"There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life. But it requires no faith in untestable propositions [...] for us to do this." Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason.
These 3 monotheistic religions each claim a unique truth. Such claims will remain a basis for human conflict, violence and death. In each book, one can find stories preaching peace, yet one can also find stories preaching intolerance. To me it is strange that books supposedly written or inspired by God, contain such juxtapositions. The ease to manipulate these books for conflict and violence is innate.
Here are 3 examples of what can be found in these "holy" books.
"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods", unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guild. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from your Yahweh your God..."
- Deuteronomy 13:7-11 Old Testament
(Jesus) "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
- John 15:6 New Testament
"You see many among them making friends with unbelievers. Evil is that to which their souls prompt them. They have incurred the wrath of God and shall endure eternal torment... You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: "we are Christians""
- 5:80-82 Koran
To claim these books as the works of God is simply asking for conflict; it comes as no surprise that we had the Inquisition and today Islamic martyrs..
Just to give an example; imagine a repressed and angry muslim who seeks refuge by a mosque run by an extremist. Such a holy man need only select certain passages of the Koran to make it all to obvious that Allah wishes you to kill unbelievers in his name: "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not" (2:216); "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal" (3:118); "Those that suffered persecution for My sake and fought and were slain: I shall forgive them their sins and admit them to gardens watered by running streams, as a reward from God; God holds the richest recompense. Do not be deceived by the fortunes of the unbelievers in the land. Their prosperity is brief. Hell shall be their home, a dismal resting place" (3:195-96)
I am not writing this note to offend or anger the faithful. Indeed, had God been the true author, I'm sure he did not intend us to use the scriptures in such ways.. (subject of another debate). These books were written a long time ago, when competing religions were sprouting up and it seemed only natural to build into the holy books a protection which will ensure the sovereignty of the faith. But as long as these books are regarded as holy and immutable, they will forever be used as a basis for divisive conflict. The dilemma is that, so strong was the need for protection of the faith, inbuilt was the immutable character too. One cannot change the scriptures, for that is blasphemy. As Will Durant pushes, "Intolerance is the natural concomitant of strong faith; tolerance grows only when faith loses certainty; certainty is murderous."
It is only normal for a child to question many things about the world, and it is only normal for his parents and teachers to provide him with answers. As we grow, we discover that there exist a multitude of facts, things which we are sure of, and a multitude of uncertainties. When we are uncertain of something, reason drives us to seek different theories which explain the same phenomenon, to form a coherent understanding. For me, certain religions are an impediment to such a process when one questions the spiritual.
Spirituality is one of the most complex notions to understand. Claiming to know it all is not only presumptuous but also a barrier to a progressive understanding of spirituality. Religion is one of the many attempts to explain the spiritual. However, Religion is not the most rational of understandings by way of dogma. To quote Sam Harris again:
"Mysticism (the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight. - Wiki) is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is mysticism). Religion [...] is the denial - at once full of hope and full of fear - of the vastitude of human ignorance. "
The following quote demonstrates quite clearly the fundamental difference between insight and dogma. What do you think?
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
- Siddhārtha Gautama
21.7.09
28.1.09
The Alpha Course
Wikipedia: "The Alpha course is a course on the basics of the Christian faith, described as "an opportunity for anyone to explore the Christian Faith in a relaxed setting," with the aim of enabling people with a "spiritual hunger" to encounter the Christian Gospel "in a life transforming way". The course is being run around the world by thousands of churches in all major Christian denominations."
Christians asking all, believers, non-believers, atheists, agnostics and critics, to come and ask all the troubling, inquisitive questions they have, to attempt to answer them. It is a test for the Christians if you like. It is a brilliant strategy for any religion, much like Buddhism, to exert the ability to question themselves.
My sister and I attended the 1st Alpha Course session ("Who is Jesus?") at our local Church, St. Marks. The atmosphere was warm and welcoming - my sister and I were to 1st to arrive, and we felt entirely at home. A little less than 20 people turned up, and we all sat down for a relaxed convivial dinner in a cosy room in Church. After which the Priest's wife got up and made a speech about Jesus, focusing on how it is possible to affirm him to be the "unique son of God".
It is a historical fact (based on historians writings of the time) that Jesus, as a man and spiritual leader, did exist. Jesus has been said to be the "unique son of God" (biblical references made) and he himself has proclaimed this, directly and indirectly (more quotes made). To examine the credibility of this claim, the priest's wife states that there are 3 possibilities:
1. Jesus was deluded and falsely believed he was the unique son of God
2. Jesus was a conman and tricked people into believing he was the unique son of God
3. Jesus really was and is the unique son of God
She then went on to describing the many loving feats Jesus accomplished during his life, as well as his re-incarnation, after which it is correct to establish that Jesus was an incredibly loving and caring person, who put others welfare before his own.
Based on the nature and history of Jesus' character and personality, it was concluded that the possibilities 1. and 2. are incorrect assumptions. Add to this the many miracles Jesus is said to have performed, as well as his re-incarnation; the possibility 3. is brought to be the only answer that we must face, as incredible as it may seem.
The speech over, we served ourselves a cup of tea or coffee, and formed a circle for "question time". Once each one of us took turns in presenting ourselves and explaining why we came, the priest spoke: It may be hard, but please do not be afraid to ask all the problematic questions on your mind.
In my mind, there was not enough evidence to cross out possibilities 1. and 2. As someone pointed out "what if the paraplegic Jesus cured was himself deluded and thought that he was cured?". My question was - is it not possible to conceive that Jesus was in fact a conman? Albeit without the pejorative connotation.
What if Jesus, in his honourable vision for an ideal world of peace, justice and love, came to this conclusion: If all believe me to be the unique son of God, they will forever follow me. If I can trick them into believing this, I will have the utmost confidence, faith and belief of millions - hence enabling me to lead them into a unique world of Love.
