Equality...

Leibniz – “I am indifferent to that which constitutes a German or a Frenchman because I will only the good of all mankind.”

Need I say more... except to possibly say that we should not curtail this thought to European nationalities?

Dear Mr Prime Minister...

If Given the opportunity to speak with Herr Rudd about some serious problems we face today... this is what I, as a pro-cyclist/possibly hippy, would say:

I'll be blunt here. The world at large faces great potential problems in relation to a lack of concern for our environment and all the potential problems which will occur if global warming continues down its spiraling path. At the same time our country, among other developed countries, faces a growing problem in the form of the obesity epidemic. Obesity causes a range of problems from the distinctly physical such as diabetes, to the more psychological, such as hormonal imbalances leading to many problems such as depression. It’s been statistically proven that obese people are far less productive at work than their healthier counterparts and honestly is this such a surprise?

My proposal is simple, and helps to address both problems; the general health of our citizens as well as our environment. I feel strongly that we should further encourage cycling as a form of transport. Cycling will mean that there are less people in cars, resulting in less pollution. It will also lead to a healthier population who were less likely to be obese, depressed or suffer from common problems related to a lack of exercise.

Just think of the potential benefits that cycling can bring! People would be more productive and most likely more content. The environment would be all the better off and it would probably also lead to a change in how society thinks. Cycling promotes a more sustainable way of life in general, with the basic notion being that you yourself are creating the energy needed to get around. Cycling as a way of commuting allows individuals to feel that they are doing something positive for their bodies, their wallets and their environment, all while going from point A to point B.

I suppose the big question we have to ask is, so how do we encourage cycling? Well, despite Australia as a whole having desirable weather for cyclists we really do seem to lack cyclist friendly infrastructure. More bicycle lanes, more facilities for cyclists to use such as places to change in and more bicycle racks will all help to make a difference. Indeed I know that the government in countries like the UK are now paying people to lose weight. This is ridiculous. Think how much better that money could be employed by encouraging cycling and promoting awareness of it as a better alternative to driving.

Indeed instead of paying people to lose weight, maybe they should subsidise people who ride bikes. I believe the Chinese government does. Raising awareness about cycling and cyclists and the good they are doing for themselves and everyone else by helping the environment should also be stressed. The solutions I have proposed have been rather simple, but generally speaking I think that simple solutions often work more effectively than complex ones. By making cycling easier to do through creating more cyclist friendly infrastructure (most importantly cycle lanes) more people will be encouraged to take up cycling as a form of transport, which in turn will help spread the idea of cycling as a viable form of transport and make it more acceptable within our society.

I’ve given you a way to tackle serious environmental and health problems all while empowering the people of Australia and encouraging positive change. The question now is, will you take this idea and run with it?

What do we do now?

Its been a while, but I'm back. I haven't had much of an inclination to write so I simply haven't done so. But today I find myself wanting to write something again. Here I am tackling a big question, namely: "What do we do now?"

So...what the hell do I mean, now, and what exactly am I pulling you into by saying "we"? By "What do we do now?" I am asking what "we", as a society, as a race of sentient beings who have great power and hence great responsibility, should do next. By next I basically mean in what direction should we head, where should we take humanity now...or next as i just phrased it?

Personally, I feel that we as a society have made many mistakes over the years, but having said that I'm sure we've avoided quite a few too, so I shouldn't be too critical. There are however some problems which are of immediate concern which include problems with wealth inequality and poverty, problems with materialism and unhappiness, and problems with profit, greed and damage to our dear earth.

I feel that the capitalist system, despite its potential benefits, has been used to justify wealth in the form of monetary profit, over all other things, including our morals and values, hence including the very basis for our desire to live. The gap between rich and poor broadens, not just within countries but also between them. The poor struggle more, while the rich enjoy ever greater luxuries all the while living unhappy lives of hedonistic greed. Its been proven that doing things such as volunteering for local organisations that help those in need gives a great feeling of purpose and happiness. Why then is it that we don't all help each other to reach for higher and better things and at the same time improve not only our physical standard of life, but our emotional one?

Are you really proud to live in a world based on greed, exploitation, callousness and a moral imperative to make money over all other things? I thought not. Few of us are so fanatically inclined, yet that seems to be the system we live in. Unfortunately we, as tacit participants of the system, are, whether consciously or not, supporting such a system.

