Will Brexit threaten the City of London’s status as a global financial hub? As the smoke clears on the vote to leave the EU, it’s becoming ever clearer that the answer is no, says Dominic Elliott. Sure, the UK’s financial sector may well have to cope with extra regulation, higher costs and greater capital requirements. But even if the very worst happened, and London-based banks lost the passporting rights that let them sell services across Europe from the UK, the fallout would probably only affect one in ten financial sector workers. Trade in euro-denominated securities might well move to Frankfurt or Paris, but lots of other business would stay. That’s because: a) the costs of upping sticks might well exceed the Brexit-related costs of staying put; b) there’s no single city that “offers a neat alternative to London”; and c) because of “the cluster effect. It’s not so much that banks like to be near their rivals. It’s more that it makes sense to be close to clients.” Insurers and asset managers – two crucial kinds of customer – are unlikely to be going anywhere; nor are blue-chip companies. For now, the wise move for banks is clear: “do nothing” and carry on. (Dominic Elliott, Reuters BreakingViews  July 2016)

We have got it all wrong. Banking was supposed to be a service, not the Britain’s biggest, richest industry. Nor was it ever originally intended that the financial tail should wag the dog, the dog being the greater economy. We have seen too many greedy shenanigans that have had horrible effects on ordinary citizens. We all know this. So maybe some winnowing wouldn’t be a bad thing. If there were significant unemployment of bankers, those still in work might be more careful about their trades. But what we really need is for banks to concentrate on lending for decent honest enterprise and become community banks once again. Let the shady, greedy types depart to the Continent if they wish.

The Guardian recently ran an article by Paul Mason that illustrates how class resentment thrives in Britain. Mason wrote that “brown shoes can ruin a career in investment banking, because they betray a lack of “sheen”, according to a Social Mobility Commission report. “Little wonder” that investment banking “suffers from groupthink on a scale that crashed the world markets in 2008”. No matter how good you are, if you don’t dress the part, you can “take your excellence somewhere else”. Fortunately for those trying to “scam” their way into banking, the sartorial faux pas are easily avoided, “with money, practice, a willing tailor and obedient hair”.

“The difficulty lies in the “unfakeable” bits. Only a handful of schools and universities pass muster at many banks, and you’ll need at least four spring internships – which are “in limited supply” unless you’re the offspring of a banker, or similar. If you want to become a City banker, the efficient-markets must become your religion. Above all, remember that “centuries of good practice show capital can only be allocated efficiently when the participants in the deal played rugby with each other at the age of 12”.

Has Mason actually met any average banker in London? Is this piece of classism fair, or can it be dismissed by as a rant by someone turned down by a bank earlier in his career? My (limited) acquaintance with modern bankers suggests it is wildly out of date, but it does illustrate how, despite the fact that non-private school people have dominated so much of life (particularly in the media and the arts) in the last generation, articles like this can still be published. It wouldn’t be allowed were it about, say, women or people of colour. I find it boring, and exaggerated. The Guarniad (as it is known) in many ways is an excellent paper, the only one offering a liberal alternative to political bias. But sometimes it does for Britain what the Republican mis-informationists do for America, that is, misinform and stoke hatred. Like all these things, there is a smidgeon of truth, but it ignores the bigger picture. Epicureans should protest.

“What is true, and what isn’t? That question is beginning to lose its relevance in American politics For some years now, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and other members of the conservative infotainment complex have relentlessly poured scorn on everything reported by the “mainstream media”, and thereby successfully “wrecked the idea of objective, knowable fact”. Even the Wisconsin radio host Charlie Sykes, a conservative activist, has recently admitted that things have gone too far, an admission prompted by his frustration over the campaign tactics of Donald Trump”.

As Sykes points out, when Trump says something that’s blatantly racist or untrue, Sykes’s radio audience don’t expect him to retract it: no, they expect him to defend it, and if he doesn’t, brand him a sell-out. “We’ve created this monster,” as Sykes puts it. “We’ve basically eliminated any of the referees, the gatekeepers.” In the alternative reality of today’s conservative orthodoxy, science, polls, history and major media institutions have no credibility. Climate change is a hoax. President Obama was born in Kenya. If Trump loses, the election was rigged. Liberals and conservatives can no longer communicate across the ideological divide, or cooperate to solve problems, since they can’t agree on any objective set of facts. “The damage from that is profound, and will not be easily fixed.” (Leonard Pitts Jr, Miami Herald)

Is this the end of the United States as a governable, modern member of the interntional community? I have wondered (to myself up till now), whether the country should have been broken into two and whether the instincts that drove the Civil War were not, in the longer term, more pragmatic. But the problem there is that is is not a simple matter of North versus South. Much of the mid-West is very conservative. A Left-Right division of States into two new countries, even if were conceivable, would leave an East-West divide, with liberal California and maybe other Western States separated from the Liberal North East.