How one man was to achieve such a stunt is no easy task to explain, but doesn't rule out its possibility. It would incidentally make Jesus the most incredible person to ever walk the earth. But not the unique son of god.
- I didn't get an answer
The conversation turned to the nature of God. For many people present, the notion of God is hard to grasp. Some imagine him to be some sort of being apart from the world, and raised an issue with God's interventionist demeanour. The biblical interpretation tends to appear contradictory at times. God is presented as the almighty creator, and to communicate with his people he sends us his son. Yet at the same time, God is said to be ever-present, in all things and places. The interpretation entails that only through Jesus can we communicate with God - the very same God who is present all around us, all the time.
Who is the unique son of god, when we too are all sons and daughters of god?
Why is it that God is presented, and greatly perceived, as separate from us?
My conception of God, is that of an energy which constitutes the whole. A infinite wave of consciousness of which all is part. God is everything. From the chair we sit on, to the ocean and the ant. We are all part of the same whole, united by God.
The priest took this all in quietly, to then say that, at some point, we must decide if God is or not the creator. What I didn't have time to say - and I'll make sure I do at our next session - was that it is possible to be both creator and creation. From the same logic that enables God to have spawned out of nowhere, instead of being the one who planted the seed, God could very well be the seed.
Christians asking all, believers, non-believers, atheists, agnostics and critics, to come and ask all the troubling, inquisitive questions they have, to attempt to answer them. It is a test for the Christians if you like. It is a brilliant strategy for any religion, much like Buddhism, to exert the ability to question themselves.
My sister and I attended the 1st Alpha Course session ("Who is Jesus?") at our local Church, St. Marks. The atmosphere was warm and welcoming - my sister and I were to 1st to arrive, and we felt entirely at home. A little less than 20 people turned up, and we all sat down for a relaxed convivial dinner in a cosy room in Church. After which the Priest's wife got up and made a speech about Jesus, focusing on how it is possible to affirm him to be the "unique son of God".
It is a historical fact (based on historians writings of the time) that Jesus, as a man and spiritual leader, did exist. Jesus has been said to be the "unique son of God" (biblical references made) and he himself has proclaimed this, directly and indirectly (more quotes made). To examine the credibility of this claim, the priest's wife states that there are 3 possibilities:
1. Jesus was deluded and falsely believed he was the unique son of God
2. Jesus was a conman and tricked people into believing he was the unique son of God
3. Jesus really was and is the unique son of God
She then went on to describing the many loving feats Jesus accomplished during his life, as well as his re-incarnation, after which it is correct to establish that Jesus was an incredibly loving and caring person, who put others welfare before his own.
Based on the nature and history of Jesus' character and personality, it was concluded that the possibilities 1. and 2. are incorrect assumptions. Add to this the many miracles Jesus is said to have performed, as well as his re-incarnation; the possibility 3. is brought to be the only answer that we must face, as incredible as it may seem.
The speech over, we served ourselves a cup of tea or coffee, and formed a circle for "question time". Once each one of us took turns in presenting ourselves and explaining why we came, the priest spoke: It may be hard, but please do not be afraid to ask all the problematic questions on your mind.
In my mind, there was not enough evidence to cross out possibilities 1. and 2. As someone pointed out "what if the paraplegic Jesus cured was himself deluded and thought that he was cured?". My question was - is it not possible to conceive that Jesus was in fact a conman? Albeit without the pejorative connotation.
What if Jesus, in his honourable vision for an ideal world of peace, justice and love, came to this conclusion: If all believe me to be the unique son of God, they will forever follow me. If I can trick them into believing this, I will have the utmost confidence, faith and belief of millions - hence enabling me to lead them into a unique world of Love.
How one man was to achieve such a stunt is no easy task to explain, but doesn't rule out its possibility. It would incidentally make Jesus the most incredible person to ever walk the earth. But not the unique son of god.
- I didn't get an answer
The conversation turned to the nature of God. For many people present, the notion of God is hard to grasp. Some imagine him to be some sort of being apart from the world, and raised an issue with God's interventionist demeanour. The biblical interpretation tends to appear contradictory at times. God is presented as the almighty creator, and to communicate with his people he sends us his son. Yet at the same time, God is said to be ever-present, in all things and places. The interpretation entails that only through Jesus can we communicate with God - the very same God who is present all around us, all the time.
Who is the unique son of god, when we too are all sons and daughters of god?
Why is it that God is presented, and greatly perceived, as separate from us?
My conception of God, is that of an energy which constitutes the whole. A infinite wave of consciousness of which all is part. God is everything. From the chair we sit on, to the ocean and the ant. We are all part of the same whole, united by God.
The priest took this all in quietly, to then say that, at some point, we must decide if God is or not the creator. What I didn't have time to say - and I'll make sure I do at our next session - was that it is possible to be both creator and creation. From the same logic that enables God to have spawned out of nowhere, instead of being the one who planted the seed, God could very well be the seed.
26.1.09
Budget
- Why does the headway towards sustainability remain limited?
The crucial element for this lack of willingness lies in the government's main restraint - the budget. As it has been said before, achieving sustainability is no cheap task, and if immediate serious measures were to be taken by the government in the public sector for example, this would be a expensive cost. Government's constant battle is with itself, in attempting to appropriately divide and distribute the budget. If proportionate sustainability efforts were to be part of this equation, the battle would lose out on too many present fronts. Therefore informing the population to put even more pressure on this will in no way alleviate the already straining government.
Another element are the external forces which influence decision-making. A large stake of these can justifiably be attributed to the weight of corporate lobbying. Informed, aware and powerful, it seeks to reap profits in a panoply of sectors. This manifests itself through an array of pressures on the government, in turn influencing a certain allotment of budget priorities.
The raging debate is concerning the priorities. And it is here that matters become much more complex. Ideologies, interests, beliefs and opinions all clash and form a bustle; yet at the end of the day one voice must rise above and lead the way for some length. How and why that voice ascends all the others is a curious question. One would believe that the leading voice is the one deemed (objectively, scientifically and morally) to be the best of all propositions, chosen through a informed democratic process. Yet not only is this rarely the case, we must also admit to the complete absence of such a process in many decision making accounts. It is in these numerous and varied circumstances that contradictory priorities are set.