The problem need not necessarily lie in capitalism per say or forms of liberalism for that matter, but rather the ways in which they can be appropriated. I feel that a welfare liberal state could solve many of our problems. A state in which the individual has great freedom so long as he does not hurt those around him. Classical Libertarians argue this too, however their definition of "hurt" only includes physical harm and not economically crippling people by condemning them into debt cycles and so forth.

We need some degree of social welfare. We are after all, only human, and we will all have times in our lives in which the going may get tough. Its only far that if someone loses their job, or is seriously injured, or disabled or something of the sort, that there is a kind and supportive governmental system in place which can provide financial assistance to these people. The mere fact that such a system exists will also greatly reduce anxiety and worry within a society as people will no that if they should fall in life that they will still have a basic standard of living assured for them. Overall I think the benefits of such a societal structure will improve the happiness of the society. This will also be highly likely to improve not only the quality of life, but interesting the societies productivity and ability.

In contrast a complete free-market, akin to what is developing in America, creates a broader gap between the rich and the poor and creates a society based on fear and greed. The large majority of the people live lives of subservience and essential slavery, with moments of hedonism for escape. They live tough and unhappy lives, with consumerism being the favourite attempt to avoid the feelings of unhappines. In many ways I think that many of America's problems stem from its unhappiness, which stems from its inequality and harsh free-market, laissez fare system.

Don't read me wrong here, I have nothing wrong with some people being rich and some poor, difference is all well and good, however, i feel that the poor should at least be afforded the basic necessities of life while the rich should not necessarily have such a reckless excess of luxuries. I think everyone would be all the happier for this arrangement too.

With the development of technology and general advances in the world, everyone should be able to live easier lives, with more time to simply enjoy life. Yet we still seem to work so much? What for, why are we driven to work so much? A large part of our expenses are on consumerist shite which we probably don't need but feel good about buying because we typically feel so bad. So one solution is to simply be happier and hence need less stuff, and hence need to work less, in turn giving us more time to enjoy life. The cycle can however spin the other way too. It we work harder we end up having less freetime and often feel less happy and hence buy more crap we don't need and then need to work all the harder to afford the lifestyle we become accustomed too.

I suppose the big question here is what sort of society do we want to live in? I personally feel that a welfare liberal society will create a happier and more stable society, who will in turn be more positive and also, rather ironically, achieve more by doing less. Work smarter, not harder... thats something we should be remembering here. When i say achieve, i don't mean make lots of money, what kind of fucking goal is that? I believe that a welfare liberal society will support more environmental awareness, more equality, a closing of the gap between the rich and the poor, a reduction in exploitation and material greed. I believe it will allow morals and ethics to resurface, for our race to become all the more learned, and wise, with the knowledge that we live to support we believe in, and that those values should not be how many golden coins we can stuff into our pockets.

Many people yell angrily when leftists talk about government intervention and raise a whole bunch of valid points about how the money is often lost in beurocratic systems and so forth. This is true to some degree but there are two simple answers to it:
1) in a free-market economy the same ridiculous "loss" of money would occur, even on a much greater scale, except that it would be done by large corporate businesses that will come to dominate certain sectors in life.
2) I believe the welfare liberal government would eventually, over time and with the development of our values, become a much fairer and honest system than many governments such as those we have today.

As a further point I would much rather have the government held accountable for what goes on in the world that giant corporations who have no interest except profit. I want ethics to matter, I want humans to be treated like I feel humans should be. As I said in “Classical Liberalism vs. The Welfare State – Which is the better ideal?” "A welfare liberal state is far more humane than a laissez-faire based one. And as a human I’m all for humaneness."

This is all well and good Sam you argue, but what are we going to do about it? Well realistically it might be hard to completely change how the world is run in one day, but then again it took them a fair arse long time to build rome so... One step a time tiger. The beginning, like so many things, starts in the mind. It starts in us collectively wanting and craving a change, and hence demanding it, hence supporting it, hence living it. If you believe in a society where the environment counts buy recycled toilet paper. Yes it will cost you a buck more, but it will mean that you are craving, demanding, supporting and living the life you choose, on the smallest level perhaps, but just imagine the potential for mass change. Imagine if everyone took that mentality, imagine if everyone bought recycled toilet paper... i think you see where i'm getting at... Alone we are divided, but together we are strong.

