Should we go extinct?

This book caught my attention from a radio segment and its scary message tied in with my feelings on the Trump ascendancy.  In some ways this is just a personal rant, but one I believe gaining ground.  Increasing numbers of people are reacting to despair over our future in different ways.

The author is deliberating with the basic question, is humanity justified in continuing?  You can't get any heavier that that.  Todd feels humanity has unleashed animal cruelty, poverty and natural disasters. 

He spends a fair amount of time discussing factory farms.  Dairy cows are used as an example.  They are impregnated, then separated from their offspring.  They are scientifically monitored and when it is calculated that their milk production is uneconomical they are slaughtered for ground beef.  This cruelty is not thought of by humans.  Forests are cut down for grazing depriving wildlife their natural habitat.  In my area coyotes are encroaching on urban areas to seek food.  Manure from farm animals are a major source of global warming.  Inequality assures that large numbers of people consume cheap food, easiest provided by factory farms.  A vicious circle leading to the farm factories and more climate change.

The Amazon Rain Forest is of critical value to all of humanity.  A few years ago, Jair Bolsonaro, the president of Brazil decided to reverse conservation efforts and open up the Amazon Basin into grazing land for livestock.  He was eventually thrown out, but as Brazil is a relatively poor country there is pressure to provide food.  The Amazon is a major carbon offset, but it is being contested by corporate interests.  The author suggested that the American Republican party should direct money to make sure the Amazon remains a vital carbon offset.  At the moment that seems extremely unlikely as short term interests dominate.

It is true that many decisions are controlled by a small minority elite for their own benefit, but most of us go along supporting the system and so also are guilty.

The recent American election provides a prime example that it is not just a small minority totally responsible for our ongoing disaster.  Why did those who suffered from the recent American hurricanes turn around and vote for climate deniers?  If honesty is a critical virtue why did so many vote for obviously dishonest people and support those who want to distort history (slavery, killing the indigenous for their land)?  Trump is just a clever egomaniac with money, not afraid to lie and exploit ignorance and prejudice for his benefit while others cater to him for their own selfish reasons.  The real danger is us who voted for him and his like.

Many of us want to do the right thing, but actually contribute to the unfairness of life.  The key to our hypocrisy is to keep a distance from suffering.

 Might we go extinct from climate change, nuclear explosion, or a pandemic?  There is a decline on birth rate around the world.  This means a likely schism will develop between the young and old.  There will be fewer young to support an aging population.  A view on declining birth rates;   check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/12/empty-planet.html  A danger is that reasonable people will not have babies, while others who will carry on our harmful habits will have more.  The world needs more reasonable people.

There are decent people including some who want to help develop society in a more positive direction.  Carl Sagan once suggested that the reason we have had no contact with aliens is that any civilization able to attain the necessary level of technology possibly self destructed.  A long time ago in our history, leaders were not chosen by an expensive process, but by the simple will of followers.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/07/selected.html

Todd May explores many different perspectives about whether mankind should continue or not.  Some of you might find his thinking too technically philosophical.  He doesn't make a decision.  Nobody really wants to see mankind end, but things will have to change.

I don't believe that the future will be easy.  My wish is more people will follow a guide from Steven Covey;  "Seek first to understand, then to be understood".  I believe the world needs more good people and that our efforts should be directed to encouraging good people, not greedy ones.

Squid Game

Korea makes a lot of money exporting cars, computers, and all kinds of electronics.  All of these items are concrete.  They also export culture which in essence is ideas.  K-Pop has made inroads on our airwaves and last year a Korean movie actually won the Best Picture Oscar.  Now with the blessing of Netflix, the Koreans are invading television series in a very big way.  

"Squid Game" has had a greater impact on Netflix than any other tv. series.  Many of you have noticed, but more is to come.

What is the attraction?  Unexpected violence leading to death plays a role, but what stands out is that there seems to be no justification for the violence.  The killings are just called "eliminated" for playing a game.  

The cruelty is stunning.  It is difficult to determine a motive for setting up such cruelty, but an expressed sentiment is sort of an explanation.  If you have too much money, life is boring, if you have no money life is no fun.  Harken back to Roman times when gladiators fought to the death which was sometimes averted if the crowd signaled that preference.  It was not just the idle rich that passed judgment, but often included the hoi polloi.  It was all for entertainment and it must be admitted that cruelty draws attention.

The dynamics when lives are at stake can be tense.  There are six games and the participants can only guess what they are.  There are twists galore.  There are cheaters among both the participants and the staff administering the games.  The police have tried to infiltrate.  Each participant is desperate for different reasons.  Most of them are heavily in debt with no prospect for getting out. 

"Parasite" (2019) was a bit deceptive, but in reality it depicted class differences and that modern Korea had a degree of inequality--like the rest of the world.  It seems inevitable that inequality will be with us forever, but historically there have been resets--due to such things as pestilence and violence.  Check out:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/01/the-great-leveler-violence-and.html

"Squid Game" highlights inequality and while it is highly entertaining, it should also be thought provoking.  Do we want some segments of our population desperate while another segment exploits them for personal profit (or their amusement).  The end should make viewers concerned about the direction of our society.

Other films have attempted to convey such themes entertainingly with various degrees of success.  Here are a few contributors to the success of "Squid Game."

Director, writer and producer Hwang Dong-hyuk   Directed and wrote "Silenced" (2011) and "Miss Granny" (2014), both highly regarded by me.   Check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/09/comparing-two-grannies.html

Jaeil Jung, composed the music and earlier had done "Okja" (2017) and "Parasite" (2019).

Lee Jung-jae, the leading protagonist is a fashion model.  His face seemed vaguely familiar and it turns out many of his films are on my list.  "The Housemaid" (2010),  "The Thieves" (2012),  "Assassination" (2015),  and "Along with the Gods: The Two worlds" (2017).

Oh Yeong-su played an old man on the verge of dementia who turned out to be more useful than first thought.  Despite his age there are only a few screen credits, one of which I have seen.  "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring" (2003).

Anupam Tripathi played a Pakistani immigrant, another desperate participant.  Born in India he picked up an interest in theater while there, but ended up moving to Korea where he was able to not only learn the language, but able to gain small roles.  His role in "Squid Game" was his first feature and ironically there is supposed to be Urdu dialogue, but Anupam is listed as speaking English, Korean and Hindi. 

Jung Hoyeon played a North Korean defector and created quite a stir from her role that launched her to a huge Instagram following.  Prior to this role she was well established as a fashion model and had only been in video shorts.  Surprised to learn she has been known for her red hair.  Don't be surprised when she makes a bigger splash, not just in Korea, but in the English speaking world.

If this got you hooked on Korean films you could check out some of the following:

Parasite won 3 Oscars:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/09/parasite-breaks-oscar-tradition.html

"Crash landing on You" (2019)  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/02/crash-landing-on-you-very-addicting.html

Right now I am enjoying "Designated Survivor:  60 Days" (2019) and feeling it provides the same tension as the American original.

LANGUISHING: A NEW WORD AND A NEW REALITY

Actually, "languishing" is not a new word, it has been kicking around for a long time and has recently gained some momentum.  But it does have a new and personal meaning for all of us.  Most of us are not actually depressed (although more of us probably are), but we feel helpless and unfocused.  We have been teased with restrictions being lifted and then brought back.  The weather has been easing, but inconsistent.  For me a Steve Paikin episode gave the notion of how one feels, some articulation.

Update:  Languishing is when a person loses hope and loses much of their motivation.

Time management has been altered for everyone.  I had once preached that you can not fully enjoy two activities at the same time, but these days multi-tasking is the normal, but truly no task is quite as satisfying as we hoped.  Blogging is one coping mechanism for me, but will confess there are many posts in draft and I dilly dally between them without the focus that could make any of them more satisfying.  An earlier blog when I was focused on selling, but everyday living as well:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/05/time-management-for-sales-other-people.html

Personally (and for some this is even more excruciating) two funerals have affected me.  A close friend of the family, Helen Rigby died from cancer during one of the semi lockdowns.  A memorial service was held, semi outdoors, masks, temperatures checked, some social distancing.  Under normal circumstances a lot more people would have showed to pay their respects and remember the good times with her.  Through the newspaper obituary we learned of the death of an uncle, Raymond Oleskiw who once had a significant role in the family.  Although he was elderly and had other health issues, the Covid 19 pandemic was the deciding factor.  No mention of a funeral and apparently the opportunity to renew family ties has been missed.