Despite its amplitude, the climate change debate is but a mirror of societies' structural flaws. Attempting to analyze the difficulties in harnessing climate change leads to recognize key elements which pollute and weaken our global system. Here, having an informed, critically thinking and willing population presents a worst-case scenario for governments - because the succeeding costs of this are too high. Without aggression I think it is fair to say that this scenario in itself, is one feared by many.
This arbitrary lack of transparency is poisoning democracy.
The crucial element for this lack of willingness lies in the government's main restraint - the budget. As it has been said before, achieving sustainability is no cheap task, and if immediate serious measures were to be taken by the government in the public sector for example, this would be a expensive cost. Government's constant battle is with itself, in attempting to appropriately divide and distribute the budget. If proportionate sustainability efforts were to be part of this equation, the battle would lose out on too many present fronts. Therefore informing the population to put even more pressure on this will in no way alleviate the already straining government.
Another element are the external forces which influence decision-making. A large stake of these can justifiably be attributed to the weight of corporate lobbying. Informed, aware and powerful, it seeks to reap profits in a panoply of sectors. This manifests itself through an array of pressures on the government, in turn influencing a certain allotment of budget priorities.
The raging debate is concerning the priorities. And it is here that matters become much more complex. Ideologies, interests, beliefs and opinions all clash and form a bustle; yet at the end of the day one voice must rise above and lead the way for some length. How and why that voice ascends all the others is a curious question. One would believe that the leading voice is the one deemed (objectively, scientifically and morally) to be the best of all propositions, chosen through a informed democratic process. Yet not only is this rarely the case, we must also admit to the complete absence of such a process in many decision making accounts. It is in these numerous and varied circumstances that contradictory priorities are set.
Despite its amplitude, the climate change debate is but a mirror of societies' structural flaws. Attempting to analyze the difficulties in harnessing climate change leads to recognize key elements which pollute and weaken our global system. Here, having an informed, critically thinking and willing population presents a worst-case scenario for governments - because the succeeding costs of this are too high. Without aggression I think it is fair to say that this scenario in itself, is one feared by many.
This arbitrary lack of transparency is poisoning democracy.
12.1.09
To The Point
In many of my notes, the main criticism I receive is in my unrealistic and utopian view. I tend to simply regard my views as optimistic, but I cannot deny that I do get carried away at times, which in turn discredits my arguments.
What frustrates me and causes me to sound utopian is that we are in possession of many technologies that would permit us to achieve sustainability - but that they are not put into use for lack of a clear profit incentive. However if we continue consuming and producing at this rate and under these circumstances, we are leading ourselves to certain depletion. Even though it is in Humanity's interest to reason on the long-term, corporations, companies and industry prove to be incapable to look that far ahead. Immediate profit appears to be hardly achievable, and this goes directly against the baseline of all corporations. Only once the inevitable truth is so close to their nose, will they start radically changing face.
The one institution that can - and is job is to - look ahead, is the government. But sadly the government itself is subject to many of the laws and constraints brought by our free market system, which lessens its potential impact on societies.
We appear to be in a catch-22.
So if we cannot reasonably think in any other terms other than our current free market system, I will now attempt (factors that come into play will be missing- you can help me on those) to reason in terms of free market economics.
Climate change and future sustainability are critical issues, and the main ones I will address here. The problem we face is how to address these two issues, in our present free market system. As many have pointed out, countries will only start tackling these issues with determination once this action becomes profitable. Seeing as it is terminal we make immediate progress on this front, the way forwards is seeking profitable ways of becoming sustainable.
What appears to be a certainty, is that governments and industry must collaborate. The motivation can come from both of them, but will have to certainly start with the governments own initiatives, a process which has mildly begun. Governments will have to play a huge role in assuring industry that sustainability is not only profitable, but that it is the most advantageous option for them.
This seems to be a extremely difficult task to fulfill properly. And right now, I don't think that there is enough capital to accomplish such a thing. The only alternative I see, other than waiting for enough capital to accumulate (which is not an end in itself) is through policy making.
Although I do not believe there to be enough capital for sustained and growing profit in sustainability, there is certainly progress in this field, courtesy of science and engineers. It is in all of our interests that we persevere and intensify this progress; something which both governments and industry can contribute towards (as well as students, independent scientists/engineers etc..). It is in this direction that industry will eventually follow suit by discovering profit making opportunities in the sustainable sector.
However, as much as the "laws" of free market economies insist upon the fact that all eventually balances out and achieves perfection, this alone is insufficient for action needs to be taken now. When I speak of action I mean not small attempts to improve, but large shifts in priorities. For no one can stress enough the scale and immediacy of climate change. These changes can only come from two sources at present: governments and people. This is where it essentially all boils down to us. We are born and raised in a democratic state. For our governments to radically shift their priorities and change policies in order to attain sustainability, the conviction must take root from its founders, the people.
We must take into account two things here: first of all the present quality of information brought to the people; and secondly the role governments have in this.
There is no denying that part of the population pushing for sustainability is making itself heard by governments. The problem being that this entity represents but a fraction of the whole. Governments must (and do) take their views and demands into account, but as the people appealing are a minority, their impact is reciprocal. The issue of information comes into play when asked, how many people are aware and well informed about the environmental crisis?
This is where governments have yet another huge role to play, in the education of the masses. It seems paradoxical that governments find themselves in this pivotal position: in order to secure the welfare of their population and planet, they need their populations support and approval. But as this isn't manifesting itself very broadly, in order to achieve wide-scale support, they need to proportionately inform the population.