God, I do sound like a communist. Anyway, theres so much more I could right, but i'll save that for another rant. I think I've gotten the broader picture across. Remember to live life as you want it to be, not as you feel forced to by society. What ever made social norms right? Just because everyone else is being a stingy capitalist and cutting down all our trees to save a buck on toilet paper doesn't mean you have to. Now go out there and do your bit by buying some recycled toiletry accessories...


PS: A special thank you to the all philosophical Dominic Jarkey, for giving me the courage to get off my arse and write something inspiring. Bless you matey, for firstly sneezing into recycled tissue paper, and secondly and perhaps more importantly for simply being there for a friend in need.

Nature vs. Nurture – The Unending Debate Part 2:

Genetics definitely play a large role in how we turn out in life, this is quite obvious. If you’ve ever seen identical twins or even just similar brothers and sisters you can often see similar features such as face shape or eye and hair colour, this is largely genetically based. However the evident problem here is that these siblings share quite similar environments, which makes it hard to really say that its all genetically based. However it is certain that some traits are far more genetically based than others and some are more within our control than others.

Often people seem to use genetics as an excuse. For instance someone may believe they have genetics which make them rather slow at thinking, and therefore decide to avoid an academic life as they don’t think they could possibly compete. Maybe they’re right, but there is also a large chance that even if they are right they could still be an academic through determination and vigorous application to studying. What seems to happen here is that genetics determine how well someone reacts to a certain environment, but obviously that isn’t the whole picture, because then it comes down to how often the genetics get the chance to interact with the environment. Allow me to try and explain with an example. Person A may have a good ability to gain muscle, whereas person B may have a below average ability to build muscle. However, if person A were to not exercise regularly and lead a rather lazy life whereas Person B kept quite fit and exercised regularly as well as eating well then Person B would most likely be quite well muscled. Most people would in comparing them think “ahh Person B has a unique ability to gain muscle”, but in fact this is simply not so, Person B in fact has a disadvantage in our comparison yet he still comes out on top due to simple persistence and determination.

Similarly you may have a genetic tendency to get diabetes or high cholesterol, but that in itself does not doom you to either. Rather it means that it is easier for you to get these medical problems and that therefore you may have to try a little harder to avoid them then people who are not so genetically prone. A healthy balanced lifestyle should keep you from ever developing the problems as while the genetic potential is there it is never being realised (and in this case it is a good thing that the potential isn’t being realised)! At the same time it is important that we realise the genetic limitations that are unique to each person. You certainly can gain more muscle than another person with identical genes by training, but maybe you will never be a professional Olympic-lifter as you simply lack the muscle and joint strength. Its not to say you couldn’t do Olympic-lifting and have fun and keep fit all while improving your strength, it is however to say that you must realise that if you have certain genetics you may not be able to go pro. Realising these limits need not be pessimistic, it is simply trying to put a realistic perspective on life. As http://www.maxwellsfitnessprograms.com/pdf/GENETICS%20OF%20A%20TRIATHLETE.pdf states:
“Accepting your genetics is by no means negative or limiting. It is quite the opposite. It is taking control of all the things you can to be the best you can be.”

It is important not to think of Genes as dominating the environment in a causal way. As http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture_2.htm argues: “Researchers on all sides of the nature vs nurture debate agree that the link between a gene and a behaviour is not the same as cause and effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way, it does not make people do things. Which means that we still get to choose who we'll be when we grow up.”
Genes are dependant on the environment to be expressed, and the environment is dependant on genes to have a basis for expression. The two work together, they are mutually inclusive and intertwined, in reality the nature vs. nurture debate is a little silly as the two categories should never really be split as they are. Another article (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2820222/Blinded-by-Science-Nature-via.html), put this nicely in saying:
“We are indeed controlled by our genes, but they in turn are influenced by our experiences. Ridley says that the mapping of the genome "has indeed changed everything, not by closing the argument or winning the [nature versus nurture] battle for one side or the other, but by enriching it from both ends till they meet in the middle.”

