there of gunpowder in the ninth century. Guns spread throughout Eurasia during the 14^th century, with the word gun coming to us from the Old Norse word gunnidr meaning war-sword. Hence, guns have been associated with warfare and violence since their inception.

It would be hard to propose a more lethal means of killing another human being (or animal for that matter) than a gun. Since the 14^th century guns have morphed into; arquebuses, muskets, pistols, revolvers, machine guns, cannons, artillery, mortars, howitzers, tanks, and the modern-day drones that enable dissociated and anonymous killing.

The ultimate “gun” today is undoubtedly the nuclear warhead. There are well over 12,000 nuclear warheads in the world today, held by nine different countries. Russia and the USA hold the majority of these with more than 5,000 apiece.

Guns have worsened the divide between us.

Automobiles. I tossed up whether to identify this worst invention as the combustion engine or the automobile (utilising the combustion engine.) However, since there are now many vehicles that do not use the combustion engine as its automotive power, I opted for the automobile.

Whether the motive power is the combustion engine or an electric engine (or a combination of both) the automobile has had a terrible impact upon the environment of the Earth. Automobiles take up huge amounts of space in many of the cities of the world. The amount of land devoted to them (roads, streets, car parks) can be as much as 25% of the city’s area. The pollutants that automobiles emit are well known, but what may not be so well known is the weight of vehicles that contribute to the wear and tear of tyres. Some research suggests that tyre wear contributes 2,000 times more particulate pollution than the exhausts. EVs (electric vehicles) are not immune to this, indeed are worse, as the weight of an EV is significantly greater than that of a combustion engine vehicle.

In 2023 I coined the term autobesity to label the problems of automobiles. The blog is accessible here.

Mobile Phones. The mobile phone has only been available commercially since 1983 yet it has probably been responsible for an increase in social isolation, cyber bullying, teenage anxiety and depression, e-waste, environmental degradation, an increase in electricity usage, and a dumbing down of our cognitive abilities than any other such contraption.

When the inventor of the mobile phone, Martin Cooper, was testing out his invention he walked across a street whilst speaking on his phone. He later admitted to a friend that doing so was ‘probably the most dangerous thing I have ever done in my life.’ He is correct. A study in the US in 2009 found that 5,474 people had been killed because of the use of mobile phones in traffic. Repeated studies show that the use of mobile phones are responsible for 25% – 50% of all police-reported vehicle accidents.

I have covered this topic in greater depth in a blog available here.

The Worst Is Yet To Come

One invention that is currently underway could easily be the worst yet. Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) has the potential to exacerbate all other problems, making them worse than they already are (if that is conceivable.)

The godfather of A.I., Geoffrey Hinton, has been warning us for a few years now. In a recent interview Hinton cautioned that ‘If you want to know what life is like when you’re not the apex intelligence, ask a chicken.’ A short (2 min) excerpt from the interview is here, a longer (21 min) clip is here.

Even though he recognises benefits of AI, Hinton warns that ‘unless we do something soon, we’re near the end.’ A chilling thought. The lessons from the other five worst inventions would suggest there may not be much hope of us doing something soon.  

Next week I will post my "Five Best Inventions" list.

Note:

1. Stephen Jenkinson, Come The Romans, on the CD Dark Roads, Orphan Wisdom, 2020

From Revolution to Arms Exports

"Pots and Pans" Revolution, Iceland

When we think of “revolution” four are likely to come immediately to mind: French, American,
Russian, and Chinese. This is unsurprising, given that these four revolutions receive a lot of attention in our history books and our education system.

They were also violent revolutions.

In France, an estimated 20,000 men and women were killed during the Reign of Terror. In less than five days during the 1792 September massacres at least 1,500 people were killed at the hands of Parisian mobs.

In America it is estimated that 6,800 Americans were killed in the war itself, with a further 17,000 dying from disease because of the war (12,000 of these as Prisoners of War.) On the British side, there were some 24,000 casualties.