There exist many ways of doing this, tools such as schools and the media are undeniably extremely powerful. This is where governments could make drastic changes in order to educate their populations for them to make informed choices. A few will insist that even once well informed, too many will not "care" enough or have the insight to want to make our world sustainable. I here remind the role of governments in protecting their population; similarly to the smoking in public spaces ban, even when the majority is informed about the dangers yet fail to control themselves, if this becomes an issue of national health and security, then governments have no choice but to impose restrictions (the extent and effectiveness of these restrictions is subject to another crucial debate).
Now the controversial question arises: do governments want their populations to be aware of how critical the environmental situation is? Possibly they think it would be handled much more efficiently if the masses are kept in the dark. This could very well be the case - except that they are not handling it efficiently themselves. There must be some explanation for them to deliberately keep us in the dark. I think that this is where the fundamental problem lies. The actual willingness of governments to ensure a sustainable future. What kinds of constraints are they subject to? Some could speculate corporate pressure is what's pulling the strings.. Some will argue that governments are already doing as much as they can to achieve a sustainable world - I will argue that they are not doing enough, and I've just demonstrated, with enough clarity, that they could be doing a lot more.
What frustrates me and causes me to sound utopian is that we are in possession of many technologies that would permit us to achieve sustainability - but that they are not put into use for lack of a clear profit incentive. However if we continue consuming and producing at this rate and under these circumstances, we are leading ourselves to certain depletion. Even though it is in Humanity's interest to reason on the long-term, corporations, companies and industry prove to be incapable to look that far ahead. Immediate profit appears to be hardly achievable, and this goes directly against the baseline of all corporations. Only once the inevitable truth is so close to their nose, will they start radically changing face.
The one institution that can - and is job is to - look ahead, is the government. But sadly the government itself is subject to many of the laws and constraints brought by our free market system, which lessens its potential impact on societies.
We appear to be in a catch-22.
So if we cannot reasonably think in any other terms other than our current free market system, I will now attempt (factors that come into play will be missing- you can help me on those) to reason in terms of free market economics.
Climate change and future sustainability are critical issues, and the main ones I will address here. The problem we face is how to address these two issues, in our present free market system. As many have pointed out, countries will only start tackling these issues with determination once this action becomes profitable. Seeing as it is terminal we make immediate progress on this front, the way forwards is seeking profitable ways of becoming sustainable.
What appears to be a certainty, is that governments and industry must collaborate. The motivation can come from both of them, but will have to certainly start with the governments own initiatives, a process which has mildly begun. Governments will have to play a huge role in assuring industry that sustainability is not only profitable, but that it is the most advantageous option for them.
This seems to be a extremely difficult task to fulfill properly. And right now, I don't think that there is enough capital to accomplish such a thing. The only alternative I see, other than waiting for enough capital to accumulate (which is not an end in itself) is through policy making.
Although I do not believe there to be enough capital for sustained and growing profit in sustainability, there is certainly progress in this field, courtesy of science and engineers. It is in all of our interests that we persevere and intensify this progress; something which both governments and industry can contribute towards (as well as students, independent scientists/engineers etc..). It is in this direction that industry will eventually follow suit by discovering profit making opportunities in the sustainable sector.
However, as much as the "laws" of free market economies insist upon the fact that all eventually balances out and achieves perfection, this alone is insufficient for action needs to be taken now. When I speak of action I mean not small attempts to improve, but large shifts in priorities. For no one can stress enough the scale and immediacy of climate change. These changes can only come from two sources at present: governments and people. This is where it essentially all boils down to us. We are born and raised in a democratic state. For our governments to radically shift their priorities and change policies in order to attain sustainability, the conviction must take root from its founders, the people.
We must take into account two things here: first of all the present quality of information brought to the people; and secondly the role governments have in this.
There is no denying that part of the population pushing for sustainability is making itself heard by governments. The problem being that this entity represents but a fraction of the whole. Governments must (and do) take their views and demands into account, but as the people appealing are a minority, their impact is reciprocal. The issue of information comes into play when asked, how many people are aware and well informed about the environmental crisis?
This is where governments have yet another huge role to play, in the education of the masses. It seems paradoxical that governments find themselves in this pivotal position: in order to secure the welfare of their population and planet, they need their populations support and approval. But as this isn't manifesting itself very broadly, in order to achieve wide-scale support, they need to proportionately inform the population.
There exist many ways of doing this, tools such as schools and the media are undeniably extremely powerful. This is where governments could make drastic changes in order to educate their populations for them to make informed choices. A few will insist that even once well informed, too many will not "care" enough or have the insight to want to make our world sustainable. I here remind the role of governments in protecting their population; similarly to the smoking in public spaces ban, even when the majority is informed about the dangers yet fail to control themselves, if this becomes an issue of national health and security, then governments have no choice but to impose restrictions (the extent and effectiveness of these restrictions is subject to another crucial debate).
Now the controversial question arises: do governments want their populations to be aware of how critical the environmental situation is? Possibly they think it would be handled much more efficiently if the masses are kept in the dark. This could very well be the case - except that they are not handling it efficiently themselves. There must be some explanation for them to deliberately keep us in the dark. I think that this is where the fundamental problem lies. The actual willingness of governments to ensure a sustainable future. What kinds of constraints are they subject to? Some could speculate corporate pressure is what's pulling the strings.. Some will argue that governments are already doing as much as they can to achieve a sustainable world - I will argue that they are not doing enough, and I've just demonstrated, with enough clarity, that they could be doing a lot more.
7.1.09
Notes on "The Corporation", documentary by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott and Joel Bakan
A anti-corporate documentary, with a storyline that acts as a investigator identifying the corporation as a psychopath. The documentary aims to brings you down into the dark depths of the corporate world.
What makes the whole thing work so well is their considered study and approach of the subject, notably seen through their repertoire of quality interviewees.
Focusing on the United States, the documentary begins with the historical birth of corporations, by interviewing Naom Chomsky (Professor MIT): Grown from the Industrial Age in the UK (1712), the main goal of enterprise was increased productivity. In the USA, corporations were originally created as an association of people, chartered by the State to perform a particular function. These had clear stipulations of what they did; shareholders were liable etc.. They were seen as "a gift from the people to serve the public good". All corporations cannot exclusively serve the public good nowadays; but that's at least what the film reminds us they were created for.