In my opinion some things are simply more determined by environment or as the case may be genetics. If you’re fat you may be predisposed to gaining fat but you can most likely lose it through exercising and eating healthy. In contrast changing your eye colour could be rather more difficult! What’s more there also needs to be a distinction made between simple genes (genotype) and genes which have then also been set to a certain degree by early environmental influences (phenotypes). That is to say that everyone has a fat storing gene (although if your unlucky you may have a few more), but there tendency to store fat can be greatly effected by the diet of the mother while the baby is still prenatal. I remember reading a study about it in identical (presumably cloned) mice. Unfortunately I can’t seem to find it again. All I remember was that these mice were genetically identical and while they were all in their genetically identical mothers they were split into two groups. The control group ate a typical western diet high in saturated fat and sugar while the other group ate a much more healthy diet. Once both groups had given birth to the technically genetically identical groups of babies they put them all on the control group diet (the crappy American style diet) and they noticed that the original control group gained far more weight and had a far greater likelihood of developing diabetes and other problems on the rather unhealthy diet. The irony is that the other group didn’t even though they were genetically identical. This shows that the initial interaction with the environment sets the genes at differing levels (phenotype), and this is ultimately nearly as important as the genes themselves.

Regardless of all this essentially what I wanted to get around to saying was that we can’t change our genes, or how they are set. At least not at this stage, and the prospect of changing them certainly brings up odd ethical questions. But, we can at very least control our environment to a degree and make it as best we can to help how our genes express themselves in the future. If you unfit then you can exercise regularly and eat well and improve your fitness, regardless of your genes. Maybe your neighbour can get fit quicker than you but who really cares? The point is you’re doing something good for yourself, and that’s all that matters in the end.

I think this whole article about genetics brings up a really important issue relating to competition which essentially argues that we should only really compete with ourselves. Its often far to unfair to compete with other people as they may often not be on a similar level whether it be genetically or from environmental exposure. Thus instead of racing against the Olympic marathon runners times simply race against your own best time. Who cares if its ten times as long, if you improve your time only a little bit you are still improving, and in the end that’s all that matters. I suppose a nice way to conclude on genetics is to say that not everyone can be a professional athlete within a certain field, otherwise there amazing performances wouldn’t be seen as nearly as amazing as they are. But even so that is not to say that every singly one of us can work with what we’ve got and improve.

Free Market Economy/Classical Liberalism Vs. The Welfare State – Which is the better ideal?

For years I’ve always shunned the complete Free Market Economy with its emphasis on laissez-faire based capitalism. The problems inherent have always been obvious to me so I have tended to preference a more leftist welfare based state. However as I begin to understand more of the political makeup of the left I also find that many left groups (while admittedly better than right groups) can be preaching a rather extreme course of action. Like almost all things in life a balance seems to be required, a balance between the ability to make money and the responsibility to pay taxes so that society is fair and has a degree of security.

What sparked this whole debate in my mind again was ironically simply the fact that I did some casual work today in which I was assigned to work with my boss’s father. He is a Swedish man by the name of Sten (essentially stan, but Swedish) and was I believe 70 years old. Despite the large age difference between the two of us, I quickly found myself enjoying his company as he was very friendly and talkative. Eventually we talked of Sweden which is renowned for having an extremely good welfare state, or so I had previously believed. Sweden has extremely high tax rates and thus it would be assumed that It has a good welfare system. Like many European countries I believe it has good public schooling and good health-care, something which America certainly lacks. If you have not already seen it I highly recommend you watch Michael Moore’s “Sicko (Special Edition)” as it is an interesting movie comparing the American health system to those of other countries.

Despite all this it appears, according to Sten, that Sweden does not have the most efficient welfare system in the world. It may well be that a lot of the money disappears in various bureaucratic processes, which is a common complaint of the classical liberals. Even if this is not the case there are other problems. The tax system in Sweden which effectively is the heart and soul of the welfare system is much to high. Even I, a person of rather left-wing views must say this. Sweden may be held up as a totem of how states should be, but like any other state it certainly has its flaws. A nice analogy for the high tax system was given to me when Sten told me of the famous author Astrid Lindgreen who was the author of Pippi Langstrump (or Pippy Longstockings, a renowned children's book). Apparently Lindfreen was taxed at 104% of her income! That is to say for every $100 she earned she had to pay the government $104. However I think Sten may have been just off the mark as other sources I have found state that it was 102%. Regardless, it’s just horrifically high. As “http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____18005.aspx” states:
“at the age of 68 she submitted an opinion piece to the Swedish daily Expressen on the subject of a loophole in the Swedish tax system which meant that she, as a self-employed writer, had to pay 102 percent tax on her income. She wrote the piece in the style of a fairytale, and it had an immediate impact.”

