Can We Vote For The President Too?

This post was first published four years ago, six months before the election that saw Donald Trump become the forty-fifth president of the United States.  With the US elections coming up at the end of this year, it seems timely to re-post it.

One of the basic tenets of community development is that those affected by a decision should also be involved in making that  decision.  For many people around the world one of the decisions that most affects them is the decision as to who becomes President of the USA.  Shouldn’t we have a vote in who becomes President of the most powerful, dominant nation on Earth?

Remember Henry Kissinger?  He was the Secretary of State for Presidents Nixon and Ford.  In 1999 he spoke at Trinity College in Dublin on “Globalisation and World Order.”  In that speech he made a remarkable, candid admission that

“… globalisation is really another name for the dominant role of the US.”

Think about it.  Of the ten largest foodstuffs companies in the world, 6 of them are US companies: Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kellogg, Mars, Mendelez, and PepsiCo.  If it’s fast food we are after, then the top 10 companies are all US companies.  I probably don’t even need to name them, their logos and advertising hoardings are in just about every town and city in the world.  Headed up by McDonalds, the list includes KFC, Subway, Pizza Hut, Starbucks and Burger King.

When we go to the movies, what do we see?  The 100 top grossing films in 2015 were all made by US companies.  Musically it is not much different.  The Big Three music companies make up over 80% of the world’s market in the recording (and our listening) sector.  And those three are based – you guessed it – in the US.

Who is it that lets us know the news?  US companies.  The four largest news corporations are all US based: Comcast, Walt Disney, 21st Century Fox, and Time Warner.  And if we think we can bypass such giants of news and head for the Internet, then think of which companies largely control the content on that: Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.

Okay, we won’t buy anything, we’ll stow our money away in banks, and not be part of the globalisation/Americanisation of the world.  Unfortunately, that won’t be easy – four of the world’s ten largest banks are US owned.

It seems we can’t escape.  If we do try then the US is not likely to leave us alone.  The US had 662 military establishments in 38 countries, in all continents except Africa, around the world in 2010.  By comparison, Russia had military bases in 10 countries, all in Eastern Europe and Asia.  The UK had bases in 18 countries and France 14.

Bases are one thing, military incursions another.  The US has by far been the nation most likely to have sent troops or other military personnel to another country, often in an aggressive manner.  To list all of these would take many lines of text.  But it doesn’t take much delving into history or our memories to name many of these.  Since the end of World War Two there has not been a year pass when the US has not deployed military operatives to someone else’s lands.  We all know of the “invasions” of Korea, Iran, Vietnam, Guatemala, Panama, Indonesia, Dominican Republic, Cambodia, Laos, Oman, Chile, Angola, El Salvador, Grenada, …. Over the past 50 years the US has been militarily involved in at least 35 nations around the globe, on all continents.  For the reader that would like to see a thorough list of these incursions (or whatever euphemism may be used) since 1890, then click here.

When there are US bombers flying overhead, naval ships in your ports, and soldiers in US uniforms in your land, it is hard to pretend that you are not affected by the decision as to who becomes President of the US.

Perhaps somewhere in the world there is a community, or maybe a few individuals untouched by US movies, fast food, the Internet.  Perhaps there is somewhere that has not been “invaded” or had a US military base established.  Even somewhere like this is not immune to the effects of US policies and practises.

No-one is immune to the effects of climate change.  Here, the US has again played the most significant part.  Carbon dioxide is a long-term gas.  Hence historic emissions are just as important, if not more so, than current emissions.  Since 1750 almost 30% of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere has come from US sources.  Even today, China, the second highest cumulative contributor, has contributed only 9%.

Around the world we are all affected in many ways, some significantly so, by the decision as to who becomes the POTUS (President Of The United States).

So, can we vote for the President too?

A Sequel

The election of Donald Trump as President of the US would further support the tenet of this post.  Consider these examples:

• President Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change Mitigation.  The US is presently the second highest emitter of CO₂ in the world, behind China, yet on a per capita basis emits 2 ¼ times as much.  Furthermore, over the past 250 years the US has emitted a whopping 29% of the world's cumulative CO₂ emissions.
• President Trump is threatening to pull funding from the World Health Organisation (WHO) - a body that seeks to improve the health of people all over the world (including the US).
• President Trump has sent a message to men everywhere to say that the abuse of women is okay - "When you're a star...you can do anything...grab them by the pussy.  You can do anything."
• President Trump has described murder as okay - "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any votes."

Yes, indeed, can we vote for the President too?

Racism's Building Stones

Structures rest upon foundations that work to stabilise, and strengthen, the entire structure.  Structural racism is no different.  Recently the world has been reacting to a very obvious case of structural racism in the killing of George Floyd.