They then go on to explain the evolution of the corporation. Corporate lawyers were constantly seeking more power and freedom in order to achieve their many objectives. And then a formidable event occurred: the 14th Amendment was established, to protect newly freed African Americans. " No state can deprive any person from life liberty or property without due process of law". The corporate lawyers followed suit by claiming that corporations are "a person" and therefore can act pretty much like a human being. A significant number that strikes: between 1890-1910, 307 cases were brought before the court under the 14th Amendment; of these 288 were by corporations, only 19 by African Americans.
Now that the corporation has become considered a "legal" person, we are lead to question what kind of person are they? For they prove to lack much of what we define as a moral conscience; Robert Monks (corporate governance adviser) finely states "they aren't like the rest of us. As Baron Thurlow in England is supposed to have said: "They have no soul to save, they have no body to incarcerate"".
In defense of the corporation, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart (ex-chairman of Shell) replies "People accuse us of only paying attention to the economic leg. Because they think that's what a business person's mind set is - it's just money. And it's not so, because we, as business people, know that we need to certainly address the environment, but also we need to be seen as constructive members of society". Corporations are aware of the environment and of society, and therefore make sure they construct an appropriate image. The problem being that the image is constructed, and never reflects their true reality.
This raises the whole issue of balance, between the profit motive, and other more socially and environmentally directed motives. The balance always tips deeply towards the profit motive. Not because every man in power is by nature evil or greedy, but because corporations are required, by law, to place the financial interests of their owners above competing interests. The bottom line is superior to everything else. "That's not a law of nature, that's a very specific decision. In fact a judicial decision. So they're concerned only for the short-term profit of their stock-holders who are very highly concentrated" - Naom Chomsky.
To whom do these companies owe loyalty? They already owe in obligation to themselves, to get large and more profitable. In doing this it tends to be more profitable to the extent that it can make other people pay for the bills for its impact on society. There's a terrible word that economists use for this called "externalities": "The effect of a transaction between 2 individuals on a third party who has not consented to or played any role in the carrying out of that transaction - and there are real problems in that area. There's no doubt about it" states Milton Freeman. Through this profit incentive, which drives the corporation, it is turned into what is effectively an externalizing machine. "Let somebody else deal with that" is the mentality - until exterior forces to the corporation force it to have to deal with those externalities. Then comes a long list of case examples pointing out many of the terrible effects these "externalities" have, ranging from nuclear waste to bio-hazardous products and sweat-shops (where they denounce in a most precise way the science of exploitation)
"It was more or less as if we created a doom machine. In our search for wealth and prosperity we created something that's going to destroy us" - Robert Monks on the corporation.
With so many negative and near inhuman aspects, we do wonder how on earth this business has been going on for so long, with so many people involved and actively participating towards it. The Corporation brings us a insightful interview with Carlton Brown, a commodities trader, who gives an explanation on traders' ignorance: "Our information that we receive, does not include anything about the environmental conditions because until the environmental conditions become a commodity themselves or are being traded, then obviously we will not have anything to do with that. It doesn't come into our psyche at all. It's so far away and you hardly hear anything about it."
The documentary proceeds with a long historical list of corporate fines (in the hundreds of millions) for violating the law. "Whether you obey the law or not is a matter of if its cost effective. It's seen as just another business decision." - Ray Anderson. The very nature of the corporation strips any sense of ethics or morals, for at its core is the necessity to grow and make more profit - as fast as possible. Which implies bigger numbers in less time; making the two fundamental notions in every serious business person's mind: time and money. The implications of this are disastrous.
The most enticing quote from this documentary is by Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface:
" Drawing the metaphor of the early attempts to fly. The man going off a very high cliff in his airplane, with the wings flapping, the air blowing in his face, and this poor fool thinks he's flying. But, in fact, he's in free fall - he just doesn't know it yet because the ground is so far away. But of course the craft is doomed to crash. That's the way our civilization is: the very high cliff represents the virtually unlimited resources we seemed to have at the beginning of this journey. The craft isn't flying because its not built according to the laws of aerodynamics and is subject to the law of gravity. Civilization is not flying because it's not built according to the laws of aerodynamics for civilizations that would fly. And, of course, the ground is still a long way away, but some have seen that ground rushing up sooner than the rest of us have. The visionaries have seen it and have told us it's coming." He continues " Every living system of earth is in decline. Every life support system of earth is in decline, and these together constitute the biosphere. The biosphere that supports and nurtures all of life - not just our life but perhaps 30 million other species that share this planet with us. We are leaving a terrible legacy of poison and diminishment of the environment for our grandchildren' grandchildren, generations not yet born. Some people have called that intergenerational tyranny, a form of taxation without representation, levied by us on generations yet to be. It's the wrong thing to do."
The documentary continues on this path of revealing the true nature of the corporation. From more shocking case studies (One in which Fox News, due to peer pressure, asks its reporters to edit a revealing health hazard story they found, and essentially lie and rewrite a fictional version. It ended with the case being brought to court by the 2 reporters, who in the end, lost, because the court deemed that Fox News asking them to write a fictional report for television, was not illegal.) to the hidden motives of marketing and its unethical manipulation of children' minds (openly discussed by marketing directors).
In the past, common folk were ruled by the major institutions that surrounded them, from the Clergy to the Knights. In our times it seems as though people are ruled by a major institution called the Corporation. It has the tightest links with government, and in my view the power struggle between the two might even be tipped towards the corporation (a look at IBM and their dealings with the 3rd Reich and you do wonder how an American company could be doing business with their countries' rival).
This raises the issue of who exactly should be responsible for corporations actions? For if IBM for example, was doing business with Hitler, shouldn't the USA have a say in this, considering IBM is an American company? But then IBM is also a multinational corporation, so which government, if any, holds the responsibility in monitoring their actions?