Resentment which we all seem powerless to really express is now part of our psyches.  Guessing most of my readers resent those "idiots" who are not strictly abiding by restrictions and holding the rest of us hostage.  On the other hand they resent us because we are putting a damper on their enjoyment of life.  Amongst my crowd there is resentment between those who had early access to vaccinations and those who didn't, many of whom were exposed to greater risk.

Donald Trump and his supporters are especially resented.  We can see his selfish decision to sideline an intelligent response to the pandemic.  Too many blindly follow his words and example, not realizing he has already screwed them and is now compounding the problem.  Somewhere in the future there may be a reaction against science deniers that are really protecting their greedy interests.  Climate change, gun control, mental health, inequality, etc.may eventually be viewed more reasonably and dealt with more effectively.

Another resentment is that the rich are doing better than ever.  More of us are forced to buy online as we are unable to get what we need (and want) through our regular suppliers.  The big grocery stores are able to adjust, while too many of their smaller competitors are either closed or severely restricted.  This trend will likely carry on and we will all have a different purchasing life.

To my way of thinking there have been events that changed society profoundly, but few as severely as the current pandemic.  My parents were brought up during the Great Depression and went through some deprivations and a great release to help start the baby boom.  Their parents (my grandparents) were the ones who felt the shock of a standard of living being suddenly lowered.  World Wars created for many a different adjustment, due to fear.  Young people, especially those active or close to active fighting, felt life and plans could be ended abruptly so you might as well enjoy life to the fullest for the moment.

Other blogs that made me think of our precarious existence: 

When the Covid 19 shutdowns I started exploring my city within walking distance seemed like a good idea.  This link has several other links for these walks which resulted in lots of photos that you might find interesting and a few observations:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/04/the-shutdown-continues.html

A CBC radio clip got my attention about luck.  A book written by Jeffrey S. Rosenthal, a statistician followed.  He was debunking a lot of luck notions while at the same time urging us to pay more attention to statistical odds.  More recently there has been a fuss about blood clots caused by some vaccines that has caused some policy changes and more critically public fear.  Looking at the odds there is more danger of getting Covid 19.  It is worth some consideration:   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2021/03/knock-on-wood.html

 Watching Michelle Gelfand, a guest on Fareed Zakaria the discussion started on loose and tight societies and how they affected coping with the Covid 19 pandemic.  There has been a definite link and the same mechanism affects much more:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2021/04/rule-makers-rule-breakers.html

What will we bequeath to those that follow?  Life is not certain and thus we might appreciate it more.  People can be very greedy and thoughtless.  Other people can be very caring.  The rich can survive better than the rest of us, but even they can be hurt.  Above all I hope future generations will realize that we are all CONNECTED.

 If you found this blog more disjointed than usual, you could be right.  Blogging still is something I enjoy and has become part of my coping strategy.  An explanation of my joy:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/09/what-keeps-me-blogging-and-what-i-have.html

An explanation of how I chose my title:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/07/the-real-john-davidson.html

"Growing Pains" as seen by Gwynne Dyer

There are a lot of relevant examples of his points, but "Growing Pains" boils down to the main problem in the world is inequality and a possible solution is a Universal Basic Income."  This is very similar to a speaking session held at the Hamilton Public Library in 2017 at about the same time he was working on the
 book:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/04/gwynne-dyer.html

A focus was on Donald Trump who Gwynne sees like the canary in the coal mine.  How did this happen?  Where should we go from here?

After looking at many details he concludes Trump, better than anyone captured the frustration of many Americans.  He didn't address the real problems, but understood the anger.  As it happens he did not need to mobilize a majority, but tack on the disaffected to the regular Republican voters and even then needed help from the Electoral College and Russians.

Of all the major industrial nations United States has the greatest degree of inequality. They are also the only one of this group not to have a national health plan.  Like all nations they have been increasing automation which is a major factor in inequality as while productivity has increased the gains have been distributed to the already wealthy. 

Brexit and U.S election were at least partially decided by fears of immigration.  Dyer points out those areas with the greatest percentage of immigrants voted to stay in the EU or to the Democrats whereas those with the least percentage of immigrants feared it the most and voted to leave the EU or voted for the Republicans.

Another area of global concern was North Korea and Iran's involvement with nuclear weapons.  Gwynne who has a military background maintains that neither country is a threat to America, but each is concerned with their neighbors. Iran borders a nuclear nation, Pakistan and also with Iraq who at one time also had a nuclear weapons program.  They also fear Saudi Arabia and the United States.  North Korea is concerned by China and more directly American involvement in South Korea.  Gwynne feels both nations realize if they initiated a nuclear attack they would be obliterated. 

No solution that ignores human nature would be effective.  Dyer consulted with Franz de Waal, a famous specialist in primates.  They are studying primate behavior and noting that all primates, excluding humans are inequal, authoritarian and prone to violence.  In some ways not a lot different than modern man.  However it seems likely that hunter-gatherers, who predated organized agriculture were grouped in numbers between 100 to 200 with everyone knowing everyone.  It is believed that they were able to be equalitarian.  Ambitious members were held in check limiting their power to specific expertise.

As with dozens of books I have read the big change comes with the development of agriculture  For the first time humans gathered in thousands and even up to millions.  There was no check on ambitions and men (not likely women) were able to develop a hierarchy which means inequality got started.

What helped democracy develop in western nations was improved communications with an early breakthrough was with the Gutenberg printing press.  Ideas were no longer exclusively coming from the top, but spread more evenly.  In the United States they achieved the highest rate of literacy.  Thomas Paine published in 1776 a pamphlet, "Common Sense" which sold 120,000 copies within 3 months and likely read by at least a million people with a total population of about 2.4 million.

After WWII the Keynesian economic model worked well allowing the economy to be increase while decreasing inequality.  In the 1970's under the leadership of Ronald Reagan the economic models shifted to Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman with a concern about inflation.  Productivity gain profits also started to shift to the top10%.

When we get to the 2016 election, Trump was not the only one to attract attention to frustrated voters, but Bernie Sanders was not successful in the Democratic primaries.  Previously most of the time the winning candidate would get most of the votes of their rivals, but in this case many Sanders supporters in the rust belt states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania chose Trump instead of Hillary helping with the margin of the Trump victory.  It is also estimated that Trump got free $5 billion worth of coverage by being newsworthy.  

The Universal Basic Income is a possible solution.  One of the problems with a basic income program or  other welfare measures is  they convey stigmatization.  Those receiving income feel humiliation and in truth the rest of us tend to look down on them.   Make it universal with billionaires also receiving it makes it more acceptable and easier to administer.  For those who have other income it may well raise them to higher tax bracket and that would help pay for it, even without raising tax rates.   Studies with limited examples have demonstrated there is minimal reduction in willingness to work.

Gwynne also discusses the possible loss of meaning that comes from not working.  He points out that many people do not work right now and have found activities to fill in the missing work time.  He acknowledges that some of them might be drinking more beer and/or watching more television.   In the past society has accepted leisure activities of the rich, but not so for the poor.  Our attitudes towards leisure may take time to change, but Gwynne feels there will be improvements over time.

There can be adjustments to allow for cost of living in different geographic areas, disabilities, children, etc.  Gwynne recognizes that the idea might not work but it needs to be tested and if found insufficient, alternatives need to be found.

Automation will ensure a very high unemployment rate which will result in either a major redistribution of income or a revolution.  High unemployment also means consumption will decrease further economic stress.

