Direction in Life – is there a right one? Can one be better than another?

Hunter-gatherer societies live what we might define as rather unsophisticated lives, which could even be said to be “nasty, brutish and short” seen as murder rates are far higher within such communities. Yet those hunter-gatherer societies which exist today do not think of themselves as backwards, weak and unhappy. Take one tribe in the Amazon as an example. I won’t tell you the tribe’s name because I have no idea of how to spell it. But I can tell you a bit about them nonetheless.

They live in the middle of the Amazon. Each person works on average ten to twenty hours a week hunting/gathering and cooking food. The rest of the time they do whatever they want. They are fiercely proud to belong to their tribe, and although they have opportunities to learn Portuguese and enter Brazilian society they tend to think that the reverse should be a more likely story. They do not write or read. Their language has no numbers, and so they have never count. The language has far fewer words than ours. For example the word for skin, grass, cheek and a couple of other things is all the same. And yet scientific observers report that they smile and laugh far more than anyone in a “civilised society”. Indeed they often told the observer from whom I learnt all of this that if we could, then everyone would want to become a part of their tribe and live the way they do.

And they have some things to teach us as well: how to live sustainable lifestyles in keeping with nature; how to rebalance the equation between work and leisure; and also some more specific things. Their language includes a number of prefixes and suffixes, which inform you not only about what the information is that they have, but also where it came from. For instance imagine that you’re at a meeting and you say product X is worse than product Y. In English someone would have to ask you to elaborate. But in their tribal language you would have to structure the sentence so as to say where you got the information i.e. whether it was an opinion, found out from experience, inferred from something else etc.

So my question to you is basically this: is their life better? Or is ours? If you had the choice which would you choose and why?

 

Atheist and Agnostic Churches/Temples

In recent years the number of Atheists (believe there is no God, in the sense of an ultimate Being) and Agnostics (believe we cannot know whether or not God exists) have grown significantly, and the last couple of decades have seen churches founded for both religious groups. As this link shows (http://www.londonnet.co.uk/news/2012/jan/richard-dawkins-rejects-plan-%C2%A31m-atheist-church-city-london.html) there is also now discussion about buildings raised in the name of such religions.

Now if you read the comments on sites such as the one above you’ll see that mostly the reactions have been negative. But as an Atheist myself I completely agree with De Botton not only that Dawkin’s rhetoric has been symptomatic of a ‘destructive’ kind of Atheism, but also that there is a profound spiritual element to Atheism that should be celebrated and discussed. In fact I believe the case for spiritualism within Atheist beliefs is far stronger than the case for it existing within other major religions (with the exception of Buddhism, for which I would say there is a possible overlap with Atheism depending on your viewpoint). My reasoning for this is based on my answer to the following question:

Would you rather live in a world where you were created by one Being to accomplish one ultimate goal after which life would cease to exist or be utterly meaningless; or would you rather exist in a world where no one’s perception of value is any more important than anyone else’s, where everyone perceives wonder through their own eyes, and where everyone decides on not one but many purposes for themselves?

Surely the latter answer means more spirituality right, for rather than a rigid adherence to what you are being told from a certain source about a finite existence, you are exploring an infinite reality with wonder and purpose all around you.

Would you agree with me and De Botton about the merits of coming together to celebrate and discuss such spirituality? Or do you agree with Dawkins and most of De Botton’s critics that such efforts are futile, silly, and a waste of resources?

 

Philanthropy Ltd.

Another business idea:

Since the publishing of the Whitehall papers, and especially more recently since biologists have found chemical proof for why exactly this happens, we have known that as your social status worsens you take on more stress, your immunity worsens, and your lifespan lessens. But what we have not done is sufficiently clarify what defines your social status, or help people change it by redistributing wealth based not on financial but rather social status.

Philanthropy would do exactly this. It would be a website, onto which participants paid a set fee of about £10 a month. Minus a 5% fee to cover costs, this site would redistribute the money based on social status, rather than financial status. And what’s more social status would be defined by participants.

Thus when you signed up you would answer a series of questions like:
. On a scale of one to ten how much do you enjoy your work?
. Do you own a pet?
. Do you have a long term partner?
. How many times a month do you meet up with friends outside of a work environment?
etc.

From the answers to each question the participant would be given points, which rank them in a social status league table. Those at the bottom of that table would receive more money back than they put in, whereas those at the top of the table would not get anything back.

Obviously there is a problem of honesty. If you want money back you could purposefully answer in a way that makes you rank lowly. Now existing research leads me to say that this is not usually the case when people are asked about their social status. But of course there would have to be research done to see whether people really would be honest enough when financial incentives are involved.

However if every participant was allowed to help decide how certain factors affect social status there could emerge a much more complicated picture. You could for instance be asked how often you listen to music and not know what the optimal answer should be for how it affects your social wellbeing.