Another mindful question is how come people never seem to see it coming?
For effectively, what constitutes the majority of our vision of a corporation is the constructed facade they present us. The logo, the shop, the adverts, the website, the community good they bring etc.. What are corporations hiding from us?
Reality is, rare is a corporation that's proud of what they are doing and more importantly how they are doing it; and they will continue building image upon image to keep us mellowly tricked into believing that they are enriching us, and more formidably that they're necessary.
Man is no dumb sheep though; as history has proved, any invader who attempts to strip man's liberties to then remain in power amongst those he has violated, will always be overrun by the people, fighting to regain their selves.
Humans are not powerless, so they should put a stop in feeling that. They not only have the power to act, but the power of organizing their actions.
We happen to be born in this century, raised into this reality, and it is us who are constructing the future. We have a choice: do we simply continue running the relay, or do we chose to change the racetrack? Today we are the ones who can chose to build towards that new reality which will one day see our grandchildren' grandchildren' birth into this world. Cherish that opportunity for it is the most prized one we have.
What makes the whole thing work so well is their considered study and approach of the subject, notably seen through their repertoire of quality interviewees.
Focusing on the United States, the documentary begins with the historical birth of corporations, by interviewing Naom Chomsky (Professor MIT): Grown from the Industrial Age in the UK (1712), the main goal of enterprise was increased productivity. In the USA, corporations were originally created as an association of people, chartered by the State to perform a particular function. These had clear stipulations of what they did; shareholders were liable etc.. They were seen as "a gift from the people to serve the public good". All corporations cannot exclusively serve the public good nowadays; but that's at least what the film reminds us they were created for.
They then go on to explain the evolution of the corporation. Corporate lawyers were constantly seeking more power and freedom in order to achieve their many objectives. And then a formidable event occurred: the 14th Amendment was established, to protect newly freed African Americans. " No state can deprive any person from life liberty or property without due process of law". The corporate lawyers followed suit by claiming that corporations are "a person" and therefore can act pretty much like a human being. A significant number that strikes: between 1890-1910, 307 cases were brought before the court under the 14th Amendment; of these 288 were by corporations, only 19 by African Americans.
Now that the corporation has become considered a "legal" person, we are lead to question what kind of person are they? For they prove to lack much of what we define as a moral conscience; Robert Monks (corporate governance adviser) finely states "they aren't like the rest of us. As Baron Thurlow in England is supposed to have said: "They have no soul to save, they have no body to incarcerate"".
In defense of the corporation, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart (ex-chairman of Shell) replies "People accuse us of only paying attention to the economic leg. Because they think that's what a business person's mind set is - it's just money. And it's not so, because we, as business people, know that we need to certainly address the environment, but also we need to be seen as constructive members of society". Corporations are aware of the environment and of society, and therefore make sure they construct an appropriate image. The problem being that the image is constructed, and never reflects their true reality.
This raises the whole issue of balance, between the profit motive, and other more socially and environmentally directed motives. The balance always tips deeply towards the profit motive. Not because every man in power is by nature evil or greedy, but because corporations are required, by law, to place the financial interests of their owners above competing interests. The bottom line is superior to everything else. "That's not a law of nature, that's a very specific decision. In fact a judicial decision. So they're concerned only for the short-term profit of their stock-holders who are very highly concentrated" - Naom Chomsky.
To whom do these companies owe loyalty? They already owe in obligation to themselves, to get large and more profitable. In doing this it tends to be more profitable to the extent that it can make other people pay for the bills for its impact on society. There's a terrible word that economists use for this called "externalities": "The effect of a transaction between 2 individuals on a third party who has not consented to or played any role in the carrying out of that transaction - and there are real problems in that area. There's no doubt about it" states Milton Freeman. Through this profit incentive, which drives the corporation, it is turned into what is effectively an externalizing machine. "Let somebody else deal with that" is the mentality - until exterior forces to the corporation force it to have to deal with those externalities. Then comes a long list of case examples pointing out many of the terrible effects these "externalities" have, ranging from nuclear waste to bio-hazardous products and sweat-shops (where they denounce in a most precise way the science of exploitation)
"It was more or less as if we created a doom machine. In our search for wealth and prosperity we created something that's going to destroy us" - Robert Monks on the corporation.
With so many negative and near inhuman aspects, we do wonder how on earth this business has been going on for so long, with so many people involved and actively participating towards it. The Corporation brings us a insightful interview with Carlton Brown, a commodities trader, who gives an explanation on traders' ignorance: "Our information that we receive, does not include anything about the environmental conditions because until the environmental conditions become a commodity themselves or are being traded, then obviously we will not have anything to do with that. It doesn't come into our psyche at all. It's so far away and you hardly hear anything about it."
The documentary proceeds with a long historical list of corporate fines (in the hundreds of millions) for violating the law. "Whether you obey the law or not is a matter of if its cost effective. It's seen as just another business decision." - Ray Anderson. The very nature of the corporation strips any sense of ethics or morals, for at its core is the necessity to grow and make more profit - as fast as possible. Which implies bigger numbers in less time; making the two fundamental notions in every serious business person's mind: time and money. The implications of this are disastrous.
The most enticing quote from this documentary is by Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface:
" Drawing the metaphor of the early attempts to fly. The man going off a very high cliff in his airplane, with the wings flapping, the air blowing in his face, and this poor fool thinks he's flying. But, in fact, he's in free fall - he just doesn't know it yet because the ground is so far away. But of course the craft is doomed to crash. That's the way our civilization is: the very high cliff represents the virtually unlimited resources we seemed to have at the beginning of this journey. The craft isn't flying because its not built according to the laws of aerodynamics and is subject to the law of gravity. Civilization is not flying because it's not built according to the laws of aerodynamics for civilizations that would fly. And, of course, the ground is still a long way away, but some have seen that ground rushing up sooner than the rest of us have. The visionaries have seen it and have told us it's coming." He continues " Every living system of earth is in decline. Every life support system of earth is in decline, and these together constitute the biosphere. The biosphere that supports and nurtures all of life - not just our life but perhaps 30 million other species that share this planet with us. We are leaving a terrible legacy of poison and diminishment of the environment for our grandchildren' grandchildren, generations not yet born. Some people have called that intergenerational tyranny, a form of taxation without representation, levied by us on generations yet to be. It's the wrong thing to do."