Perhaps only an immigrant such as I would even imagine such a scenario. But if division is not an option, what is the future of the Union and how do you undo the damage done by the radical extremists. Republican speaks not to Democrat, and vice-versa. You can’t have a workable country like that. Epicurus, were he alive, might advocate putting all the extreme politicians and talk show hosts out of business in one huge revolution, re- writing “freedom of speech”, all in the name of commity, peace of mind and civilised discourse. But then you have the 300 million guns…..

Yesterday I mentioned free will. One of the regular readers of this blog asked me the other day what I thought about this subject. I am sticking my neck out in the hope that someone will produce some stunning and persuasive reason why I am wrong. And if they do, I will promptly sink into a total lethargic funk and decide not to make any more effort at anything anymore.

Some scientists, and, probably, some philosophers, have been asking whether we really have free will, or whether we are programmed from birth to act as we act. For what it is worth I strongly believe that we do have free will, and this is why:

1. No one has yet come up with a smidgeon of proof that life is pre-ordained. In medicine researchers talk about genes producing a pre-disposition towards certain diseases, but genes don’t normally determine the illness. Likewise, maybe one’s genes give you a pre-disposition towards being, for instance, anti-social or the ability to become a lawyer, but they don’t determine one’s choice or predestine you, one way or another. They may have a role in depression, or in your intellect, or your energy level, but they do not remove your freedom of choice. Nor do I know of any other organ or series of thingumijigs in the body that can be candidates for pre-ordaining our actions.

2. If someone, something, somehow, somewhere is arranging our lives so that we are simply pawns in some obscure game, then no criminal is answerable for his crimes, no murderer can help murdering, and no politician can help lying; and I had to start this blog because the “Thing” told me to. This, if true, makes life wholly pointless, and removes not only the fun of it, but any incentive to make an effort.

3. Choice and free will go hand in hand. For instance, years ago I met my (now) wife on a walk in Italy. For reasons I won’t bother the reader with I voluntarily and very happily asked her to marry her, leave my country and my family, and go and live with her in a foreign country. I had a choice. I could have stayed where I was and our friendship would have taken a different course. But instead I readily emigrated, having met her totally by chance. No great, magisterial power had fun arranging it; it was totally a matter of choice. To suggest I (or she) had no free will in the matter is preposterous.

We all believe we have free will, or at least, sufficient to free to be able to make decisions for ourselves and not blame anyone or anything else. So be it.

I have written this of my own free will.

“Could you be living inside a simulation created by a more advanced intelligence? Where does your unerring belief that you are not come from? The short answer is you don’t. Consider this: with every passing moment, we get closer to creating intelligent machines, maybe even conscious ones. If we can do this, couldn’t someone – or something – else do it too?

“Philosopher Nick Bostrom at the University of Oxford, in 2003, argued that if humans were one day able to create simulations populated with conscious beings, it’s at least possible that we, too, are living in such a simulation. Since then, that possibility has, if anything, become more realistic. There are projects seeking to build entire animal brains from scratch, modelled exactly on living ones, down to individual neurons and the myriad connections that interlink them. When very simple versions were given robotic bodies, lo and behold, they behaved like the creatures they were modelled on. It’s probably only a matter of time before we create virtual beings inside computers.

“In all likelihood, we will never find out whether or not we are simulations ourselves. But one thing is clear, says philosopher Thomas Metzinger of the University of Mainz: each of us has a robust experience that “I exist”. Perhaps a slightly more manageable problem is to figure out where that experience comes from”. (Anil Ananthaswamy, New Scientist)

A simulation creating a simulation? Does it matter? And what is the purpose of it all? To do it because you can do it?

I think this is totally unnecessary, and maybe immoral. Why can’t these people, probably publically funded, work on ways of improving the lives of the huge number of the poor and the sick? Science has done so much good for the human race, but it is also capable of harm. Aside from anything else, simulated humans programmed by humans would, if successful, destroy any idea that we have free will. Maybe, in reality, we don’t, but we do have choices, and one of those choices is to live a life of mutual cooperation, consideration for others, and joyful care for and enjoyment of the world around us. This whole effort might amuse a few scientists anxious to make names for themselves, but I think the idea of virtual humans inside computers is sinister and should be halted. In any event, existence seems real enough to me. What about you?

