Drugs, part 1: can we trust Big Pharma?

Posted by on

Seeking to replace Warfarin as a blood thinner, Duke Clinical Research Institute ran a trial that ended with approval of the drug Xarelto. However, later the blood testing device malfunctioned. Duke did further tests and published a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine saying that the problems with the machine did not affect the trial results. The data from these results would have allowed a comparison with the device’s readings, but were suppressed. Meanwhile, 5000 lawsuits have emerged that claim patients have been harmed by Xarelto, and the European Medicines Agency found the machine to be highly inaccurate. This case has caused a change in the way that journal articles are published. Authors are now required to disclose their outside financial interests and the role drug companies, in this case Johnson & Johson and Bayer, played in the articles’ publication.

Can we trust these drugs and the companies who sell them, and, in America, pour mega-dollars into TV advertising? I myself am taking a certain drug, and only found out on the internet that it is implicated in damage to kidneys, bone fracture and even memory loss. Yes, you have to make a judgment as to whether the beneficial effects of a drug on an immediate medical condition outweigh the possible side effects, but it makes you wonder whether it’s worth taking anything at all. The old saying holds: caveat emptor.

The cost of pharmaceuticals can be ridiculously high, even for drugs developed twenty or thirty years ago.  It is one thing in Europe, where there is only effectively one purchaser per nation (the National Health Service in the UK); the monopoly buyer in this case has real power, and this is just what American Big Pharma fears and spends money on resisting at all costs (“socialised medicine”).

No, in my opinion we cannot. blindly trust the pharmaceutical industry. The profit motive seems to come first before the health of the public.  The  horrendous spread of opioid dependency, which is doing untold damage in the US, is a case in point.  Actions taken by the industry to limit the problem have been too little, too late. “Free enterprise” run riot.

( The writer used to work for an international pharmaceutical company.  At the time the industry referred to itself as “the ethical pharmaceutical industry”.  I guess most of it was ethical at the time, or tried to be, although salesmen offering business gifts to doctors always seemed to me to be a dubious practice. Today, the ethics of the industry seem ever more muddied).

 

 

 

 

 

The lessons of history – known and learned, or cast aside?

Posted by on

This last Sunday marked  the centenary of the Battle of Passchendaele – one of the bloodiest of World War One.   Officially known as the Third Battle of Ypres, Passchendaele was fought between 31 July and 6 November 1917 in the West Flanders region of northern Belgium. About 275,000 Allied troops and 220,000 Germans died.   In a very moving ceremony, shown on television, Prince William joined the King of Belgium in laying wreaths at the Menin Gate in Ypres.  The gate – which stands where British troops marched when heading to the battlefields – is covered with the names of 54,391 British dead who have no known grave.

The slaughter of that unbelievable number of young men has left its indelible mark upon the historical memory of most Europeans, regardless of which side their nations were on in the brutal, cruel and senseless First World War, and later, the equally destructive Second World War that grew out of the policies of revenge adopted after the First war.  It was to prevent such disasters happening again that those nations joined together to form the European Union.

A hundred years later the British Prime Minister, Teresa May,  also laid a wreath on behalf of  a British government that, one hundred years later, almost to the day, is leaving the EU and thus helping once again to destabilize Western Europe, not to mention Great Britain.  Is she capable of connecting the dots?  Has she any grasp of European history or the endless, futile wars that have plagued it? Does the irony of what she is so intent on doing register with her, do you suppose?

Attitudes towards gay rights in Britain

Posted by on

Generally speaking, Britain is a socially liberal country, at least relative to the rest of the world. So most people assume the country is one where being openly gay is accepted. We have gay marriage, unlike much of the rest of the Europe and most of the rest of the world. Britain’s isn’t a country where socially conservative religions are particularly prominent, Northern Ireland notwithstanding. The UK is home to a plethora of charities and NGOs like Stonewall or Amnesty International, who help defend gay rights around the world. Recently, the government wants to enhance Britain’s reputation for tolerance by making it easier to change your gender, thus hopefully establishing the nation as a haven for the transgendered.

However, the reality is more complicated. YouGov, one of the few polling agencies to accurately predict the 2017 election, conducted a poll on people’s attitudes to gay rights. http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ox04ln7wgb/PinkNewsResults_170724_Sexuality_W.pdf. They asked three questions: whether you approve of gay men becoming parents, whether children should be taught about gay relationships at primary school, and whether gay sex is natural. On all three questions, a majority of people gave the gay-friendly answer (excluding the don’t knows.) But there were some interesting caveats.