The documentary continues on this path of revealing the true nature of the corporation. From more shocking case studies (One in which Fox News, due to peer pressure, asks its reporters to edit a revealing health hazard story they found, and essentially lie and rewrite a fictional version. It ended with the case being brought to court by the 2 reporters, who in the end, lost, because the court deemed that Fox News asking them to write a fictional report for television, was not illegal.) to the hidden motives of marketing and its unethical manipulation of children' minds (openly discussed by marketing directors).
In the past, common folk were ruled by the major institutions that surrounded them, from the Clergy to the Knights. In our times it seems as though people are ruled by a major institution called the Corporation. It has the tightest links with government, and in my view the power struggle between the two might even be tipped towards the corporation (a look at IBM and their dealings with the 3rd Reich and you do wonder how an American company could be doing business with their countries' rival).
This raises the issue of who exactly should be responsible for corporations actions? For if IBM for example, was doing business with Hitler, shouldn't the USA have a say in this, considering IBM is an American company? But then IBM is also a multinational corporation, so which government, if any, holds the responsibility in monitoring their actions?
Another mindful question is how come people never seem to see it coming?
For effectively, what constitutes the majority of our vision of a corporation is the constructed facade they present us. The logo, the shop, the adverts, the website, the community good they bring etc.. What are corporations hiding from us?
Reality is, rare is a corporation that's proud of what they are doing and more importantly how they are doing it; and they will continue building image upon image to keep us mellowly tricked into believing that they are enriching us, and more formidably that they're necessary.
Man is no dumb sheep though; as history has proved, any invader who attempts to strip man's liberties to then remain in power amongst those he has violated, will always be overrun by the people, fighting to regain their selves.
Humans are not powerless, so they should put a stop in feeling that. They not only have the power to act, but the power of organizing their actions.
We happen to be born in this century, raised into this reality, and it is us who are constructing the future. We have a choice: do we simply continue running the relay, or do we chose to change the racetrack? Today we are the ones who can chose to build towards that new reality which will one day see our grandchildren' grandchildren' birth into this world. Cherish that opportunity for it is the most prized one we have.
Letter to Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers
Dear Theresa Villiers,
I've heard you and David Cameron recently make some pretty strong statements opposing Heathrow expansion. I think this is fantastic.
The government is completely isolated on this issue. Not only are the plans deeply unpopular with the public and within the Labour Party, but a 3rd runway at Heathrow is completely unnecessary. If we are truly serious about reducing carbon emissions, then how in our right minds can we push for an expansion of a extremely powerful source of carbon emissions? This simply contradicts the governments projections for carbon emission reductions.
I prefer your plan for a high-speed rail network across the country, such as the incredible network Japan has to offer with their Shinkansen trains running at extremely high speeds and hence makes commuting a speedy pleasure. Considering that it is much more convenient and greener than air travel - this alternative makes much more sense than a extension of Heathrow, which itself would cost millions of taxpayers pounds. Our money should be put to good use. And it's in all of our interests to put it towards a energy efficient use, and not a prolongation of the pollution of our environment. Sustainability is the future, we all know this. The United Kingdom must show the example for the rest of the world.
Some countries are already making such great advances on this front. As of January 1st, no sulphur is allowed in petrol and diesel sold in the Netherlands. This year Israel will begin fitting itself out in earnest with a network of vehicle-charging points and battery-exchange stations that will eliminate the need for back-up generators and allow it, if the demand is there, to become the most electro-motivated country in the world. Abu Dhabi will be the host of Masdar City, designed by Foster + Partners. It will be entirely run on renewable energy sources and with a zero-carbon and zero-waste design. And Foster + Partners is a British company! Why isn't our government insisting for a similar initiative here in the United Kingdom?
What you are doing is great, it is an encouraging start, and the battle must rage on. Please remember that you are not alone and that you have many many people in the public backing you up. We may not be as visible as we'd like to be; but we are here. It is only by addressing the issue and persevering in this path that we will achieve something; it will get onto our TV screens, as it is an issue that is central to the public, and the public's opinion as you know is crucial.
Keep it up and keep the pressure on Brown
I've heard you and David Cameron recently make some pretty strong statements opposing Heathrow expansion. I think this is fantastic.
The government is completely isolated on this issue. Not only are the plans deeply unpopular with the public and within the Labour Party, but a 3rd runway at Heathrow is completely unnecessary. If we are truly serious about reducing carbon emissions, then how in our right minds can we push for an expansion of a extremely powerful source of carbon emissions? This simply contradicts the governments projections for carbon emission reductions.
I prefer your plan for a high-speed rail network across the country, such as the incredible network Japan has to offer with their Shinkansen trains running at extremely high speeds and hence makes commuting a speedy pleasure. Considering that it is much more convenient and greener than air travel - this alternative makes much more sense than a extension of Heathrow, which itself would cost millions of taxpayers pounds. Our money should be put to good use. And it's in all of our interests to put it towards a energy efficient use, and not a prolongation of the pollution of our environment. Sustainability is the future, we all know this. The United Kingdom must show the example for the rest of the world.
Some countries are already making such great advances on this front. As of January 1st, no sulphur is allowed in petrol and diesel sold in the Netherlands. This year Israel will begin fitting itself out in earnest with a network of vehicle-charging points and battery-exchange stations that will eliminate the need for back-up generators and allow it, if the demand is there, to become the most electro-motivated country in the world. Abu Dhabi will be the host of Masdar City, designed by Foster + Partners. It will be entirely run on renewable energy sources and with a zero-carbon and zero-waste design. And Foster + Partners is a British company! Why isn't our government insisting for a similar initiative here in the United Kingdom?