Outpourings of grief and anger are understandable.  So too are the links that other black people are making with their own experience of racism at the hands of white people.  Black Lives Matter everywhere, and black people are right to note that racism exists everywhere.

But racism is not just a black man being held down with a knee on his throat so that he cannot breathe.  Racism is not just police brutality.  Racism is not just the numbers of deaths in custody.  Nor is racism just about black people being denied access to education, jobs, or adequate health care.  These are the stones of discrimination and violence that lie towards the top of the pyramid’s structure. (See fig)

Beneath these stones are the stones that prop up the pyramid and allow the whole structure to be built and maintained.  These stones are the stones of indifference (e.g. “it’s got nothing to do with me,” “get over it,”) minimisation and diversion (e.g. “all lives matter,” “blacks can be racist,”) and prejudice (e.g. racist jokes, tokenism.)

These stones, although they appear inconsequential, are essential to keeping the racist structure from toppling. 

And, they are stones that each of us (individual whites) can either keep in place or remove.  I have a responsibility to be aware of my comments, my jokes, and my prejudice.  I also have a responsibility to not collude with others when such comments and jokes are made.

A common objection to this metaphor is: just because I make a racist joke does not mean I condone the killing of black people.  No, it doesn’t, BUT it fails to recognise that each level of the pyramid is built upon the level below, and that the violence that black people experience is supported by a culture that tolerates individual prejudice, minimisation and indifference.

When the white policeman in Minneapolis forced his knee upon George Floyd’s neck he was supported by thousands of racist jokes, thousands of white people pointing fingers elsewhere, and many more turning their backs and not seeing the entire structure.

Albert Einstein called racism the disease of white people.  He was correct, and as white people we must do more than attend rallies and demonstrations against police brutality and other examples of the stones at the top of the pyramid.  We must break apart the stones at the bottom.

Five Phony Sayings To Reject

We seem to be pre-wired, from an early age, towards helping rather than hindering.

In 2007 a team of researchers from Yale University showed a group of pre-verbal babies a puppet show.¹  In the show a character was shown, twice, attempting to climb a hill, each time failing and falling back.  On the third attempt, another character either helped the first by pushing them up the hill, or hindered by pushing them back down.

Once the show had finished and the three scenarios shown, the “helper” puppet and the “hinderer” puppet were placed in front of the babies.

Overwhelmingly, the babies reached for the “helper” puppet.  The researchers suggest that this experiment “supports the view that the capacity to evaluate individuals on the basis of their social interactions is universal and unlearned.”

Our natural instincts then seem to be pre-wired towards helping rather than hindering.

Yet, many of our socially constructed institutions teach us something different.  We are taught to compete for the best jobs, the most money, the greater prestige, or the “right” to rule.  And, if that means hindering others in order to do so, then that is all part of the economic game.

Have we allowed those few, who as babies would have chosen the “hinderer,” to construct, and maintain, the systems and institutions upon which our society is based?

If that is the case, then the “hinderer choosers” have been doing so for a very very long time.  Time enough for the rest of us to think, and believe, that it is normal.  Thus it is that a whole belief system has been constructed.  Our pre-wiring has been dismantled and our ideas about who we are have been re-wired.

Yet, it is phony.

So, how do we dismantle this phony system?  How do we return to a state of innate (unlearned) “helpfulness”?

Perhaps a good place to start is by disconnecting our re-wired understandings and ideas.  Many of these phony understandings have been encapsulated into pithy a saying, which gives them a potency they do not deserve.  Here are five of those phony, pithy, sayings we must reject:

·       Might is right.

·       Self-interest is good.

·       Life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  A quote from the philosopher Thomas Hobbes and adopted without thought by many in western-styled cultures.

·       “There is no such thing as society.”  Margaret Thatcher’s famous quote that underlies much of neo-liberalism.

·       “Survival of the Fittest.”  Misattributed to Charles Darwin, the term “fittest” often mistakenly taken to mean, quickest, smartest, biggest, fastest.  A meaning Darwin never intended.  His conception of “fitness” was similar to that of a jigsaw piece “fitting” into a whole picture.

Notes:

1. J. Kiley Hamlin, Karen Wynn & Paul Bloom.  Social evaluation by preverbal infants, in Nature, Vol 450, 22 November 2007

Nature Is...

Photo: Solveig Larsen

How many of our buildings do we really need?  I asked myself this question a few days ago whilst I was running along a bush track close to my home.  As I ran I realised that many of those buildings we think we need are already provided by nature. 