The high taxation system also has other huge problems. According to “Statistics Sweden” the mean tax rate is 30.44% this year (2008), which still seems a little high. This huge taxation rate as Sten explained means many people aren’t motivated to work (or at least not much) as:
1) So much of what they need is supplied by the government (education/medical etc)
2) They have to give such a large amount of what they earn back to the government in the form of taxation

Another problem with high taxation (as The Classical Liberals always argue) is that it creates “corruptness” so to speak. While not what we would consider really bad crimes, it becomes the case that professionals serve one another for free, so that they don’t have to pay for each other’s services and also don’t have to pay the huge amounts of tax they would otherwise pay to work for them, only to spend on each others service’s. Thus it works out better for them to do jobs for one another unofficially, maybe with some cash in hand. In essence the high tax levels would no doubt lead to a large amount of tax fraud around the country. (See: “http://www.skatteverket.se/download/18.3dfca4f410f4fc63c8680003885/swedish+report+200604B+.pdf” for more details)

Of course the welfare system they have in place is of course very good, despite the various flaws inherit in it. While I think Sweden is an example of extreme left-wing thinking and is ultimately too extreme to be sustainable I do think many countries could do with adding some welfare state systems into their economies. I believe we need taxation for various purposes namely a fair health system, a fair education system and basic support for those in dire need. When I say dire need I really only mean the heavily impoverished. There should also be reasonably cheap transport which if needed should be government subsidised to encourage people to use public transport and also do the environment good in doing so. Heck in China they even pay cyclists a fortnightly amount for cycling and not polluting!

However I think to achieve this a high tax rate would not be required. If the money was used more efficiently (which trust me it could be – however people will understandably always argue for different causes to be of top priority and so forth) the tax rate could be kept reasonably low and yet the welfare gains as maximised as possible. This promotes some sort of balance between classical liberalism and socialism, and its generally called welfare liberalism, and its currently where I’d say I stand on the political spectrum. So after all that I simply say that a balance is needed. It seems the Buddhists and their notion of “the middle way” are again correct. I seem to write about them in half of my damn posts, its about time I hurried up and published a link to a post on that idea of balance!

I do not think the free market/classical liberal state is, the be all and end all of politics. It too is extreme. If several people are disabled and people in general aren’t kind enough to support them out of their own pockets they die. Unfortunately I don’t yet have enough faith in humans for them to sort out all their problems all the time, after all were rather erratic creatures. Hence the notion of a state which is created on rational logic which remains throughout points of emotional turmoil needs to exist, so that we can stick by our long term values, such as helping those in need.

Capitalists also argue that competition is good, and while to a degree I think this is true, it is also true that blatant competition leads to fear and greed. People become unhappy and life is lead in a state of anxiety. Also, in a capitalist society everything becomes commodified, including values that I think simply cannot be compromised by no amount of wealth. No amount of money for instance could make me forgive someone for killing my mother, its just not something you can forgive in that way. Do we really want to live in a callous, competitive society where we are slave to the dollar? What’s more free market capitalism does not allow for any government intervention. In some ways this is good as government can do stupid things, but mostly government serves to implement reasonable measures, and in these cases it should be allowed to do its job. What I foresee through free market capitalism is a sort of monopoly forming. I know free market capitalists argue it won’t happen but to a degree it is inevitable.

Life isn’t all about economics and wealth, yet free market theory commodifies all. It certainly seems unreasonable to me. Still I love to read things which disprove my views because as annoying as it can be it ultimately leads me to learn from my mistakes. Several pro-laissez-faire fans have suggested I read F.A. Hayek’s "The Road to Serfdom (Routledge Classics S.)". Maybe then I can comment some more on the situation. Until then I’d say that taxation is required for various basic functions and infrastructure and so forth which society needs. Some could argue that private companies could do it, but I’d rather have certain services such as basic public transport available to all people, as well as medical centres and basic education, at very least those three things are requires, as well as some government support for those in economic crisis. The fact is that statistically some of us get very unlucky and just because that happens doesn’t mean we deserve to be left out on the street to die. A welfare liberal state is far more humane than a laissez-faire based one. And as a human I’m all for humaneness.