The first was support for gay rights by party affiliation. On all three questions, Conservative voters bucked the nationwide trend and generally opposed gay rights. This suggests that by passing gay marriage and now by extending transgender rights, the Conservative Party has largely acted against the wishes of its supporters. Now that isn’t necessarily a bad thing- the party badly needs younger and more liberal voters if it wishes to regain its majority. But it does mean that for now, a significant proportion of Conservative MPs will not hold gay-friendly views, even if they can’t translate such attitudes into public policy. Therefore, if as a gay Briton, you don’t believe that the fight for gay rights has been won, it may be safer not to vote for your local Conservative MP- as a precaution if nothing else. It’s also worth pointing out that Labour and Liberal Democrat voters support gay rights emphatically, suggesting that there aren’t very many socially conservative ‘Blue Labour’ people out there.

The second cleavage in public opinion was the Leave-Remain Brexit divide. Remain voters were far more gay-friendly than Leave voters. Now I’m not suggesting that all Leave voters are homophobes, but YouGov’s data certainly suggests that they are more likely to be. I think this is largely due to Remain voters being more liberal across the board. Remain voters, myself included, value individual freedom very highly. Conversely, Leave voters value social cohesion, a strong sense of identity and collective sovereignty above individual liberty. For some who supported Leave, gay people don’t fit into their preconceived notions of what being British involves. This also suggests that nostalgia for an earlier time played a key role in driving the Leave vote. Nostalgia is generally expressed more by social conservatives, because Britain in the past was a more socially conservative country. Many who voted Leave don’t like what modern Britain has become. Part of this is for economic reasons; they miss the secure, well-paid blue collar jobs that are a rarity now. But they also like Britain’s past social makeup: the gendered nature of the labour market and household, the relative ethnic homogeneity, and of course, the lack of prominence given to homosexuality.

Another interesting divide was the gender divide. Now this wasn’t as stark as the party affiliation or Leave-Remain divide. But the fact is, men are more likely to oppose gay rights than women. Growing up as a young boy in Britain, I remember that being called ‘gay’ was the worst insult you could be called. I even cried once when someone called me gay. For some reason, male homosexuality seems offensive to a lot of men. It is perceived as a threat to traditional notions of masculinity. Some men don’t like how camp the stereotypical gay man is, or how gay men seem to find it so easy to talk to women. It may also be the case that men are simply more intolerant than women, at least overtly. Go to any far-right rally or march, and it will be overwhelmingly male. Conversely, go to any protest against environmental degradation or income inequality, and the chances are it will be majority female.

The widest division found in the poll was the generational divide: young people are far more in favour of gay rights than their elders. I don’t find this surprising at all; the old grew up in a time when people weren’t taught about gay relationships at school. It’s encouraging that attitudes have improved over time, and as the young replace the old, they will continue to do so. But it’s important to remember not to alienate the old, whether it’s in public policy or the culture. This doesn’t mean being homophobic at all. But it does mean being patient and courteous to the elderly when challenging any attitudes they may still hold. It means explaining to them what homosexuality is and how gay and lesbian people live, rather than shouting at them and accusing them of being bigoted. Like everyone else, the elderly are products of their time. I think more people ought to consider that.

In my opinion, the most interesting contrast was the attitudes between the relatively well-off and the less fortunate. The richer respondents to the poll were generally very enthusiastic towards gay rights, whereas the working class participants were more divided. The class divide on gay rights has all sorts of implications. It means by emphasising their social conservatism, the Conservative Party will always have at least some working class support. Equally, by being very progressive, the Liberal Democrats are unlikely to shake off their reputation as a middle class party. Unfortunately, the poll at least somewhat confirms the stereotype that exists amongst the middle class, that the working class are less tolerant. It may be that social conservatism is partly a product of material hardship; when people are struggling economically, they are less likely to believe that those who face social discrimination are really struggling. Hence, social conservatives are less likely to believe that homophobia, sexism, racism and xenophobia are widespread. But there’s cause for optimism here. If we can improve the living conditions of the working class, we may also be able to diminish opposition to liberalism at the same time.

The only other breakdowns in support for gay rights measured in the poll were regional and in terms of sexuality. In the case of the latter, gays, lesbians and bisexuals were emphatically in favour of gay rights, obviously. In the case of the former, London and Scotland were the most gay-friendly, the Midlands and Wales were generally the most hostile. There was a very slight North-South divide, with the South being more liberal, but nothing statistically significant.

Overall the poll is a reason for optimism. Britain is a country where the gay and lesbian community is generally welcomed and accepted, and that isn’t likely to change anytime soon. But the poll also implies that socially conservative Britain is deeply alienated from and disillusioned with wider society. It found that older people, poorer people, Conservative voters and men were more opposed to gay rights; these were the same groups that voted for Brexit, hence the relative lack of enthusiasm for gay rights amongst Leave voters. However, as I explained with the elderly, the solution is not to insult people or exert a sense of moral superiority. These people face some severe challenges that many of the rest of us are far less likely to experience. Older people are often economically vulnerable and physically in poor health. Poorer people obviously face a tougher time than the rich. Men die younger and commit suicide at higher rates than women. As a society, we must address these issues, rather than pretend they don’t exist by dismissing people as homophobes. Or else, social conservatism and right wing populism will persist for decades.