What you are doing is great, it is an encouraging start, and the battle must rage on. Please remember that you are not alone and that you have many many people in the public backing you up. We may not be as visible as we'd like to be; but we are here. It is only by addressing the issue and persevering in this path that we will achieve something; it will get onto our TV screens, as it is an issue that is central to the public, and the public's opinion as you know is crucial.
Keep it up and keep the pressure on Brown
18.12.08
Notes on Danis Tanovic's "No Man's Land"
A stunning film about the Serbian war, shot almost as a documentary. A dark comedy brilliantly acted out. The story line is pretty simple; 2 soldiers from the opposite camps find themselves stuck in a trench in no man's land. They cannot move anywhere as the fields surrounding them are mined.. They manage to get noticed and both camps respectively call the UN for assistance in the matter (there is a excellent scene in which both soldiers jump frantically along the trench in boxers, each brandishing a white shirt).
Other than being entertaining, this war satire depicts with emotion the issues that the UN faces in pacification processes across the world. The many restraints in UN policies and use power are at times extremely frustrating, not only for the citizens and soldiers concerned; but also the outsiders aware of the situation, and people in the UN itself. I think this is the most powerful and important theme of the film, although it does span over other subjects such as the obvious hypocrisy of war, how soldiers lives through it, and its relation with the media (another great scene where the newsroom in Europe is contacting the reporter on location, ignorantly asking her to film inside the trench and interview the soldiers in order to get a good story - when it was made very clear to anybody present on the scene that such things were implausible). I liked this representation of the many "layers" that exist in reality. What seems obvious to some is unknown to others.. And although we attempt to present reality as best as we can through news and footage, it never is truly replicated. Add to this Perspective, which is in almost every news report, and the notion of reality becomes truly distorted. I'm not saying that a 100% un-biased view is achievable, but it should be a standard to be sought by any news outfit.
Media is the second most important theme, as in the films context the media plays an important role by forcing the UN to make an affirmative decision that enables UN troops present to take action and help the 2 soldiers. The role of the media is of course limited; what the film attempts to show us is that when used correctly, it can effectively push enough weigh to consequently resolve pressing issues. In such contexts the media is a great tool that enables a democratic proceeding - by which I mean that if the issue is brought to the public eye, then whoever is in charge of resolving that issue will do so with more thought and responsibility - as this isn't always the case.
The debate about the media is an extremely important one.
As a principle, the media stands out to be the greatest tool to spread information and hence awareness to the biggest possible audience. However, the enormous content that the media is in control of is submitted to a process of selection and editing, and all that content is filtered through. The end result is what we see on our screens. The only way media can effectively be used productively (few can argue that it currently is - and I welcome your views eagerly!) is by submitting this ongoing selection and editing to deeper analysis and control. For it is controlled by the major media outfits, and should really be controlled by a conscious branch of the state concerned with society and its welfare. What I'm putting forwards here is not a totally radical idea, simply the idea that who decides what goes on our screens should be making wiser decisions based on what is going to be good for those watching - not what is going to be good for numbers and tv ratings, hence profit for the industry. The media is a tool almost as powerful as Education and Family (the extent of this is debatable) and sadly is being manipulated by the profit industry. How can such a powerful tool be in the hands of people who's priority is to seek greater profits, as opposed to people who seek to improve the global community by spreading un-biased awareness and truth?
Other than being entertaining, this war satire depicts with emotion the issues that the UN faces in pacification processes across the world. The many restraints in UN policies and use power are at times extremely frustrating, not only for the citizens and soldiers concerned; but also the outsiders aware of the situation, and people in the UN itself. I think this is the most powerful and important theme of the film, although it does span over other subjects such as the obvious hypocrisy of war, how soldiers lives through it, and its relation with the media (another great scene where the newsroom in Europe is contacting the reporter on location, ignorantly asking her to film inside the trench and interview the soldiers in order to get a good story - when it was made very clear to anybody present on the scene that such things were implausible). I liked this representation of the many "layers" that exist in reality. What seems obvious to some is unknown to others.. And although we attempt to present reality as best as we can through news and footage, it never is truly replicated. Add to this Perspective, which is in almost every news report, and the notion of reality becomes truly distorted. I'm not saying that a 100% un-biased view is achievable, but it should be a standard to be sought by any news outfit.
Media is the second most important theme, as in the films context the media plays an important role by forcing the UN to make an affirmative decision that enables UN troops present to take action and help the 2 soldiers. The role of the media is of course limited; what the film attempts to show us is that when used correctly, it can effectively push enough weigh to consequently resolve pressing issues. In such contexts the media is a great tool that enables a democratic proceeding - by which I mean that if the issue is brought to the public eye, then whoever is in charge of resolving that issue will do so with more thought and responsibility - as this isn't always the case.
The debate about the media is an extremely important one.
As a principle, the media stands out to be the greatest tool to spread information and hence awareness to the biggest possible audience. However, the enormous content that the media is in control of is submitted to a process of selection and editing, and all that content is filtered through. The end result is what we see on our screens. The only way media can effectively be used productively (few can argue that it currently is - and I welcome your views eagerly!) is by submitting this ongoing selection and editing to deeper analysis and control. For it is controlled by the major media outfits, and should really be controlled by a conscious branch of the state concerned with society and its welfare. What I'm putting forwards here is not a totally radical idea, simply the idea that who decides what goes on our screens should be making wiser decisions based on what is going to be good for those watching - not what is going to be good for numbers and tv ratings, hence profit for the industry. The media is a tool almost as powerful as Education and Family (the extent of this is debatable) and sadly is being manipulated by the profit industry. How can such a powerful tool be in the hands of people who's priority is to seek greater profits, as opposed to people who seek to improve the global community by spreading un-biased awareness and truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