Gwynne Dyer writes about important matters in an easy to understand format including a few laughs along the way.  One quote from the author:  "History is not cyclical.  There is such a thing as progress."  If you are not fortunate enough to have access to one of the over 100 newspapers with Gwynne's twice weekly column you can catch up at his web site:  http://www.gwynnedyer.com

Unions and their role

The decline of unions is a major factor in increasing inequality.  A union represents the worker to the employer.  Unions tend to get involved in the larger political process ideally representing the interests of their members, but some times the individual members have a different vision. Individuals do have power, but using their power collectively synergizes their efforts and frightens the owners of capital.

I grew up in a union town, Oshawa and later settled in another, Hamilton.  But my father in particular did not seem to like unions.  He was an independent trucker and was aware of hard tactics by the Teamsters.  My maternal grandmother was a great admirer of unions and I learned later that her husband, my grandfather Marshall Coakwell had taken part in a significant historical strike at General Motors.  From my father (and others) I heard stories of lazy protected workers and hard tactics of such groups as the Teamsters, but he also thought his father in law was a conciliator.

I had some union connections as I had worked for the Children's Aid Society and as a supply teacher for only about 3 days.  The Teacher's Union tracked me down more than 30 years later to give me my accumulated contributions with interest pension.  Most of my life I have been non union and never really felt hard done by.  On one job I actually received a call from a co-worker trying to form a union and turned it down as I felt I was in a semi management position.  The very next day I was forced out (I don't think the phone call was a factor) with a moderately generous settlement.  I did feel cheated as very misleading statistics were used against me and I had felt my work was above and beyond.  read about my involvement in newspaper circulation: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/08/my-career-in-circulation-part-3-winding.html

I cringe when I hear of union corruption.  It justifies anti-union rhetoric from those representing the interests of the wealthy.  Unfortunately human nature lends itself to the adage "Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely."  The problem includes all groups, union, political, NGOs, families and even social relationships.  Leadership requires followers and historically there have been natural restraints that have been diminished. see:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/07/selected.html

It seems on both sides of the border efforts have been made to weaken unions.  More success in the United States where right wing philosophy supported by large amounts of money legislated against them.  It is a critical factor explaining increasing inequality.  Corporations have consolidated their power at the expense of workers and with co-operation of voters.  Wages had stagnated while union membership has diminished.  Ronald Reagan was pleased to break up the Air Traffic Controllers union. and had made a lot of efforts to boost inequality.

Divide and conquer was one strategy employed.  We were always told how lazy and overpaid union workers were with the implication it was at the expense of hard working non union members. Ironically it was the power of unions that kept wages and working conditions up for non union workers.  One of the best examples was provided in my adopted city of Hamilton where Stelco would go on long strikes that once settled almost immediately set the wages and benefits for their rival Dofasco who avoided the costs of strikes.

An argument is made that high wages, unreasonable benefits  and restrictive regulations are what has killed manufacturing in North America.  That certainly is a factor, but a few other factors should also be considered.  Cheap energy and international trade agreements allowed corporations to shift jobs to cheap labour and looser regulated countries.  Another factor is rapidly creeping up and that is automation supported by computerization.

German companies recognize there are other stakeholders than the owner.  Unions are encouraged and listened to.  Union managers hear and are heard.  The company benefits.  Peter Drucker made me aware of the concept of stakeholders.  Workers and their communities are often more committed than the owners who will pull up stakes if a better opportunity is perceived.

The world will have to make some adjustments to avoid increasing tensions towards more violence.  Inequality will not disappear ever and automation will increasingly take away the need for workers of all types.  We could easily evolve towards societies depicted in such books as "1984" or "The Time Machine" where basically a few elites control the masses.  That is a clear possibility

While a lot of attention is publicly given to corporations and investors and what it takes to motivate them, little attention is given to consumers, citizens and labourers.  We won't be needed to produce the goods and services to nearly the same extent as historically.  We will be wanted as consumers, but with fewer people controlling the distribution of goods the rules will be set by them.  Democracy seems to require a lot of money and so those with lots of money will control that as well.

At one time it was suggested that the poor would vote in the own self interest to the point of being counter- productive.  I can see that, but it is not working out that way.  Voters regularly vote against their own self-interest.  Social interests are manipulated by those with the power and who are more comfortable with the status quo.  Unfortunately many voters feel apathetic, i.e. their vote is not worth the effort. link to proportional voting

An alternative would be for the 99% to assert their rights.  Of course there are too many conflicts of interest to keep track of (unless you have lots of money for the task).  Education is basic to the idea and will be resisted by those in power.  I don't mean just job skill education which will be supported, but how to think critically, how to enjoy life and how they fit into the global reality.

Corporations are global.  Capital can shift to any corner of the globe that promises better returns with out concern for other stakeholders.  Unions need to match that power more closely or they will just be played off against one another.

The photo is of a Worker's Art and Heritage Centre in Hamilton, Ontario.

IDENTITY: A NEW FORCE IN MODERN POLITICS

Originally this book was to be reviewed shortly after reading, but work bogged me down and I ended up reading two other books before finding time for another blog.  Ironically I learned more about the the author Francis Fukuyama.  He is famous for "The End of History" which I had not read.  In it he apparently proclaimed that all history had led to our modern status quo which Francis thought was destined to boost democracy and progressiveness indefinitely  This new book was made necessary because Trump set history backwards.

Politicians have been trying to figure out how best to attract enough voters to get elected.  Francis Fukuyama explores the issue of identity which is a critical factor that some politicians understand better than others.

Economic motivation is rooted in the demand for recognition and therefore cannot be satisfied by economic means.  For many leaders it is felt that if the incentives are right a worker/citizen will be motivated.  Francis goes beyond that implying that people have come to recognize money is one important tool and not just because of what one can do with it.  Money is one marker of status. 

Back in 1974 the proportion of national output going to the 1% was only 9%, but in 2008 it had risen to 24%.  That was at the expense of the rest of the population and the victims were looking for someone to blame.

Fukuyama credits Martin Luther as one of the first Western thinkers to extol the inner self or the external social being.  Humiliation drove many movements with one of the best examples the French Revolution.  The growth of liberalism led to the free movement of labor.  Two of the most liberal nations, Britain and the United States were drivers of industrialization.  Ironically (?) inequality in developed world is most pronounced in the same two countries.

Simone de Beauvoir wrote that the experiences of women is not the same as for men and helped promote the idea to boost the status of women.  Over time other aggrieved groups, racial minorities, gays, transgenders who developed a conscience of being treated unfairly.  Fukuyama contends that nations need to develop national identities. 

United States was mostly settled by the British, but Irish Catholics starting immigrating around the 1840's.  Southern and eastern Europeans followed and were also resented.  In World War I many Germans tried to hide their identity.  In the 20th century and more so in the 21st, Mexicans and Muslims are becoming more noticeable and causing politicians like Sarah Palin to comment on the "real America" and Donald Trump wants to "make America great again."

Fukuyama advocates that minority abuses have to be corrected.  Assimilation has to be encouraged.  Economic stress needs to be mitigated as resentment starts with loss of status.  Social media facilities the formation of groups and also misinformation to spread.

Identity has been used to divide people, but it also can and has been used to integrate.  My little review necessarily skims over much of Fukuyama's arguments which are well worth reading.

After reading it was brought to my attention that Stacey Abrams rebutted some Fukuyama's arguments during her response to the State of the Union speech.

Prius or Pickup?

Political power comes from accurate analysis of voters.  In this age of American partisan voting the contest is very competitive and the consequences can be frightening.  Another book brought to my attention by Fareed Zakaria

The authors contend that the answers to four apparently non political questions can tell a lot about a voter and why there is such a divide in America.  The outcomes of the four questions can be applied to many situations.



Here are the four questions that respondents are requested to indicate a preference: with respect for their children
                    1).  independence vs respect for elders.
                    2).  obedience vs. self-reliance
                    3).  curiosity vs. good manners
                    4).  being considerate vs. being well behaved.

The answers would be classified by worldview as fixed, fluid or mixed.  The fixed tended to prefer authoritarian parenting and set in life style while fluid were more nurturing and open minded.  Mixed were the ones who did not answer all questions consistently and thus might bend a little either way.