Best of the Week #9

Posted by on

If you’re anything like me, you’re probably a very opinionated person. You will have views on all sorts of things, from the best flavour of ice cream to the true meaning of life. Now having such a vast array of opinions can be fun. It makes you a more interesting person, because you’ll have a unique perspective on things. It gives you something to discuss with others. It makes you more intelligent, as having strong opinions requires a lengthly and time-consuming thought process, where you spend time consuming and analysing information. Unless your opinions aren’t well thought out, in which case having them can make you seem ignorant or arrogant.

Like many of us, Epicurus was certainly opinionated. But he also believed that a pleasurable life derived from an absence of stress and conflict. On occasion, holding an expressing opinions can be a very fraught affair, in which neither you nor those you talk to come away having enjoyed themselves or learnt anything. The problem with society, particularly in polite and respectable circles, is that we are expected to have opinions on everything, however ill-informed our judgement really can be.

Which brings me to this week’s article, written by Lara Prendergast https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/why-must-i-have-a-strong-opinion-about-everything/. For Prendergast, her position as online editor of The Spectator means she is expected to have opinions on all of the topics her magazine covers. But in reality, it isn’t reasonable to expect her (or anyone else) to hold definitive views on such a vast array of subjects. Particularly if you pride yourself on your judgements being based on a great amount of evidence and reasoning, not mere assertion. Nowhere is this more true than in the academic world, where professors and lecturers are expected to know a great deal about their specialist field, but far less about anything else. It wouldn’t be reasonable to ask an economist their views on international relations, even if the economist had some interest in the subject. Even within subjects this principle applies; a 20th century British historian could not be expected to analyse the fall of the Roman Empire.

The importance of withholding an opinion has increased in recent years. Prendergast gives two reasons. The first is that the world has become more complicated, with issues being commonly discussed that didn’t even exist a few years ago. Now we are expected to hold views on everything from driverless cars to 3D printing. For the older generation, this can seem daunting. The world isn’t just becoming more complicated in terms of science and technology, but also in terms of social change. As the world becomes more globalised, we are expected to hold views on other cultures, religions and races, even if we’re totally unfamiliar with them. If you asked me about the experience of black people in Britain, I wouldn’t have the first idea.

The other problem with giving an opinion is the simultaneous rise of political correctness and hyper-partisanship, with has increased the social penalties for expressing the ‘wrong’ opinion. Social conventions about acceptable and unacceptable speech have always existed; many religious societies have long been intolerant of what they consider to be blasphemous views. But in modern society, political correctness has been secularised. If you say that abortion ought to be completely unregulated to a group of Republicans, or that illegal immigrants ought to be deported en masse to a group of Democrats, you can expect a harsh and occasionally violent backlash. If expressing a view will cause conflict, it may be better to just not express the view at all.

Prendergast comes to a few conclusions, all of which I agree with. People are encouraged to express opinions too hastily, when the priority ought to be learning the facts. Social media has created intellectual bubbles where people are used to only hearing opinions that concur with their own, so any that runs contrary to what they usually hear seems inflammatory. However, none of this means that opinions are bad. Like Prendergast, I love expressing and hearing different perspectives- it’s a large part of why I contribute to this blog. But at the same time, we ought to be refrain from giving our judgement more often. Opinions should be reserved for situations where they will be heard respectfully, by people well-informed enough to give a proper response to them. No one has the right to demand to go unchallenged, regardless of the situation. Opinions should also be only given when they can be properly explained. One of the pitfalls of social media, especially Twitter, is that this often isn’t the case. Moreover, out of politeness, the person who started the conversation on a topic ought to be given the last word. This is just so that discussions can be ended as genially as possible, instead of everyone fighting to get their say long after it should have ended.

 

Eight Epicurean counsels

Posted by on

Epicureanism was never meant to be a dry academic philosophy. In fact, it is best kept away from academia, where, as usual with philosophy, long words render it dull, if not incomprehensible. Rather, it is a vital way of living that seeks to free men and women from a life of unhappiness, fear and anxiety. It is a philosophy for the practical-minded with common sense. While Epicureans have written scholarly works, they have always been most interested in explaining Epicureanism in a manner simple enough for anyone to understand and remember:

1) Don’t fear God.
2) Don’t worry about death.
3) Don’t fear pain.
4) Live simply.
5) Pursue pleasure wisely.
6) Make friends and be a good friend.
7) Be honest in your business and private life.
8) Avoid fame and political ambition.