In the US – where companies routinely use computer algorithms to whittle down job applicants – 72% of CVs are never seen by human eyes. (The Guardian)

There is little more depressing and destructive of self-confidence than job hunting with no contacts and no one to help. When I was young I found myself in this position, trying to get a job in a marketing department of a big company for the sake of experience. I sent out dozens of job applications, with no reaction whatsoever. And this with a good degree and what seemed a reasonable CV. In the end I did get a job in a marketing department, but not before periods of fear and even despair. Good for the humility, but little else.

Now it must be even more difficult. Companies don’t want to have to train you; they want ready-made experts. And they no longer value broad education, problem solving ability or imagination, as opposed to training. This makes the role of parents, relatives, friends and friends of friends ever more important, not to mention college professors prepared to recommend you (at least for an interview). As for the interview itself, do not go into one without plenty of practice in front of experienced people prepared to critique you.

All this does little for your ataraxia. Probably, fathers in ancient Greece fixed employment for sons with their personal acquaintances. More probably, you followed your father’s profession and were trained by him. Girls didn’t figure in the world of work. Life was simple and short-term contracts unheard of. What hasn’t changed is the question all interviewers quietly ask themselves,”Can I work with this person and is he going to help me look good or be a pain in the neck?” In any event, job hunting and interviews have to be approached professionally and methodically, with advice from experienced people.

Scientists in the US have discovered a painkiller that seems to work just as well as morphine – but without its potentially lethal side effects. The chemical compound PZM21, which has so far only been tested on mice, appears to target the same pain-reducing brain receptors as opium-derived painkillers such as morphine, but is more selective: as a result it does not seem to cause the potentially lethal breathing problems, or the constipation, associated with morphine. Moreover, based on assessments of how the mice moved after taking it, the researchers conclude that PZM21 causes less activation of the brain’s reward system, indicating that unlike morphine, it may not be addictive. Scientists hailed the study as “very exciting”. However, the research is in its early stages: the compound has yet to be shown to be safe and effective on humans. (The Week)

It is not a new development, but a welcome one nonetheless. Surgeons doing shoulder, hip, or similar surgery now no longer use morphine in the traditional way. Instead, they inject painkiller into the back. This was a development pioneered in California, and now used everywhere for after-surgery pain. You can simply walk out of hospital painless a couple of hours after the operation. Brilliant! I mention it because after I had surgery years ago I was given morphine, which is a horrible drug, for the reasons mentioned above. It also needs a lot of patience to stop using.

It’s good to report these advances in drug development and patient care. It makes life so much more pleasant and allows you to resume it with enthusiasm.

Past estimates of the elephant population in Africa ranged from around 400,000 to over 630,000, and there was disagreement about the numbers. The new Great Elephant Census, funded by Paul Allen of Microsoft, estimates that there are just 352,271 elephants in 93 percent of the animals’ range.

Much of the decline in the elephant population is due to illegal poaching by people who sell elephant tusks on the Chinese market. Past estimates of how many elephants are illegally killed were based on models and incomplete carcass counts, as opposed to comparing population numbers. The new survey finds tens of thousands of elephants are being killed each year.

Many governments have tried to prevent illegal elephant hunting by establishing parks and disrupting the market for ivory. Kenya has held public ivory-burning events for years — at the most recent one, in April, the government burned the tusks of nearly 7,000 elephants.

Botswana appears to be most effective at protecting its elephants. The elephants seem to understand this and herds there are now worryingly large. In Namibia, elephant and rhino numbers are treated as a national secret, but appear to be healthy and thriving. It is said that their ivory is not good for carving, which is some small comfort.

The smaller elephants inhabiting tropical forests are another matter. Killed for the ivory, they could be wiped out completely in the next ten years. Their numbers fell by about 65 per cent across the Central African Republic between 2002 and 2013. Unlike the bigger, more abundant savannah elephants, which start breeding from the age of 12, female forest elephants only begin breeding at 23 and give birth once every five to six years. This makes them the planet’s slowest reproducing mammals and means the species may take up to 90 years to recover from losses inflicted over this 11-year period. (various sources, including New Scientist, September, 2016)

The Chinese government should be cracking down on the disgusting trade in ivory from rhinos and elephants. Why won’t they do this? Guess.

Like the cabinet, the public at large also seems uncertain about the implications of Brexit. The BBC today released a poll showing that, while 62% of people are positive about Britain’s future after the EU referendum, 35% are negative. Some of the other poll findings are more awkward for the Brexiteers.

A quarter of Britons have considered leaving the country since the Brexit vote, the poll reveals. Almost twice as many Britons think the UK’s reputation abroad has been damaged by the Brexit vote (46%) as think it has been improved by the vote (27%).