You might guess that the fixed worldview tends to vote Republican and that fluid tends to vote Democrat and generally that is true.   Race turns out to be an offsetting factor.  Many blacks, Muslims and Hispanics are naturally fixed in their world view, but the Republican leaders cannot avoid offending many minorities, because their base wants them to stand up to the minorities including the LGBT community.  Race can even modify some fixed views as when Obama supported same sex marriage and many blacks followed the change in attitude.

In addition to the direct political links there are endless non political links that reinforce the political choices.  Most Fixed stick with traditional food, entertainment, fashion, education, etc.  Fluid are more open, even seeking new things. This leads to segregation based on worldview making it more difficult to change attitudes.  Check a related blog on attitudes to novelty:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/08/new-understanding-our-need-for-novelty.html

Partisanship has intensified significantly since 1990.  There is hatred not just for the opposing party, but to those people who claim loyalty to the opposing party.  Amazingly facts do not matter so much as each side is capable to spinning information to defend their loyalties.

Mixed worldviews are closer to fixed than they are to fluid, especially with regard to racism and immigration.  Fear shifts everyone.  Trump's campaign emphasized things to be afraid of.

Europe is showing similar trends, although there are significant differences.  They examine the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Denmark that are all experiencing growth of right wing parties. There is greater inequality in America than in Europe.  It appears that wealthy American interests have been well served at the expense of the less well off.  Offsetting this to some extent is that large corporations do realize their interests are best served by being fair to minorities.

The authors close with a quote from Abraham Lincoln.  "a house divided against itself cannot stand."  Their concern was that the conflicting worldviews need to work together on a global scale.

21 Lessons for the 21st Century by Yuval Noah Harari

The first lines of the introduction give a clue to Yuval's focus, "In a world deluged by irrelevant information clarity is power."  He has already given us a focus on how man came to be and where man can go.  This book reflects on the stresses and contradictions in the world today and explores a few ways we might extricate ourselves.  Fortunately he does have a sense of humor and offers many attention getting examples.

There are more thought provoking ideas than I can cover in a short post.  A lot to digest.  My attempts to sort through are only a taste of what you can expect.  To me this is the Book of the year.

In the middle of the last century the world was offered three global political philosophies--Fascism, Communism and Liberalism.  Fascism was killed during World War II and Communism collapsed by the close of the century leaving Liberalism to expand its umbrella.  However our current news reflects a new range of anti liberal trends.  The 21 Lessons reviews several alternatives we might consider for the 21st century.

Economic growth has underscored liberal thinking, but the most critical problems today are being undercut by economic growth.  Technological innovation threatens job security.  Climate change and pollution suffer with economic growth.  I see a problem with his concern about the need to reduce meat consumption:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/01/what-happens-to-farm-animals-when.html

Social media is taking over the lives of the entire globe.  Yuval expresses concern about online vs offline.  Online does have potential to steer people to offline activities that can be healthy for bodies and social beings. Generally social media is likely to cut down physical interaction and be unhealthy.

Algorithms are becoming increasingly more invasive.  One simple example given was how a GPS system can tell us to turn right or left.  Artificial Intelligence combined with bio tech is now getting  an understanding of emotions.  Algorithms will know you better than you know yourself.  Trust in algorithms will increase as they will become more reliable.

Ethics can be and will be integrated with algorithmic decisions.  Philosophers will have a demand as many decisions will need to be made split second with examples coming from such endeavors as self driving cars.

Happiness depends less on circumstances than on expectations.  Humans are easily satiated.

Inequality is likely to increase as those who control algorithms will have tools to squeeze more.  But it might not just be financial wealth, but also longevity as biotech will be more accessible to some.  The future of the masses will depend upon the goodwill of a small elite.  Some nations with a tradition of liberalism such as France or New Zealand will more likely support the masses while those with a more capitalist tradition like that of the United States may well dismantle the welfare state.  Newly emerging states like India and China, Brazil) are more likely to see an increase in inequality.

Killing a few people in Belgium draws far more attention than killing hundreds in Nigeria or Iraq.

Most people believe they are the centre of the world and their culture the linchpin of human history.  Rather than denigrating other cultures Yuval, a Jew living and working in Israel makes a few points about "God's Chosen People."   The universe is at least 13 billion years old with Earth being formed about 4.5 billion years ago.  Humans have existed for at least 2 million years.  Jerusalem was founded  about 5,000 years ago which does not mean it is eternal.  He also pointed out that Orthodox Jews usually hold the balance of power in Israel and have helped pass laws that curtail activities on the Sabbath including for secular Jews.

Morality predates religion.  He gives the example of pups playing until one bites too hard and they will not play with a bully.

Author quote:  "Questions you cannot answer are usually far better for you than answers you can not question."

We are all complicit to some degree--"How can anyone understand the web of relations among thousands of intersecting groups across the world."

The meaning of life is looking for a role to play and a story to provide identity.  A wise man asked about meaning of life replied, "I have learned that I am on earth in order to help other people.  What I still haven't figured out is why the other people are here?"

He goes on to say that asking about the meaning of life is the wrong question.  The better question is how do we stop suffering.  He does seem to have a Buddhist bias, but is upfront about it.

Going back to Confucius, rituals are good for social stability.  The most meaningful ritual is sacrifice.  The author contends that rituals are an obstacle to seeking truth.

On the question of free will Yuval asks to define it first.  If you mean the freedom to do what you desire, yes.  But if you mean the freedom to choose what to desire then no.  Humans do not have free will.  He asks us to think where does a thought come from?  He concludes that although we don't have free will we can be a bit more free from the tyranny of our will.

Mankind has made much progress in studying the brain, but have barely begun learning about the mind.  He personally has found meditation to be a tool for observing your own mind directly.  Self observation has always been difficult because there are so many stories surrounding us.  In the future  algorithms will create more stories making it more difficult to observe your mind.

My little sketches do not do justice to his overview of how we might look at life out of our complacent perspective.  Well worth reading and I expect different readers will get different values from the effort.

Read my thoughts  on "Sapiens":  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/12/sapiens-brief-history-of-humankind.html

Read my thoughts on "Homo Deos": http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/04/homo-deus.html

HATRED AND FEAR ARE ENDANGERING CIVILIZATION

Terrorism as a symptom should concern us all.  Of course by itself it is frightening, but underlying it is a greater danger to us all.  The actual number of deaths directly attributable to terrorism is really a very small percentage of humanity but it and the response to it indicates something worse.

The current focus is on Muslim extremists (who are only one of many terrorist groups), but the response from Westerners is emotional.  Terror is meant to frighten and is used primarily when other methods do not succeed.  In many ways they are winning by provoking us to change our daily habits and react like frightened animals.  Someone failed to set off a shoe bomb and it is now common to take off your shoes before getting on a plane.  More importantly it has caused us to point our fingers in a much wider swing taking in people who wish us no harm.

The problem is really more basic than real and imagined grievances of a very small group of people.  The most basic cause is inequality that is not really linked directly to the hatred that is being expressed.

There is the matter of wealth which is concentrating in fewer and fewer hands.  There is the matter of young people being held back.  There is the matter of minorities who in a world of increasing communication find themselves second class.  Resentment comes out in different ways, but almost always involves blaming someone else for life's frustrations.  Sometimes it is fairly direct, but too often it is misdirected.

ISIS apparently is happy to recruit young people who are not knowledgeable about their own religion, but feel a sense of grievance and a desire for meaning and/or excitement.  It is depressing to think of the many ruined lives.  It is also upsetting how others have let their own frustrations and fears be misdirected.  The terrorists want us help them unite other Muslims who are trying to fit in to a new culture.

The primary beneficiaries of this misdirected hate and fear are the terrorist recruiters and political opportunists.

What can be done?  An individual has limited power, but they often underestimate what they can do.  We set an example and encourage others to change their attitude.

First acknowledge there are underlying grievances.  When Westerners realized cheap oil was concentrated in Muslim controlled countries they bolstered the control of "friends" who enriched themselves while suppressing their own citizens.  Perhaps a greater concern would be they felt it was in their best interests to keep their people ignorant except for the elite.