I would add: think of others; be polite and considerate; try to see the other point of view; meet others half way, if possible. Take the smooth and pleasant road, as free from stress and conflict as possible. But don’t be put upon!

E. O. Wilson: Religious faith is tribal and is dragging us down

Posted by on

This from the New Scientist:

“Why does our species, especially the religious section of the species, seem to ignore scientific warnings about Earth’s future?

“I think primarily it’s our tribal structure. All the ideologies and religions have their own answers for the big questions, but these are usually bound as a dogma to some kind of tribe. Religions in particular feature supernatural elements that other tribes – other faiths – cannot accept. In the US, for example, if you’re going to succeed in politics, it’s a prerequisite to declare you have a faith, even if some of these faiths are bizarre. And what they’re saying is “I have a tribe”, and every tribe, no matter how generous, benign, loving and charitable, nonetheless looks down on all other tribes.

“What’s dragging us down is religious faith.  But is atheism the answer?  In fact, I’m not an atheist – I’m a scientist. Atheism is the belief that there is no god, and you declare there is no god: “Come, my fellow atheists, let us march together and conquer those idiots who think there is a god – all these other tribes. We’re going to prevail.”

“I would even say I’m agnostic because I’m a scientist. Being an agnostic means saying, dogmatically, that we will never be able to know, so give it up. The important thing is that it appears that humans, as a species, share a religious impulse. You can call it theological, you can call it spiritual, but humans everywhere have a strong tendency to wonder about whether they’re being looked over by a god or not. Practically every person ponders whether they’re going to have another life. These are the things that unite humanity.

“If humans have a built-in spiritual yearning, can we do anything about it?  This transcendent searching has been hijacked by the tribal religions. So I would say that for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faiths. But certainly not eliminating the natural yearnings of our species or the asking of these great questions. (reported by Penny Sarchet, New Scientist)

This present writer/commentator is neither an atheist, an agnostic nor a scientist, nor does he want to eliminate anyone or their beliefs. He follows the teachings of Epicurus, which are very simple (please see the posting above,  which sets out the main points of Epicureanism in simple English).  Epicureans tend to be very individualistic. Some have tried to gather Epicureans into clans, societies and clubs – all have failed, because (I suspect) Epicureans are mainly introverts who don’t want groups dominated by jolly organisers or preachers manqués.  They just try to get on with following the humanistic advice of a very ancient, hard-done-by, but very intelligent savant called Epicurus:  lead a pleasant life,  think of others and avoid stress and unpleasant people.

Oh, and another thing: a sensible Epicurean questions what he hears himself saying, as in “Am I any different from any other human being” or “Is a follower of Epicurus any different from those who follow gurus/preachers/ subverters ranging from Jesus to Dawkins?”  An ounce of self-doubt is a healthy thing; absolute certainty about your beliefs a damn nuisance to the rest of us.

Grim reading for Americans

Posted by on

The Pew Research Center surveyed more than 40,000 people in 37 countries this year, examining global attitudes to the US and the president since Barack Obama left office. The numbers are grim reading for anyone but Vladimir Putin.

Confidence in the US president has collapsed 42 points to just 22%, while favorable views of the country overall have dropped 15 points to 49%. The declines are staggering in European countries, and in the 10 countries where US presidential favorability ratings plunged the most,  including South Korea and Japan: two allies who are clearly not reassured by Trump’s belligerent tone toward North Korea. Trump starts his presidency at the low point where George W Bush ended his, after years of cowboy diplomacy and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are just two countries registering a rise in confidence since the Obama era ended: Israel and Russia. In Israel, where Obama clashed repeatedly with the Netanyahu government, confidence has risen 7 points, from 49 to 56%: hardly a tidal wave of happiness.  The only country to fully embrace Donald Trump is Mother Russia herself, where confidence has rocketed 42 points, from 11% to 53%. Given the number of Russian immigrants in Israel, the two countries may really reflect only one dynamic: the curious case of Trump’s crush on Moscow.

These results are not just passing curiosities; they  have potentially serious consequences for American foreign policy.  If the public and foreign politicians have little or no confidence or trust in you they will not be there for you if you really need their support.  Trying to deal with a President with the attention span of a ten-year-old, who can’t or won’t study up on the issues,  is a sure guarantee of being ignored when the chips are down. Americans like to think in terms of a pax Americana (although pax might be be a somewhat misleading word after so many years of war).  Trump is encouraging foreign countries to re- think their foreign policies.  After so long that is an agonising thing to have to do.  America is squandering her  goodwill.

.