The Russian Revolution saw massive deaths, with up to 10 million lives being lost, the majority of these being civilians.

China’s revolution resulted in more than 700,000 combatants killed, and up to 3 million casualties. A further 3 million civilians also were either killed or maimed.

Now, I ask you: which are the four countries in the world who are the largest arms exporters?

If you answered, the U.S.A., Russia, France, and China you would be correct. Between them they account for almost three-quarters of the world’s arms exports. The U.S. leads with 40%, followed by Russia (16%), France (11%), and China (5%.) In 2022, this trade contributed to global military spending of $2.2 trillion.¹

Is it a coincidence that the four major violent revolutions took place in the same countries that now dominate the world trade in armaments?

This question may be unanswerable, although it would seem plausible that a nation founded upon violence would go on to be a large player in the global arms trade.

Furthermore, perhaps it is no coincidence that conflict (both inter-national and intra-national) continues to default to violent means, when most of our history lessons continue to give precedence to the four “big” (violent) revolutions.

Yet, there are dozens of examples, worldwide, of nonviolent revolutions. These get little attention in our history, and hence in our consciousness. Fascinatingly, many of these nonviolent revolutions are known by imaginative and colourful names – attesting to the creativity with which nonviolence lends itself to. To name but a few: the Velvet (Gentle) Revolution in Czechoslovakia (as it was then named,) the Rose Revolution in Georgia, or the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and Orange Revolution in Ukraine (inspired by the Rose Revolution.) The Baltic states ousted their Soviet Union authorities with a Singing Revolution. The most intriguingly named revolution is the Pots and Pans (or Kitchenware) Revolution in Iceland during 2009-11, named after demonstrators banged pots and pans outside the Althing (Icelandic parliament.)

Notes:

1. SIPRI Yearbook 2023, published 11 June 2023. SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) is the world’s leading peace disarmament, arms control, and conflict resolution research institute. It was founded in 1966.

Who won the war?

Artist: Dave Derrett

Who won WW I?  What about WW II?  Who won the Vietnam war?  Who’s winning in Syria, or Afghanistan or Ukraine?

Can anyone honestly answer those questions with a positive assurance that one side or the other totally won?  WW II was ostensibly won by the Allies.  Yet, when approximately 40 million people were killed on the Allied side (with almost 2/3rds of those being civilians) it becomes almost impossible to claim that the Allies won.

What of Vietnam?  First the French, then the Americans and their allies were expelled forcefully from the country with the claim that the Viet Cong won.  But, Vietnam and its people were left devastated.  Even today, forty years after the end of hostilities, hundreds of people are being killed every year by left-over bombs in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

So, who wins wars?  No-one it seems.

There is one group that always wins, though, and they are prepared to back either or any side in a war.  The arms dealers.

The arms trade is big business.  BIG business.  It is estimated that over $1.5 trillion is spent every year on arms.  That is big.

Who are the arms dealers, and where do they come from?  Before answering that, a brief background aside.

The UN has a body called the Security Council whose primary function is the maintenance of international peace and security.  It is comprised of five permanent members (China, France, the US, Russia and the UK) and ten non-permanent members elected for two year terms.

Back to the arms trade.  Just five countries control over 90% of the world’s arms trade.  Guess which?  Correct:  China, France, the US, Russia and the UK.  The five permanent members of the Security Council.  Surely that is a conflict of interest.

Not only is it big business, but the arms trade is also a notoriously corrupt business.  Transparency International considers it to be one of the world’s most corrupt industries, with corruption estimated to be more than $20 billion per year. 

Professor Robert Neild of Cambridge University has written extensively on corruption and has this to say about the arms trade:

“The Cold War arms race enhanced the opportunities for corruption in the arms trade…. It is not just the buccaneering arms salesmen of the USA or the méchant French who have resorted to bribery. The leading arms firms in virtually every major arms-producing country have been implicated, including reputable firms from most respectable countries…. Nor have bribes been paid only to buyers in the Third World….”