Western countries were horrified with the Holocaust, but at the same time many restricted emigrating Jews.  We agreed to let them set up their own state in Israel, but somehow never got around to letting the Palestinians who were already there to also gain a state.  There is still discrimination against Jews, that all too often reaches violent levels in some parts of the world and Jews take comfort that there is one sanctuary where they can be safe.  They feel frightened by the surrounding Arabs and a mutual hate/fear cycle has set in.  In one sense they have to settle their concerns amongst themselves, but we should be careful to be neutral yet encouraging understanding.

Unfortunately in the United States especially, people have taken sides, not so much average voters as  those in power.  Much more financial and U.N. veto power is exercised on behalf of Israel than on the plight of displaced Arabs.  Some individuals have organized to boycott Israel, somewhat comparable to similar efforts to confront South African apartheid, but this has been met with political resistance. Many state governments are threatening to cut off support to any group that supports an Israeli boycott.

By itself a Palestinian political resolution will not stop terrorism, but it will undercut a very significant driving force.  Are there are other grievances?  Yes, but now perhaps the greatest is how too many of our fellow Westerners treat our new Muslim neighbors and talk about those still in the Mid East.  We fear the refugees fleeing violence and make it more difficult than it needs to be.  There is no escaping that we will all have to make adjustments.  We need to acknowledge the world is changing and has many other threats that we can only solve through co-operation.

Education is vital.  We cannot afford to be ignorant.  We cannot afford for others to be ignorant either.  The poor in many countries are limited in education options.  We need to learn about others and they need to learn about us.

Inequality is the real cause.  Those in power want to stay in power, while others are angling for ways to upset the status quo.  Appealing to  prejudice works.  Blaming the "other" relieves pressure from those who are benefiting from inequality.  How can someone earn over $20 million dollars and only pay 14% tax.  Someone is helping to pick up the slack.

As an individual one of the most important things to do is ask questions.  Why do you think that?  How did we get to this situation?   Can we resolve our differences?  Or tolerate them?
There are already assumptions as answers, but they seldom suffice in most situations.

the Media and the American Election

Some of you may be sick of another political article from me.  I apologize as I had not intended to blog about the American election quite this closely, but the results from last night's primaries have really narrowed the opportunities and I think very counter productive to the best interests of everyone.

Everyone knows that money makes a difference in an election.  But another element is communications that sometimes can overcome money.  When you combine big money and the main stream media it is hard to battle.

A few elections ago I became conscious of the power of the media.  The Democrat Howard Dean got off to a roaring start by being an early adopter of social media and raising money without relying on traditional big donors.  His platform appealed to a lot of people who paid attention.  However there were other contenders some of whom had greater name recognition and were able to tap into big money and he started to lose some of his lustre.  What really did him in was a screaming rant that was not intended for media exposure that nevertheless was caught on tape.  It was played it seemed almost every time his candidacy was discussed in the media.  He never recovered.

Undoubtedly the media has played a role in many elections, but I didn't notice because the issues weren't of big concern or my favourites got in anyway.  I worked in newspapers for about twenty years at a time when people were becoming conscious that newspaper ownership was becoming more concentrated.  Here in Canada one consequence was that fewer towns had a correspondent in Ottawa for their local paper and that seemed to affect voter turnout.   To get more details on newspapers and Canadian politics:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/04/kill-messengers.html

The same process was well underway for television and radio.  In the U.S. it was discovered that profits could be made off news if it was packaged in a more entertaining way.  That meant sensationalism, short clips and punditry.  At the same time Americans have loosened laws regarding election spending to the point that many politicians have found fund raising a critical part of their re-election efforts leaving less time to actually do their job.

Big money is influential in countless ways.  Data analysis, transportation to hopscotch around the electoral districts, and advertising all cost money.  Much of that money comes with obligations and almost all of it with expectations.

In the last two decades alternatives have developed through social media.  This is where alternative ideas can reach the public, but even here big money has intruded.  Social media has become a platform for all sorts of ideas, some of hate.

All this to say is that I think the American public has been given a raw deal by the media.  There certainly is cause for anger amongst most people, but big money has had a lot of success in steering that anger.  In the not so distant past the media played a more significant role in informing voters.

After Obama won his historic victory back in 2008, many hoped he would be able to deal with the problems inherited such as the Iraq war and a major recession.  But others were upset that their world was changing in frightening ways.  Part of it was undeniably racist with Mexicans taking low level jobs away from Americans and of course a black man in charge.  A bigger problem was increasing inequality.  The truth is that some at the very top benefited from outsourcing jobs to other countries, from hiring cheap Mexican labour under the table and from laws that enabled them to keep more of their "hard earned" money.  As I understand it the Tea Party was at least partially motivated by the fact that most of the ones responsible for the financial disaster escaped with virtually no punishment.  Somehow that natural anger got diverted  to the awfulness of Obamacare, environmentalists and regulations hurting jobs plus terrorism.

The real cause of unhappiness is inequality.  An enabler of that is campaign finance laws (courtesy of big money influences).  Three realities we all have to face are automation, climate change and too much hate.  A lot of intelligent and educated people have an understanding of that, but they aren't enough to win elections.

Donald Trump has hosted a reality show and drawn a lot of fans.  People think he is tough and smart and to some degree I agree.  But I would add that it is all self serving.  I don't think that he really believes (or cares) that Obama was born in Kenya, but realized that that suggestion drew him a lot of attention and reinforced some negative views of many Americans.  He is very strong on some notions such as building a wall that will be paid for by Mexicans, slamming the door on Muslims and reviving torture, but is very vague about practical details.  Many of us don't really care about the details.  Lately his antics have been alarming, resulting in actual violence.  Many of his facts are unproven.  For my views of the consequences of torture:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/12/torture.html

Mostly unseen by the media has been Bernie Sanders.  He doesn't fit in.  He is proud to call himself a "democratic socialist" which scares a lot of people (especially the 1%).  When he was drawing bigger audiences than most politicians he got very little media attention.  His explanations got even less coverage.  Those who heard his message really liked it, but more attention was given to the outrageous.  Donald Trump got more free media attention than all the other candidates put together, but yet he was seldom, if ever pinned down to a serious explanation.  Networks all prefer Trump's boisterousness to Bernie's explanations.

Bernie points out that the "corporate media" as he characterizes it, is most interested in the criticisms of his opponents (Donald Trump is famous for that) and social gossip.  They do not really get involved in important issues.  They benefit from an interest in the horse race aspects of an election.

Bernie is pointed out as a radical, but here in Canada many of his ideas are already taken for granted.  We already have and would fight to maintain a single payer healthcare system.  Our campaign finance laws could use some improvement (and more enforcement) but they are ahead of America.  Free tuition for qualified students to university has been done in other countries and could make a real difference to global competitiveness.  Climate change, although denied by special interests is gaining public acceptance and by refusing fossil fuels funds Bernie has credibility like no one else.  He has a long time record of human rights including some jail time.  He is not against military action, but was one of the few to vote against the Iraq War.  Having said all that he is also too boring for the networks.

Bernie does see the real problems Americans should be concerned about and has proved over a long period of time he is sincere.  Pretty much everyone else is very careful what they say to avoid offending their donors or their base.  He has mostly exercised good judgment sorting through what he thinks is best for everyone.  He is not just an idealist as he has quietly improved much legislation through amendments.

What is in the media's best interest is high ratings so they can charge more for advertising.  What is not in their best interests is challenging the 1%. The rest of us are losers.

Information and the American Voter

Super Tuesday has come and gone, tightening up the primary season.  It will be difficult to change trends that have been set in motion.  For some of us self appointed analysts it is difficult to understand how so many people can ignore their own best interests.  For some of us who follow differences of policy the choices are almost obvious, but the vast majority of actual choices do not seem to reflect careful thought.  Perhaps I am being self-righteous.  Feel free to judge.