Light relief

Posted by on

On Tuesday I went to the Hospital of St. John & St. Elizabeth in London for an MRI scan. Firstly, I had to fill in a medical form. That’s understandable. What was quite incomprehensible was that a standard piece of information printed on the form for the benefit of the MRI operator was:

VIP?

In other words, was I a very important personage, due special treatment and cringing attention? An Arab Prince, perhaps? Even a King or a member of the rapidly changing Trump Administration, needing special treatment quickly before being fired?

Naturally, I crossed out the ” No”, put there by the receptionist, and wrote “Yes”. I must be important to someone, even if I am a member of the hoi polloi.

Isn’t that just dreadful? Is it not an outward manifestation of how very unequal we are now? The innards of a King, after all, bear a striking resemblance to my own, or so I assume.

The gender gap in British and American higher education

Posted by on

A few days ago, Robert wrote an excellent piece on the self-obsession of many people today, especially men. http://hanrott.com/blog/pared-back-living-and-the-modern-male. He mentioned a creeping sexism in which men are encouraged to have big experiences, whereas women are meant to find happiness at home. I responded by highlighting that part of the problem with gender relations nowadays is the gender gap in university enrolment. In both the UK and the USA, women are significantly more likely to attend university than men. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36266753. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/03/28/look-how-women-outnumber-men-college-campuses-nationwide/YROqwfCPSlKPtSMAzpWloK/story.html. I wanted to explore why this is occurring, and its effects on the way men and women behave.

The most common explanation for the growing gender gap at university is the lack of male school teachers. If young boys had strong academic male role models to look up to, more of them would aspire to get a degree of their own. For me, this explanation isn’t sufficient. Women teachers have long outnumbered their male counterparts, yet the gender gap in educational attainment keeps growing. A lack of male teachers doesn’t explain why the problem is getting significantly worse. The other explanation I don’t buy is the idea that men are being discriminated against in the admissions process. This is complete nonsense; as someone who recently went through the admissions process, I experienced no discrimination of any kind as a man. Universities cannot help it if more women are applying to university than men.

My explanation for the gender gap is that men are less suited to academia and life at university. At school they tend to be worse behaved, less disciplined and less hard working. They are more easily distracted. They get into fights, and are more likely to commit crime or be expelled. Men also seem less able to commit to projects for a long period of time, like coursework, which means they won’t cope as well with dissertations or long essays. I also think men have more and better-paid options that don’t require a higher education. Many of my male friends have gone straight from school into the media, banking, accounting or engineering- all of which tend to be male-dominated.  Women’s best paid options seem to be education, research and law, which all either require or greatly benefit from a higher education. Of course, all of these are a generalisation, but the statistics show the overall trend is strong.

The conservative National Review magazine has an interesting explanation. They say that family breakdown and the rise of fatherless households is to blame. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425506/why-do-more-women-men-go-college-anna-sutherland. Without a strong father figure, men lack a decent role model at home. Since fatherless households tend to be poorer, boys growing up with a single mum are less likely to succeed, even if the mums in question work very hard. I think this explanation has some credibility. The only person I know at university who grew up without a father is a woman, and her brother hasn’t done especially well at all. National Review is very keen to stress that a degree is not a pre-requisite for a happy life, but it certainly makes one more likely. Having said that, it’s not clear if the government can do anything to prevent families from splitting apart. Unlike National Review, I don’t think religion can do much either. In the US, black children are more likely to grow up without fathers, despite black people being significantly more religious than white Americans.

The worsening gender gap at university has several implications. One of the most significant is that is does damage to the notion that our society is a meritocracy. Your ability to get a higher education should not depend on something you can’t help. If National Review is right, then your life chances are also dependent on the your family status, which is something else beyond the control of the child.

The gender gap at university also threatens women’s prospects of marriage. People tend to marry within their own social class, because they have more in common with those of a similar educational background. University is often where people meet their future husbands and wives; it’s where my parents met. The gender gap will leave an increasing number of women without a husband, and mean that those who do find a husband are less likely to have as much in common with them. At the same time, it allows men to be too choosy. If there are an excess of women, why settle for a women who doesn’t fit your predisposed notions of beauty, charisma or charm? The luxury of men being able to be picky could lead to an increase in misogyny, where women are judged for superficial traits that wouldn’t have any bearing if the number of men and women was equal. Even before marriage, there’s evidence that an excess of women makes men more promiscuous at university, whereas an excess of men makes them more monogamous. http://time.com/money/4072951/college-gender-ratios-dating-hook-up-culture/.