Here are just a few of the “buildings” that nature already provides me:

Nature is my gym.  Nature provides ample locations and opportunities for exercise.  I can run or walk on trails and tracks through bush and forest, or along a beach or beside a lake.  I can swim in lakes, sea or rivers.  My soundtrack is freely provided – birdsong, surf crashing and rolling, rustling leaves, or waves gently lapping on lakeshores.  For strength work I need only use a rock or boulder, or a low-hanging branch for chin-ups.

Nature is my school.  Nature teaches us the complexity and inter-connectivity of life far better than we will ever learn sitting in a classroom.  Sitting in a natural setting I learn the cycles of life and the contentment and acceptance that can bring.  Nature teaches patience and observation skills.  If I watch carefully I can see how nature does not compete, but rather cooperates, sometimes in very subtle ways.  Each plant, insect, bird, amphibian, reptile, or mammal has a niche – a place where it fits.

Nature is my supermarket.  All my daily nutritional requirements can be met from natural supermarket, so long as I am willing to eat seasonally.  I must admit that, personally, I do not know much about the natural supermarket, and so I must seek out a guide – perhaps someone who knows about permaculture.  Like most of us in the industrialised world, I have been brought up without any real knowledge of how nature can be my supermarket.  I know it can though.

Nature is my psychologist’s office.  Nature soothes and heals us.  We have known for millennia that nature helps to lessen states of anxiety and depression.  Over recent decades there have been numerous studies showing the healing power of nature: lowering blood pressure, relieving stress, increasing calmness, improving immunity.  A few minutes contemplative exposure to nature can have significant bearing upon our emotional and psychological states. 

Nature is my church (or, if you prefer, mosque, synagogue, stupa, shrine, temple, ashram.)  When in a bush or forest setting we can look upward towards the canopy and feel a pull towards our spiritual side.  We can look down, and dig down into roots and mycelium, towards our soul.  The dappled light of sunlight filtering through green leaves or moonlight reflected off water rival any stained glass window.  For millennia upon millennia (long before most of the world’s current religions were established) humans have been finding nature to be a spiritual guide.  We named some parts within nature as sacred: sacred groves, springs, tors.  The Druids, for example, recognised the divinity within trees.  Nature can be a monastery, as it is for the Thai Buddhist Forest Monks.

Nature is these and many more.  Nature can also be my art gallery, my museum, my zoo, my aquarium, my doctor’s surgery, my restaurant.

Nature can be, and is, all these things.

Can We Reduce Emissions? We Can.

For a couple of months early this year (2020) the world reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by up to 25% - 30%¹.  That's substantial!

Q:  How did we do it?

A:  More solar panels were installed.  No!
A:  More wind farms were built.  No!
A:  More electric vehicles were driven.  No!
A:  The population was reduced.  No!² 

How then?

We consumed less!

Primarily we consumed less travel.  Over the first couple of months of coronavirus, international air travel dropped by around 70%.  Traffic on the streets of the world's cities declined by between 70% -  90%.

The correlation between CO₂ emissions and transport makes sense.  Transport accounts for almost one-quarter of the world's total emissions.  Thus, when this sector has a huge decline, it must translate into significant reductions in CO₂ emissions.

In last weeks post I suggested that we needed to talk about PAT (Population, Affluence, Technology).  Many of the messages that we have been hearing over the past decade or two about how to reduce CO₂ emissions have been about renewable energy.  More recently, perhaps because of the coronavirus, some have been suggesting that population is key.  

Yet, the circumstantial evidence presented above would suggest that it is our consumption (affluence) that has the potential for making the biggest, and quickest, impact upon reducing these emissions.

Can we reduce emissions?  We can.  We can by reducing consumption.

Now, the next question becomes: how?  How do we reduce consumption without having to endue a global pandemic to scare us into it?

In answering this question we have to recognise some uncomfortable facts.  It is the western-styled, rich, nations who consume most, and who emit most (per capita) of the world's emissions.  For example, a person in Australia, Canada, or the US emits as much CO₂ every day as a person in most of central Africa.  Other rich nations (e.g. UK, Germany, France) do so every two or three days.

In just two or three days, the average person in a western, rich nation, emits as much CO₂ as does an average person in Africa, in a whole year.

The responsibility to reduce our consumption lies with us - the individuals and societies of the rich nations.

We can do it.  How do we reduce consumption?  That is the question that we should be having in the rich nations.  That is the question climate activists should be asking.

Let's ask it.  And let's have the conversations needed to answer it.

There is, of course, an unasked question, lying hidden below this question:  Are we willing to reduce our consumption?

Who is willing to ask that question?

Notes:
1. The expectation is that reductions will amount to around 5% for the year, because it is assumed we will go back to business-as-usual.
2.  A back-of-the-envelope calculation (using official death tolls and CO₂ emissions per capita by country) suggests that a reduction in population because of coronavirus accounts for only 0.02% - 0.03% of the emissions reduction.