And this would also provide people with clear incentives as to how they can improve their social status in non-financial ways. It’s very frustrating for some people that big wig businessmen are seen to have the highest social status, when in actual fact they may be single, have no pets, no friends, no hobbies etc. Such a business could potentially, not only redistribute wealth, but also challenge our existing perceptions about what social status should really relate to.

And there may even be potential for governance implications and for business profits, though the latter would only be a side-effect as the main aim would be charitable. A lot of future business potential lies with data mining, and this initiative would create a data mine like no other. If enough people signed on it would allow governments to rank themselves internationally by Gross Social Wellbeing. And some of the data (there would be an opt-in clause for people willing to have their data shared, rather than the rather more dubious opt-out clause) could be sold to businesses looking to capitalise on desires to move up the social status ladder.

Thoughts?

 

Do we have a right to self-determination?

The right to self-determination has been implicit within a great deal of Western thought since the Enlightenment and the revolutions of the late eighteenth century. But do we really have such a right? Should we even have such a right? And what does such a right mean?

The Democratic Reform Party scorned the major parties’ efforts to prevent a democratic decision with regards to the Scottish referendum. All three parties openly tried to block the third choice (max-devo), as the Conservatives were able to do with the referendum over the electoral system. To me this is blatant disregard for people’s democratic right to take such a decision for themselves.

However on the other hand there is one thing on which I can agree with these parties, and also the Economist (which has recently been heavily criticised by Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond for declaring that it would be a bad decision for Scotland to vote for independence). I do agree that it would be a bad decision economically, and also socially, for Scotland to vote for independence. The question is whether this should negate their right to self-determination i.e. who takes the decision?

If you think the answer’s easy let’s take another example: the EU. Some people believe that there is decisive proof to say that thousands of people would lose their jobs, and thousands of lives would be ruined if the UK pulled out of the EU. These people say that the people cannot understand all the ins and outs of the labour market, and consequences of speculative forces; and they thus argue against the idea of a referendum on membership. But some of these very same people argue for the right to self-determination in other areas. Is this hypocrisy? Do we have a right to self-determination? If yes should it apply in all circumstances? If no how is it a right and not simply a principle?

 

A New Clash of Civilisations – against businesses

You may have heard of the Clash of Civilisations between the West and the East. But what might have slipped you by is that there is far more evidence for a clash between people and business – a global clash, but one that will happen within rather than between countries. In recent years global growth has far outstripped GDP growth. Multinational corporations are gaining more and more power by the year. In fact it’s one of my many ideas for a novel; to implicitly parallel the growth of businesses and power of CEOs with the growth of Roman Legions and power of Generals like Caesar. You can probably guess where the novel would go if I ever get round to writing it. But where will reality go?

We don’t talk about a clash not because it’s not there, but because people are taking this lying down. In the latest budget the UK Coalition announced that it was slashing taxes for businesses, and saving money by taking away benefits for the poor. This is in the people’s interests it is claimed, as businesses bring jobs. But hold on, since the 1970s businesses have shifted from a ‘Retain and Reinvest’ model of corporate governance towards a ‘Downsize and Distribute’ one, which has meant much higher unemployment, declining real incomes, and a growing rich-poor divide. Only Germany that I can think of, insists on its businesses valuing employee wellbeing as well as profits

People are frustrated and feel under-valued all the way around the world. We can see this simply in the fact that the protestor was named 2011’s Times person of the year. And Occupy, the biggest protest movement worldwide, is not really protesting against governments so much as it is against businesses. Governments say they can’t do anything about it. But I say we must. It is not people we need to fight against. It is systems. And today we have made some pretty big systems, which actually fight against the wellbeing of the people!

What are your thoughts?

 

Scapegoats in the 21st Century – Politicians?!

In almost every time of struggle, whether that struggle be economic, military, social or spiritual, human nature has shown a remarkable sense of ease in creating scapegoats to discriminate against.

It would not be very controversial to say that in the present crisis immigrants, religious minorities, gypsies, the homeless and the homebound are being discriminated against. But what about others who are overlooked?

For example what about those in the lower class we label “chavs”? What about the rich who we attack for their stranglehold on power? What about bankers, who most likely are the profession most labelled “wankers” in history? And what too about politicians?

If you have political experience on your CV today recruitment advisers tell you to take it off. It doesn’t matter if that’s in organising national campaigns, managing staff etc i.e. things relevant to the job being applied for. Groups who should be only too willing to talk to politicians hang up the phone on them. Employers refuse to give them interviews. And I’m not exaggerating here. A friend of mine was recently told quite specifically by a potential employer that he would never be given an interview while he held a position of political leadership, and no that wasn’t a job in the public sector. People respond with scorn when you say that you’re involved with politics. And the natural assumption is that politicians are, well… evil and corrupt.

What are your thoughts? Are we scapegoating those outside the obvious groups? If so who are we discriminating against? And if not why is it justifiable to treat people in a certain way simply because of their job or leisure time title?