The purist libertarians amongst you may not see this as a problem. After all, women are choosing to go to university at higher rates, so why not respect that choice? What’s important is people’s freedom to choose, without being discriminated against. There’s certainly some merit to this argument. If women believe they will gain more from a degree than men, then that’s their decision to make. I certainly wouldn’t want a crude quota system that would lead women to believe they are the subjects of formalised discrimination, like how affirmative action in the US makes whites and Asians believe they are discriminated against.

Having said that, I don’t think we can ignore the problem entirely. The fact is, degrees are a requirement for many professions, and incredibly advantageous to many others. Increasingly, having a postgraduate degree will open up more opportunities than it does currently, let alone an undergraduate degree. So if men don’t get more degrees soon, they will be locked out of many professions in the future. An increasing amount of frustrated and disillusioned men could have all sorts of consequences, from an increasing crime rate, to a higher suicide rate, to increasing support for extreme political movements. One of the reasons why Trump won the presidency was that many men felt they had suffered the effects of deindustrialisation, and America’s transformation from a manufacturing power to a service and knowledge-based economy. Now there’s nothing Trump can do to reverse this trend. But if men can’t adapt to and succeed in the modern world, we will see plenty more Trumps for years to come.

 

Good conversation

Posted by on

These days we communicate as much as possible through email and text. We justify this on the basis of efficiency. The idea seems to be that, since we can edit our messages, we can be more “ourselves” and make sure we say things “just right.” We now interact in the same manner face-to-face: we say something, and then sit back and wait for the response. We utter statements and talk around each other, rather than with each other.  Actually, we  mostly talk about ourselves.

This makes conversation more superficial, shriveling our empathy and feeling of connection — we increasingly fail to hear each other’s voices, read each other’s body language, or see each other’s facial expressions. We not only lose out on insights into the lives of others, but into our own as well.
Good conversation should be allowed time and space for thought, for lulls, for repetition and elucidation. It should be allowed to stop and start, without interruptions and with cellphones firmly turned off.  In a conversation we should be all attention,  actively listening to one’s companions.

Many  people today shy away from talking with those they disagree with. They don’t like conflict, or having their beliefs challenged,  prefering to interact with people who confirm their preconceived notions.  But some of the best conversations are civil debates on important ideas and issues. By engaging with those with whom we disagree, we end up growing and examining our own ideas more closely, even if we don’t ultimately change our minds.  This is particularly a problem in the United States, where the two political tribes seldom converse with one another (I am ashamed to say I am guilty of this as well.  Ed.)

Some of the most memorable moments of our lives revolve around our conversations: the conversation you had with your girlfriend when you both realized you were falling in love; the conversation you had with a mentor who helped crystallize what  areer to pursue; the conversation you had with your daughter when you realized she had truly become an adult.

Epicurus knew that face-to-face conversations could  be entertaining, edifying, and satisfying, opportunities for both learning and mentorship, helping people to discover things about others, and about themselves.  Conversations could spark transformative realizations, even revelations. He spent hours in his famous garden holding conversations with all manner of people, educating himself about human nature and honing his ideas.  He was arguably the greatest conversationalist of ancient times.  We should try to emulate him.  (inspired by “Reclaiming Conversation”, by MIT professor Sherry Turkle, some of whose language I have used for this posting)

Best of the Week #8 London special

Posted by on

After last Monday’s lengthy post on British politics, I promised I would talk about other matters more. Today I endeavour to do just that, though whether I can keep it up is another matter entirely. Warning: I’ve tried to write more briefly, but yet again I’ve totally failed.

As with last week’s post, I wanted to analyse just one piece in today’s Best of the Week. It comes from Rod Liddle, who I rarely agree with, particularly on Brexit. But today he presents an acerbic critique of London. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/if-youre-not-tired-of-london-youre-tired-of-life/ This was shortly followed by a critique of the green belt- the countryside surrounding London. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/welcome-to-the-green-belt-a-safe-space-for-lily-livered-londoners/

First, a bit of context. Over the past twenty years, London has expanded in size considerably. The financial deregulation of the late Eighties led to an increase in the number of well-paid jobs in the city, particularly in the otherwise deprived East End. Not only has this attracted migrants from less fortunate parts of Britain, it has also attracted people from all around the world. While London has long been a favourable destination for migrants, this trend has accelerated considerably in recent years. For the first time ever, the UK 2011 census found that the proportion of Londoners who identify as ‘White British’ was actually less than half. (Whites are still about 60% due to EU migration.)

The cause of such a profound demographic transformation is not just immigrants moving into London, it is British people choosing to leave. Very often, ex-Londoners will say things like, ‘I want better schools for my children,’ or ‘I like the countryside,’ or ‘London has become too expensive.’ Now those things are certainly true, but they aren’t entirely true. For instance, contrary to popular belief, London’s schools are actually amongst the best in the country, even for poor people. The city’s crime rate has declined, as has its levels of poverty. So economic factors alone cannot explain British Londoners choosing to leave the city in such large numbers.