The truth is the average person, even more than the average voter doesn't have the time or inclination to examine the many different policies that would affect them in one way or another.  Maybe they shouldn't have to, after all life can be a struggle and there are many more things to enjoy.  The problem comes in where people with vested interests are able to take advantage of apathy and stir up emotions for their own benefit.

How many of you had heard of Bernie Sanders two years ago?  How about John Kasich or Jon Huntsman?  Or switching gears how about Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump?  Of course my readers are ahead of the curve on these names, but we should also consider that there are many capable conscientious people who do not have the resources or name recognition and give up the battle before any voter realizes they have already lost a choice.

For those who don't really care very much, the media is their resource for identifying people they should pay attention to.  Hilary Clinton has earned a lot of attention and in fact has done or at least tried to do some worthy things.  Donald Trump inherited wealth and some business smarts and built his name with real estate and reality tv.  Hilary has been able to attract significant amounts of money from people who share at least some of her aims and Donald has been able to attract a big amount of notoriety partly through his television involvement.  Along the way he has learned what gets attention.

My choice would be Bernie Sanders and I have admired him for at least two or three years.  My knowledge comes from watching him speak on tv shows with relatively low ratings.  He made a lot of sense and when checking his background his character commanded a lot of respect.  Unfortunately his speaking platform is not as impressive as his policy platform.  He deliberately avoids attacking personalities and rejects financial donations that will tie his hands.  His biggest concerns seem to be inequality and campaign finance.  He has a solid background of supporting human rights for racial minorities, Muslims, women and gays.  He recognizes climate change needs urgent attention, but sees the first two priorities (inequality and campaign finance) as obstacles.

You may have noticed that Donald Trump dwarfs all other candidates in media attention, amounting to a lot of free advertising.  Bernie, despite drawing the biggest crowds gets very little media attention.  There are at least two reasons for that.  Donald is great to build ratings.  The more outrageous he is the more people tune in to get more.  Offending people, even war heroes and making huge exaggerations just draw more attention.  Bernie tries to avoid attacking people, preferring to explain his policies accurately.  In other words he is boring.

The second reason is more serious.  Bernie's policies are not what big money donators want to be heard.  He is easily dismissed as a whining socialist of little consequence.  As critically, he is not what the media owners want either.  Aside from wanting to tax wealth at higher rates Bernie's ideas on campaign finance mean that the media would not get as much revenue from political campaigns.

I admit sometimes the candor of Trump has astounded me.  His criticisms of George W Bush not keeping us safe were right on.  The whole presidency of the younger Bush has been sugar coated and at least some Republicans were happy to get over that hump and pleased to criticize the establishment that has failed to deliver what they wanted.

Donald Trump often spouts things that are true and revealing.  "I love the poorly educated."  If someone is allowed to vote it should be our collective responsibility to encourage them to think as clearly as possible about the responsibility.  Education is just another budget item subject to cutting, except when emotions can be stirred up.  Anti union rhetoric is one tool used.  Another is the influence of religion.  For some, religious education means promoting what they believe and in many cases it means distorting the curriculum to reflect their beliefs.  Bernie seems radical for advocating free university education, but in fact university education in the job market is the equivalent of high school education a few decades ago.  Besides in a competitive global marketplace education is vital.  And to top it off education is what a responsible voter needs.   Some earlier thoughts on education: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/02/reign-of-error-what-direction-should.html

For those whose highest goal is the pursuit of wealth they gravitate towards policies and rationale to support their greediness.  But they are smart enough to realize many of these policies are counter to the interests of the average person, so they have to find away to disguise their goals.

Emotional factors sway voting choices.  Many people vote against their economic self interest and often knowingly.  The best example might be abortion.  Almost everyone would agree that abortion is a horrible practice.  Other sub groups feel that promiscuity is also unacceptable.  Emotions are stirred up and they become the primary criteria for a voting choice.  Hopefully some people can take a practical view and look at the consequences of making abortion totally illegal.  Like drinking alcohol, when forbidden abortion will go underground.  This means rich people or those with connections can resort to it when they feel threatened by an unwanted pregnancy.  But others either do something desperate sometimes with fatal results and others end up with unwanted children and a change in their life projectory.

If the bad consequences don't make them re-think, perhaps these one issue voters might consider what policies could help avoid or at least minimize abortions.  Two things spring to mind.  The first is sex education that gives information to help prevent pregnancies and also promote the idea of consent.  The second is to make contraception more accessible.  The problem with both of these ideas is that they promote promiscuity which is also unacceptable.  The discussion of these factors is difficult, but part of the information needed to be shared.

An undercurrent in America (and the rest of the world for that matter) is racism.  We all identify with our ethnic background, but for some people merely preferring your own kind is not enough--they hate  and fear the "other."  Many rational politicians have tapped into this.  Everyone has some idea of political correctness boundaries, but a few subtly cross them and Donald Trump not so subtly. Recently he received an endorsement from a former prominent Ku Klux Klan member and after some "confusion" disavowed it.  Racists have a good idea who favours their view of the world.

The real issues that impact the average person (the 99% in other words) are not very prominent in the mass media.  The horse race aspects are emphasized and provocative personal taunts or gaffes are more often headlined.  The media, once called the Fifth Estate is supposed to protect the public from the hidden doings of the powerful, but instead are advancing their own concerns.

The reaction of the media to Super Tuesday is of course mixed.  One blog commentator pointed out that according to the media Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have a chance to upset Trump, but that Bernie is all finished, although the numbers are not dissimilar.  To me that promotes heavy advertising from the Republican race and hoping to dampen a candidate they don't want.

The American Primary Debates

Unlike in Canada the Americans really stretch out an election campaign, specifically the Presidential election.  As soon as one election is resolved organization begins for the next election four years later.  The situation intensifies two years in, especially after the midterms.  Although my bias is for the Democrats I feel there are concerns that bode ill for any political aspirant and for the voters.

By itself this is an expensive proposition which automatically eliminates many prospects.  It also encourages a lot of investigative efforts to uncover any flaws in a particular candidate including their families also discouraging for some worthy prospects  It is good business for media and marketing people.  A number of candidates are able to neglect their jobs in the pursuit of a higher office.  It rewards those who are best able to leap through all the hoops, but not necessarily the best candidates.

My great fear is that the Democrats are conceding too great a broadcast platform to the Repubicans.  A lot of speculation that as part of a pro Hilary Clinton campaign they are limiting the number of debates and making them at unpopular awkward times.  Hilary has hard to beat name recognition value.  The only other two left are Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders, both capable men who would benefit from greater exposure.  A celebrity once said you can say anything you want about me, but spell my name right.

The last time around the Republicans did hurt themselves with a long drawn out campaign that seemed to force candidates to out yell and out threaten each other.  They have cut down the number of debates, but started with a longer list of candidates and were forced to do outrageous things to get attention.  In reality they have to appeal to a difficult to please base before they argue their merits in front of all the voters.

Getting our attention is the goal of every aspiring politician.  The debates are only one forum for this, but potentially a very good opportunity for the voter to understand their choices better.  But it is not quite as clear cut as it seems.  Squeezing in time for a large number of egoists is difficult for a media who sees this as an opportunity to boost their advertising revenue.

When I list the issues, it is perilous to ignore any of them and they are all inter-related.

I agree inequality is fundamental.  The Republicans keep proving their loyalty is to their donor base Those at the top get to decide for the rest of us.  They seem focused on allowing freedom to exploit those not fortunate enough to have more power.  Opportunities are restricted from birth and there is no painless way to alleviate that.  The government has power to facilitate the optimal mix, but they are too often beholden to special interests before even tackling the difficult choices.

Climate change, an issue critical for our future in some ways illustrates the inequality.  Those who  are entrenched with fossil fuel resources feel threatened.  I am sure some are learning to hedge their bets, but know clearly that when the consumption and price of oil goes down so does their fortune and their power.  It seems amazing that many voters prefer the opinions of those with vested interests over relatively neutral and earnest scientists, but that is still reality.