 

Life University

Another business idea. Do you know fiver.com? It’s a website where anyone can sell and buy anything for $5. It’s a completely decentralised business model done on the cheap, which encourages innovation and also efficiency. How does this business model contrast with that used by universities? Universities use expert teachers, trained over many years, and recruited by a standard appointment process. For your standard degrees it is right that this is so. But doesn’t this leave a gap in the market? What about all the local knowledge that’s being lost, particularly in rapidly developing countries. And what about all the people with a passion for teaching their subject area who might have some time free, but not want to pursue a life long career in academia?

A Life University would merge the standard educational model, with the decentralised model used by fiver.com. Anyone who wanted to create their own profile as a teacher or consultant could do so on this site, specifying what they have to teach, how much time they have and what money they would be prepared to accept. And then whenever someone comes on looking for knowledge in a certain area, they would know longer simply have to search the internet for the relevant information. They could instead go to the Life University’s website and key in:

I want to learn……………

I’m prepared to pay……………….

I have this much time…………………

Further details e.g. preference for face to face, one on one, internet etc………..

After having keyed in these basic details the website would pull up a list of teachers and consultants who fit the search criteria, and the searcher could then pay one of these people to teach them. The administrators of the site would ensure that a good service is given. The Life University would hold the money until the course/class was delivered, and if the teacher/consultant doesn’t respond more than twice in a row they will be taken off the site.

What do you think? Have you heard of anything like this having already been set up?

 

The Culture House, an embryonic business idea

The idea is to have a place where people can meet to relax, share ideas, customs, values, traditions and culture. It would be a business run on the cheap, designed to give people opportunities to showcase their abilities as well as at the same time be a relaxed place for people to meet, have a drink and a bite to eat.

So imagine a circular hall. In the centre of that hall there is a small shop and a kitchen, and around them there are tables and chairs, with international displays in the windows containing facts of the day, artwork from schools and universities around the world etc. There’d be blackboards and corkboards dotted along the walls so that everyone and anyone could write/pin up interesting ideas and pieces of trivia about anything from around the world. And of course children could draw while their parents relax a bit. The shop houses unique local gifts and items from around the world, as well as the sort of things you’d find in a Tourist Info Centre like free leaflets about holidays etc. But the unique thing would be that there wouldn’t be any paid chefs, and thus it would only take one person to run, as well as some good advertising – it’s an idea that work better in a recession, and near students.

People would come in and cook themselves, which would mean that for example of group of students could come in with frozen pizzas they’ve bought from the supermarket next door and wack them in the oven while they sit and chat and enjoy the atmosphere of actually being in a proper venue. There would be a chart on the wall and if anyone wanted to really cook properly, taking up table space etc they would write their names next to a certain time, and come in to show off their skills, and hopefully international cuisine. That way student chefs could come in to practice, and invite donations from people who want to pay for their food. The owner/manager would collect the recipes of these dishes and have them on display around the central kitchen part, so that others could copy them and add their own.

And there would be a place sealed off at the back of the building where business meetings could be held in a unique, international and open-minded environment. Non-profit organisations and passionate individuals could also book the room for free when not in use by businesses, to spread their own ideas, and they could put leaflets about the event in the shop.

It’s more of a hobby kind of suggestion than anything else, as money would have to come from the meeting room, and donations – there’d be donation boxes in-built into the walls or at every table. Ideally you would situate it with the main window looking out onto the countryside, and perhaps down onto an arena used for horse riding or something like that. That way people could watch from the comfort of the Culture House. And of course there really are a million and one ideas to add to this or tailor it in some way. For example you could have a television at one section tuned into international channels, shows about the day of the week that it is at any one time e.g. today (March 6th) there would be something about Christian Feast Day for various saints, something about Ghana seen as it’s its Independence Day, or something about a famous event like the birth of Michelangelo; and on August 5th it’s International Beer Day so the tv would be tuned into something, perhaps recorded, about beer.

What do you think?

 

Are humans the only people?

This article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/21/whales-dolphins-legal-rights) reports on an increasingly popular argument that whales and dolphins are intelligent enough for us to grant them formalised rights, such as the right to life.
This raises several important and interesting points. It premises that human rights are based on intelligence. And it also suggests that some people are starting to group other species along with humans into an intelligent bracket. We can’t call these species Earthlings, since obviously that would also incorporate are rather less intelligent relatives as well. But is it time for us to stop thinking we’re special? Is it time for humans to recognise the rights of species other than themselves?

 

Does blogging have a bright future?

The number of bloggers has risen exponentially over the past two decades, and now for every Russian and Australian person in the world there is also a blogger. But what was once heralded as a way to decentralise the media and break the power control that big firms have is now back in the hands of those who already had the power and money.

So what’s the future of blogging? Will it go much bigger, and eventually become like an online CV for every person? Will it drop in size as people realise the true nature of the industry? Or will it become like any other area, where some people pursue it as a hobby, while some people dedicate more time and try to make it into a business venture?