For social conservatives like Liddle, London’s economic situation is part of the problem, but it is not the only problem. Liddle’s critique of London’s economy is that it is too unequal, even if the city as a whole is wealthy. He accurately points out that there are a large number of people working for very low wages, faced with high housing costs and long hours. Even in wealthy Kensington and Chelsea, the poverty rate actually exceeds the national average. On the other hand, you have a privileged upper-middle class who benefit from the city’s abundance of cheap labour, allowing them to hire nannies and workmen for a pittance. Moreover, there is a cruel racial dimension to this inequality, much like in America. The wealthy who benefit from inequality are mostly white, except for a few Arab oligarchs. The poor who work for them are mostly black or Asian. The Grenfell Tower fire was only a recent example of how London’s non-whites are often neglected.

But although Liddle sympathises with the plight of London’s ethnic minorities, he is also critical of the city’s multiculturalism, and of the politicians that allow them to migrate there in such large numbers. Liberal policymakers are responsible for homegrown terrorism, politically correct councils and ethnic segregation. None of these problems may affect those rich enough to isolate themselves from them, but for ordinary middle class people, they make life worse. The left is meant to be in favour of curbing excess wealth. Yet by supporting mass immigration, it has made inequality worse.

Which brings us on to the green belt. For Liddle, the green belt is for those honest enough to admit that London’s PC zealotry, vast inequality and social division have got totally out of hand. But they still want the economic benefits of living in the capital- having their cake and eating it. He views this as unsustainable, leading to an ever-larger urban sprawl where London will relentlessly expand. Much like with his views on the EU, he believes people should leave it properly, not pretend there is anything to salvage from it,

I most disagree with Liddle on all of this. His assessment of London as an economically unequal and socially segregated city is indisputable. What he fails to mention is that this is true of nearly all globalised cities. New York, Los Angeles, Paris, Berlin- are all exactly the same. It is in the nature of large cities to be divided. Their economic clout and cultural amenities attract the wealthy, while the abundance of low-paying jobs and availability of public transport attract the poor. It is the middle class, who are too rich to quality for social housing but too poor to live in the nice neighbourhoods, that find themselves pushed out.

More importantly, Liddle fails to make the comprehensive case for economic equality and cultural homogeneity as inherent virtues. London may be an economically unequal city, but it is also by far the most socially mobile place in Britain, according to both the government and the Sutton Trust. London’s poor have a much greater chance of becoming rich, partly because the education system is so much better. Surely, social mobility is more important than equality, particularly compared to rural areas where everyone is equally poor. Equally, London’s inequality in close proximity may be preferable to other countries, where rich and poor live in totally different areas.

Liddle may not say so explicitly in these articles, but he doesn’t approve of multiculturalism, not just mass immigration’s effects on inequality and security. He would rather live in a town that is mostly white British, in a similar way to how many black people would rather live in a town with a higher black population. There’s nothing inherently wrong with wanting that, as long as you are honest enough to admit that that is what you want, which Liddle isn’t. But London’s multiculturalism isn’t making it unliveable. People of different backgrounds are actually more likely to get on in London, compared with other British cities with a higher white population, particularly those in the North. On the whole, I can imagine that living in a city of contrasts is actually very exciting, even if it poses its challenges.

Finally, the green belt, where I have lived for my whole life before going to university. Liddle seems to believe that it is full of middle class ex-Londoners, who are very politically correct, liberal and unfriendly. Actually, the opposite is the case. Many green belt inhabitants left London for the same reasons as why Liddle disapproves of it: they don’t like economic inequality and multiculturalism. The green belt is far more conservative than London, with a lot of it supporting Leave in the EU referendum. The desire for London’s economic benefits is more one of necessity than choice; many people don’t like working in London but can’t find as good a job elsewhere. While urban sprawl is an issue, the green belt actually has amongst the lowest rates of house building in the country. I also strongly disapprove of referring to the green belt as a homogenous entity. It is divided between distinctly average New Towns like Crawley (where I lived) and Harlow, working class multicultural towns like Slough and Luton, middle class towns like Guildford and Tunbridge Wells, and upper class towns like Beaconsfield and Esher.

Pared-back living and the modern male

Posted by on

I uneasily venture into a realm that seems utterly foreign to me…….

An essay in Toronto Life by a 31-year-old named “Tony” who earns $130,000 a year, lives at home with his parents and proudly forgoes material possessions in order to spend his money on “wild, rare, unforgettable experiences”. His boasts about drinking fine wines and patronising “the rooftop restaurant featured in The Hangover Part II” are insufferable, but what makes it worse is the trite assumption that, by valuing experiences over “stuff”, he’s living a more meaningful existence. This has become “our era’s reigning banality”. It’s true, of course, that eating a meal with a loved one is “more spiritually uplifting than ordering shoes online”. But overweening pride in non-ownership grates when it comes from people who are cadging off others.