International instability is a very complex issue.  First one has to accept that no one nation, not even an exceptional one like America, really controls the rest of the world.  The international players are  threatened by inequality, climate change and ignorance of each other.  The Republicans scoff at the idea that climate change has anything to do with national security.  Many of them are intelligent enough, but more concerned about maintaining their own  power.

Campaign finance affects everything else.  Getting your voice heard costs money and with a long campaign, money becomes an even bigger issue.  A major concern of every elected politician is to get re-elected.  Raising the necessary money now takes up more of their time and ties their options.  They used to spend time sorting out the factors of decisions they were elected to make and to discuss with other perspectives.  Billions are being spent to sway your vote, not necessarily for your best interests.

Human rights are too often a wedge issue.  If the majority is prejudiced against a group they feel it is their right to discriminate and ignore the merits.  In some ways this is an inequality issue, but goes beyond income.  Politicians have learned by using code words and sometimes blunt language they can get votes at the expense of minorities or of some people violating other people's religious beliefs

The voters get most of their information through the media.  Although many have pre-set notions others are open to facts and intelligent opinions, but bear in mind that the media has its own agenda.  Basically they are in business to make money and sometimes that means sensationalizing the format and/or the content.  They tend to minimize the issues to cover the horse race aspects.  The more powerful media outlets may have their own preferences and can advantage one side or the other.

Everything is stacked against the middle class, but most of us are unaware of how we are being manipulated or are made to feel helpless.  As a counter balance there is the inter net and word of mouth.  Most voters have access to alternative opinions and facts.  Bernie Sanders, my favourite has been able to draw large crowds, mostly I suspect sympathizers, but is not able to get nearly the time on major media outlets as someone like Donald Trump.  He has the disadvantage of not being favoured by the establishment.  Part of his appeal comes from avoiding special interest donations that go against his platform.  Others are willing to compromise their agendas to get the necessary money.

It is easy to be self-rightious, but nothing can be done unless a politician is able to get elected.  Really what we have is a representative democracy, meaning we trust others to make the decisions that we do not have the time to understand.  In many ways we do not have the time or even motivation to understand who can be trusted to represent our best interests.

The American primary procedure illustrates the problems.  Hopefully as more people become aware of the distortions something can be done.  This blog is really only indicating some problems, but is not in a position to implement any helpful suggestions.

The photo is from a trip taken to Las Vegas a few years ago.

With all the Donald Trump nonsense Bernie Sanders is being overlooked by the media

When one writes about a political figure it might be fair to declare your own bias.  I like to consider myself liberal and progressive and confess an admiration for Bernie Sanders.  That doesn't mean that I would automatically agree with every thing or nuance he declares and I hope to retain some objectivity.  In some ways he seems to be fading from serious contention with Hilary Clinton over-whelming, but Bernie in many ways is much more admirable.  Loud mouth Donald Trump is getting much more media attention, but people ought to realize Bernie is their real champion.

He has been consistent over a longer period of time.  He actually marched with black civil rights groups.  He actually voted against the Iraq War.  He is the main candidate who understand climate change is a key issue.  He has consistently voted for sexual equality and fairness to tax payers and doesn't check polls to decide what to say.  He was caught off guard by Black Lives Matter, but seems to understand their concerns.

In western democracies, especially in the U.S. the real rulers are wealthy.  Donald Trump is not only a very wealthy man, but adept at getting attention through the media. His expressed views placates the fears of important masses.  The sort who feel that blacks and Mexicans are robbing them of their culture and that any Muslim could be a terrorist.  The other candidates understand these fears, but are concerned about what they must do to win over the general population with bigoted factons..

Bernie Sanders wants to get elected, but is not accepting money from lobbyists.  He  wants to focus on the real issues instead of entertainment.  Inequality is his biggest concern and campaign financing which allows the very rich to distort and lie their way to further inequality.  Listen to him and you will appreciate he makes sense and is on the side of the middle class.

Is he perfect?  Probably not, but getting rid of or at least diminishing the power of the wealthy to inflict their views on the rest of us is critical.

A concern of mine is Palestine where he says the right things, but doesn't get involved with details.  As a Jew he shows concern for the Palestinians, but seems reluctant to get very involved as he has with other issues.  It is a touchy subject with many Jewish voters.  A very key issue that is long overdue a revamping.

One can anticipate tactics used against him.  A CNN moderator made it sound like Bernie went on his honeymoon to Russia because he is a socialist, when in fact it was an official event decided before he became mayor of Burlington, Vermont. The word socialist is an abused word conflated with the "dirty Communists."  Americans applaud individual achievement and occasionally one hears it is the society that allows that.  The connection between the society and achievement is not always clear, but in reality it is a critical factor.

The biggest weapon being used against Bernie is ignoring him.  The media ignores him in favor of those more friendly to the corporations that run them.   When he is talked about the point is always made that he is a socialist, but few really understand that is different from Communism.  In fact he had drawn some of the largest crowds of the whole campaign and most polls show his ideas are more accepted than many of those getting more publicity.

There are polls show not only that Hilary Clinton has a lead and has added to it on the Democrat side.  She put on an impressive demonstration at a Congressional hearing on Benghazi that should not have been allowed to drag on.  I have heard of some polls that say she has problems on the national scale convincing enough voters she is trustworthy.  Bernie's problem seems to be a lack of name recognition and the aura of a bad word, "socialism."  Big dollars will assure that the media will be inundated with lots of distortions of the truth.  Bernie seems the man really needed.

POPULATION CRISIS

As the world modernizes the birth rate is dropping.  Many think the world is over populated and that that is the root cause of pollution and climate change.  The population decline is basically in westernized countries and as that culture expands the population decline also spreads.  A declining birth rate also means an aging population and less people of normal working age to do the work which will increasingly include taking care of the elderly.  Immigrants fill in a lot of gaps, mostly at the cheap labour end, but also in many cases technical.  Many residents resent different cultures being imposed on them.  Japan is leading the world in using robots in manufacturing as one way of avoiding immigration.

There is a very complicated  set of dynamics at work.  Education, contraception and inequality are amongst factors that lower birth rates.  Women are increasingly getting better educated and looking for fulfilment outside maternity.  In other parts of the world we are developing an unhealthy gender ratio with men outnumbering women.  This is partly due to new technologies increasingly available that determine sex before birth.  Eventually, this results in not enough women for marriageable men.   In China where they have had a one child policy for many years the situation is acute.  When there is a shortage of females, males tend to be more aggressive and although it might seem to give women an advantage it doesn't always work that way.  Prostitution is one unhappy solution to the scarcity.

Women are still held down and restricted in many cultures while in western cultures economic forces many women to work long hours, especially those who want a career.   Those wanting to have careers lose out if pregnant.  If they decide to go ahead it is too often the case that childcare suffers.  If you get down to root causes, one has to do with wealth and income being concentrated at the top.  At the same time that the economy seems to depend on consumerism we now need both parents working to maintain an acceptable standard of living.  Financial crises occur when credit is over stretched in this struggle, often aided by greed and fraud of those who control commerce.  Business requires expansion to grow with a heavy emphasis on consumerism.

Some experts are waking up that we Westerners need more babies to manage our economy, but women are not co-operating (often with their husband's blessing).  Even a temporary absence from the labour force can impose hardship and having more mouths to feed increases pressure.  Some governments feel threatened that their enemies are breeding faster than they are, after all we still need soldiers to intimidate and even sometimes be sacrificed.  Businesses need a steady stream of new consumers, especially since babies assure greater, unquestioned expenditures and the aging cut their spending as they anticipate retirement.