Recent Wars

Two recent examples help to show that it is the arms dealers who are the only winners in war.  Syria is presently being torn apart by arms supplied by Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Lybia, Croatia and others and numerous weapons obtained on the black market.

Ukraine has large arms resources, so much so that in 2012 it was the world’s fourth biggest arms exporter.  Ironically, it was only in April this year that Ukraine stopped exporting arms to Russia.  The US is considering sending arms to Ukraine with a number of prominent US politicians calling for the US to arm Ukrainians.  Many of these politicians have links to the arms industry, either directly or through arms companies funding their campaigns.

In both cases it will not be the Syrian people or the Ukrainian people who are the winners.  Over 2 million Syrians have already fled their homeland to neighbouring countries.
 
No one wins wars.  It is time that we realised this and stopped spending money on arms.  All that we are doing is lining the pockets of a corrupt, irresponsible and unnecessary business.

Guns, guns, guns.

The shots that rang out in December 2012 from the Sandy Hook school, and those that were heard earlier that year from inside the theatre in which the Batman movie was playing, echoed around the world.  Gun reform debates were rekindled in the US.  In other parts of the world analyses and opinions were printed in major newspapers.  In Australia much mention has been made of the gun reforms that were instituted after the Port Arthur massacre¹.

So I thought I’d do a little of my own research.  I found the statistics for gun ownership and also for the incidence of homicides where firearms were involved².  I limited the research to the Western nations of Europe plus Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel, Canada and the US so as to, as best I could, be comparing like with like.  I then plotted gun ownership versus firearm homicides for each country in a scatter array.  The graph is shown below.  The y-axis shows the number of firearms per 100 population.  The x-axis shows the number of homicides by firearms per 100,000 population.  The straight line moving diagonally up the graph is the line of best fit. Make of it what you will, however, I have a couple of thoughts.



Firstly, the position of the US is vastly different from that of the other nations.  It has a significantly higher gun ownership level (89 guns for every 100 people living in the US).  It also has the highest incidence of homicide by firearm: 2.97 per 100,000 of the population.  This is almost four times the level of the next highest - Switzerland at 0.77.  Of the 29 nations plotted, 24 have an incidence less than 0.5 per 100,000.  The US firearm homicide rate is six times that of most Western countries!

The rising slope of the “best fit line” suggests to me that there is a positive correlation between gun ownership and the number of homicides by firearm.  In short, the more guns there are, the greater the likelihood of firearm homicides.

I also thought that I might plot the number of incidences of firearm massacres (defined as an incident in which four or more people are killed) versus gun ownership per country.  But, when I looked at the data the graph would be ludicrous.  Graphed over a period of 20 years most countries would be grouped around the x=0, y=0 point and the US would be off the chart.  Go figure!

Decide for yourself, but I for one am totally unconvinced by any of the arguments put forward by gun lobbies, either in the US or any other part of the world.  To mimic one comment from the National Rifle Association – the way to stop bad guys killing people with guns is for good guys to stop the manufacture and sale of guns³.  Guns kill – full stop.

1. Port Arthur (in Tasmania, Australia) was the site of one of the worst mass shootings in the Western world, with 35 people being killed in 1996.  Shortly afterwards, the Australian Prime Minister (John Howard) introduced sweeping gun reform measures including restrictions on the type of gun able to be owned, controls on use and a buy-back of almost one million guns   Prior to 1996 there had been 13 mass shootings in 15 years.  Since then, Australia has witnessed not a single firearm massacre and there is also research indicating that firearm homicides and suicides have reduced significantly (and have not been replaced by homicides using other weapons).
2. The stats on gun ownership came from the Small Arms Survey, an independent research project based in Geneva, Switzerland and are for the 2007 year.  The stats for homicides from firearms come from UNODC (UN Office on Drugs & Crime).
3. After the shooting at Sandy Hook, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre commented that “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”