There’s “something subtly sexist” about modern celebrations of pared-back living, too. For men, it always seems to be about fulfilling dreams and not being “tied down”, whereas for women it always seems to be about achieving Zen-like calm by decluttering the home. Or as the writer Ruth Whippman recently put it, while men are conditioned to “see their happiness in terms of adventure and travel, sex and ideas and long nights of hilarity, women are now encouraged to find deep fulfilment in staying home to origami our pants”. (Phoebe Maltz Bovy, New Republic, published in The Week)

The men seem selfish to me, but maybe I am just out of date.  I do perceive a somewhat general preoccupation with the self.  Life seems to be all about “Me, Me, Me”.  All too often one can get through an evening asking questions of the person next to you, and realising on the way home that he or she had asked not a single question about you and  left not knowing a single thing about you, except possibly your first name.  This modern style of social interraction was once explained thus: “I thought that if you had something to say about yourself you would interrupt me and tell me what it is”.   Epicurus would be appalled.   Certainly it is charmless.  I personally would simply use an old Saxon word – rude.  My father once told me, ” If you want to charm somebody, ask questions about them, their lives, their likes, their dislikes and their views on just about anything”.  Good advice.

Are the English anti-Irish again?

Posted by on

Teresa May’s pay-off of  the Democratic Unionist Party  in Northern Ireland, in return for support for the deeply dovided and non- functional Conservatives in parliament, is not popular anywhere, and there are claims that it is stirring up old anti- Irish prejudices.

One thing I learned when I was doing consulting in Northern Ireland was that there are two Northern Irelands – the businessmen and the educated people, whose attitudes you couldn’t tell apart from their Southern opposite numbers (or anywhere else in Europe) and the people still living in the 17 Century. I also became aware of the chip that a lot of people there have on their shoulders. They think they are looked down upon by Brits, which is not true. There is no anti-Irish feeling left in England, just irritation about the silly amount of money being paid to NI at the expense of the National Health Service and other claimants.

The DUP are opposed to same- sex marriage and abortion and are tied up with the Orange Order, which deliberately provokes Catholics. Ordinary Irish citizens are as impatient with these old divides as are most English people. Indeed, they look forward to an influx of new jobs with companies fleeing a Britain soon (?) to be outside the EU.

Every year the media focus on the Apprentice Boy marches and the bowler hats and the old- fashioned prejudices (on both sides of the religious divide), and this gives NI a bad image, but if there is prejudice it is against the antidiluvian religion, not against the Irish per se. I do think there are a lot of people who, before the NI agreement that Clinton helped get, dearly wished NI could by carved off and floated away to a spot just south of Greenland. But then it was Cromwell and King Billy who caused the problem in the first place, so one somehow has to live with the tribal stuff.

(Provoked by an article by Gen Patterson, Irish Times, 28 June 2017 claiming that the English were becoming anti- Irish again)

 

Things we can agree on about climate change

Posted by on

From Iain Climie, Whitchurch, Hampshire, UK

The simplest retort to climate change sceptics is that many actions that are vital if global warming is occurring make sense anyway (24 June, p 28). Restoring fish stocks, habitat conservation with careful exploitation, and alternatives to fossil fuels make sense regardless of the extent, nature and origin of climate change. Reducing waste may be the simplest approach of all.
The UK’s Institute of Mechanical Engineers reported in 2013 that at least 30 per cent of global production fails to reach markets or shops; and it is wasteful to use human food for livestock feed or biofuels. Can dealing with these obvious concerns really be seen as anti-business or even irreligious, even though the inability of conventional free markets to cope sensibly with gluts still has to be addressed?
A few years ago, a colleague queried whether human activities could really be so significant. I mentioned the points above and he replied “But that’s a win-win; I’m happy to support that.” (New Scientist, 15 July 2017)

These are good points, hard to oppose unless you are a paid-up sociopath.  All the same I do think the climate change deniers should be encouraged to answer the obvious question (which they duck or ignore, because there is no answer that doesn’t undermine their position):

“What, after 200 years of industrialisation and burning massive quantities of coal and oil, do you think happens to all the gunk we put into our thin atmosphere?  Does it just disappear by magic?  Has it gone to the Moon?” I haven’t seen a single answer to this question.  You don’t have to be a scientist to see that the spent particles must alter the composition of the air and the atmosphere. Meanwhile, we cut down the very forests that extract the carbon from the air.  Smart?