Many governments are aware of the need and have offered incentives.  Sometimes cash bonuses.  The most effective incentives are family friendly policies.  Paid maternity leave might well have the most impact on first borns.  Some countries are very flexible and allow part of the leave time to be used by fathers called paternity leave.  This would allow mothers who sometimes can make more money to get back to work while being assured their newborn is taken care of by their husband.  Some fathers are happy with this arrangement.  In the United States as I understand it some companies who are able to afford it and feel it is in their best interests offer an unpaid or limited paid leave but most companies consider it too expensive and risky.  It is really a society problem and a government program paid through taxes can spread satisfaction that promotes productivity and better childcare which is a good investment in our overall happiness. ,

That is one step, but another important one is child care.  Quality means training, space, flexibility and of course that costs money.  In reality the costs would be more than a typical family can afford.  Of course this conundrum has costs that will be borne by both businesses with stressed employees and society with stressed children.  It is conceivable that the solution of having the tax payer bear a big part of the costs could have other benefits.  Trained child care workers could be part of a jobs program as our economy has less need of human labour.  They would be tax payers and consumers.

The whole tax structure needs to be family friendly.  We have deductions for having children and for child care (that is if the provider is willing to disclose their income).  We should also be thinking of the costs of education.  Education is normally free in the public system until about age 18 and then further education can be very costly.  Also the pressure to get ready for post secondary education leads many parents to buy tutoring and other educational aids.  All that needs to be examined.  One alternative would be to offer free high education to those who qualify.  A big task that somehow has to be paid for.

An irony is that future trends point to greater inequality.  Not only in income and wealth, but also in hours worked.  Some will work so hard they burn out and others will scramble to get any paying work.  Is this what we want?  Does this benefit the most people?  Can the very rich accept sharing some of their resources with the less fortunate?  Can the poor resist abusing their ballot box power which at the moment they seem ignorant they actually have?  With our increased efficiencies can we not give everyone an opportunity to work and to have more leisure time?

So far globalization has mostly meant a decline in the power of labour.  Demand too much money and the job is easily shipped overseas or replaced with automation. or someone more desperate.  Money can be concentrated and wired anywhere in the world where it can earn the most return.  There are other forms of globalization in that people of all incomes are more aware of one another and of their common interests.  Divide and conquer tactics are still being used effectively, but for how long?  If too long everyone will suffer, including the wealthy.  Pollution, climate change, disease are only some of the dangers.  A bigger one might be violent revolution on an unimagined scale.  All these things are pushing forward, but can be stopped by humans realizing their common goals and working together.

To me more important than government bureaucrats deciding details of our personal lives it would be better to encourage education.  Education that not only teaches us skills to survive as productive citizens, but encourages us to think about global problems as well as local ones.  This may seem like a Utopian dream, but there are elements working towards a better system.  Let's hope that they can forge an effective global force before it is too late.  Education is a very big topic and difficult for large agreement.

Prejudice against women is ironic as it only takes an absence to make them more valuable.  Unfortunately many women are deliberately kept ignorant so they won't interfere with male priorities and so their wisdom is lost.  In some cultures a women who can earn an income is even more valuable.  It is still another step for women to be valued for who they are.   The role of women is key--they need to be valued and respected, not just good in the kitchen and bedroom.

In many countries it has become difficult for parents to make enough money and to spare enough time for their families.  This is at a time when corporate profits are rising and typical wages losing power.  Decisions will have to be made by those who presently control the political and economic levers or they may find the forces of nature will severely limit their options.

One of the primary goals is to ensure that every baby is wanted and can be properly cared for.  We need a sustainable population where there are always some contributors to replace those who are not able to contribute while at the same time respecting the wisdom of age.  There are too many unwanted babies born or to those who cannot or will not give reasonable proper care.  Contraception can largely replace the need for abortions.  Ironically access to contraception is one factor in ensuring the birth of wanted babies.  One child policies should be unnecessary to restrict overpopulation.

Greed is often of only short term value.  Even the very wealthy need people to care for them.  They need customers.  When diversity is lost, so is the enjoyment of life.  So while parts of the world are aging, other parts are over worked.  No suggestion or policy will undo the mess our lack of a sustainable balanced population has brought us to, but we can  make a start.

Rise of the Robots

You remember all those science fiction movies where robots run things?  They seemed pretty far fetched at one time, but lately not so much.  In the past various technological breakthroughs have disrupted business and society, but after a few adjustments our standard of living rose and everyone seemed to find a job that helped pay their bills.  Times are a changing.  Martin Ford helps explain in "The Rise of Robots."

You could always get a job maintaining the machine.  People would be paid enough salary they could afford to buy other things and keep  other people working.  We are rapidly evolving towards where less and less people are needed to even watch a machine and wages will not be enough to generate enough spending for other jobs.

To illustrate how the situation is progressing, Martin quotes from an American government study covering the years 1998 to 2013.  In that period when the American population climbed by millions and the GDP went up $3.5 trillion (allowing for inflation) but the hours worked were the same for both 1998 and 2013; 194 billion hours.

Computers can analyze immense details using the cloud and are becoming increasingly analytical, creative and replicable.  Their judgment is being considered more reliable in some cases than human judgment.  Artificial Intelligence has had many false starts, but is progressing.  Robots will have access to incredible amounts of information and have ever increasing abilities to sort through, analyze and make decisions.

Reading the news one can see future conflicts.  A much greater ability to automate fast food already exists, but has been put on hold partly for the availability of cheap labour.  With talk of minimum wages going to $15 an hour attitudes will change.  Automation also has the advantage of being perceived as more hygienic.  Education and health fields are perhaps the most difficult for automation, but already inroads are being made.

60 years ago some of my public school teachers were predicting a world taken over by robots, but they saw it as creating a leisure world for the masses.  Today the bottom line is that the robotic revolution will increase profits for those at the top while those at bottom will have great difficulty in getting a job and most jobs will have lower wages.  The rate of change is very likely to accelerate.

Martin Ford takes on myths.  Too many economists (and others) see a (distant) problem, but take it for granted that society will adjust with only minor concerns.

China is supposed to pick up the consumption slack, but with one child policy they are aging rapidly--women are scarce and men have to save up money to attract marriage partners.  They too are replacing cheap labour with robots.

Demographics with aging population will release job opportunities for the young.  Actually robots have been snapping up opportunities faster than graduates are available.   In Japan with the most aging population, robots are becoming critical.  A personal investment in Honda was predicated strongly on this idea as they are among the world leaders in robotics.

Education is not the solution envisioned by politicians.  First most jobs are repetitive and computers are taking over more and more tasks not only of the repetitive jobs, but now encroaching on the territory of professionals.  In fact we also have is credential creep, meaning education is just moving the bar on job qualifications without actually being necessary for performance.

While some are touting the role of the job creators others see a different reality.  Investors and business owners are looking to minimize the cost of labour.  Off shoring is only one concrete indication and robotics is an even bigger force.  When people lose a job, when their wages are diminished, when the future seems uncertain (job creators are supposedly concerned about uncertain regulations), when credit dries up, people stop spending.  When that happens business slows down.  A more basic problem become how to distribute purchasing power.

Henry Ford is credited with paying his workers enough in wages to actually buy one of his cars.  Robots don't buy anything, although they do consume maintenance.

The author's suggested remedies will run up against the party of the status quo, otherwise known as Republicans (and they have their counterparts in the rest of the world.)  Change is discomforting to the status quo, even though we are all part of the change.  Those at the top want to stay on top, those on the bottom are scrambling not to lose their ranking in the pecking order.

Guaranteed income in one form or another should be adopted.  It needs to be set to be liveable, but not to eliminate incentives.  Martin suggests education could warrant higher pay, even if just to have more productive leisure time.  Taxpayers contributed to research leading to technology innovations  (http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/07/the-entreprenurial-state.htmll) and that fact can help rationalize the guaranteed income as a dividend.  A safety net does not just make some people lazy, it also gives others the confidence to take a risk that could result in necessary innovation.

Martin refers to Thomas Piketty's book and adds that robotics could just accelerate inequality.  Read more:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/10/capital-in-twenty-first-century.html

Those in power have never been in a better position to consolidate their power, but many concerned citizens and voters can impose a different perspective.  Unemployment (and under employment) are top of mind for voters and vested interests can manipulate government bodies to bend to their will.  At the same time climate change can be tackled without losing a lot of jobs (but losing profit for those invested in fossil enterprises), but again can end up being part of legislative blockage.  A lot of choices to be made.  We all need to be better informed.  This book deserves a lot of attention.