The Minister responsible for developing a strategy for Britain and Brexit, David Davis, a long-time Eurosceptic, appears to have no strategy and is accused of generalised waffling, even though he has had years to work out what to do in the event of departure from the EU.

To The Times
“As former vice-chancellor of a Russell Group university, I strongly disagree with a continued and even increased influx of foreign students. You describe our universities as one of “Britain’s most lucrative exports”, but that is not the purpose of our universities, which is to educate our citizens and to pursue research. An element of cosmopolitanism is, of course, essential, but we are taking it too far, to a point at which it impairs the indigenous character of our universities. A recent walk around the London School of Economics reminded me more of an international airport than a seat of learning. Ironically, we are impairing the character that makes British universities so attractive abroad”.
Professor Sir Laurence Martin, London (The Times, re-printed in The Week).

The average cost of sending a child to private school in London is now £16,500 a year, and has risen by more than 20 per cent during the last 5 years, according to analysis by the Good Schools Guide. This outpaces the 2.7 per cent growth in the capital’s average salary and the 6.1 per cent growth in inflation.

Both in secondary and further education the British are getting it wrong. Private school fees are rocketing up because Chinese parents want to give their children a Western education and will pay a fortune for it. My wife and I encountered a man whose job it is to recruit Chinese kids for British private schools. He said the problem was to keep the ratio of Chinese to British children reasonable (partly for linguistic reasons) – there was absolutely no problem finding rich Chinese parents. The temptation for educational institutions must be huge. This phenomenon exists in the US as well. When we visited the MIT campus we thought we were in Shanghai. What does this say about Chinese education, one might ask? But this isn’t the point. I agree with Professor Martin – this, if pursued, is going to ruin the very things that attract foreign students in the first place.

Meanwhile, for every Chinese student accepted, the private sector becomes even more elitist, exclusive and difficult to enter for British and American children, afforded only by super-rich CEOs and financial sector fat cats.

Research indicates that for a single very hot day — warmer than 86 degrees Fahrenheit — per capita income goes down by $20.56, or 28 percent. The optimum temperature for human productivity seems to be around 13 degrees Celsius or about 55 degrees Fahrenheit, as an annual average in a particular place. When it gets much hotter than this, researchers have found, economic productivity declines strongly.

Serious heat waves have become more prevalent in various parts of the globe. By the mid-1990s, persistently hot, poor countries such as Bangladesh were estimated to have lost 1 to 3 percent of all daylight work hours to extreme heat, which can cause exhaustion, stroke and sometimes death among exposed workers. In West Africa, the number of very hot days per year have doubled since 1960. Countries such as India, Vietnam and Indonesia could see the number of lost work hours more than double by 2055 and more than triple by 2085.

If the world’s nations live up to their promises in an agreement made last year in Paris to cut greenhouse gas emissions in coming decades, it could help slow the warming process. New technologies to cool workplaces — even in poor countries — could help some workers avoid dangerously hot working conditions, although that also could place more strain on infrastructure. (based on an article in the Washington Post, Tuesday, July 19, 2016)

The problem will not subside anytime soon. As a reader wrote on this blog, the irony is that global warming has been principally caused by the more developed countries, but some of the worst effects are being, and will be, felt by the less-developed. The result could be political turmoil and mass movements of people trying to escape unbearable living conditions, including starvation and lack of water. We must be wise and take this possibility very seriously. The un-said attitude of many in the establishment probably is “What can I do personally? Let the next generation sort it out”. Un-Epicurean and irresponsible, if true.

Brady Dennis in the August 24, 2016 edition of the Washington Post reports a study done by Zillow, a real estate company, that estimates that rising sea levels could leave nearly 2 million U.S. homes inundated by 2100, a fate that would displace millions of people and result in property losses in the hundreds of billions of dollars. With six feet of sea level rise, nearly 2 percent of all U.S. housing stock could vanish, accounting for roughly $882 billion worth of homes. “It may turn out that actual water poses almost as much of a problem for the housing market in the future as negative equity has in the past,” said Krishna Rao, Zillow’s director of economic product and research.

The states worst affected would be:

Maryland and Virginia, 100,000 homes
The Carolinas, 140,000 homes submerged.
Florida, facing the gravest threat, one in eight of all properties inder water.

Cities under the worst threat would be Miami (possibly a third of its housing stock), Boston (one in five homes), Honolulu (a quarter of its housing).

The guide who took my wife and I around Namibia is a national figure, a former captain of the national soccer team, who last year came second in the world in a rating of tourist guides. He is smart, well-read and knowledgeable. Yet, in a conversation about the effect of climate change on water-deprived Namibia (drought since 2011) he forcefully stated that man-made climate change was a fiction. He said it in a way that showed he had thought about it. He is a great chap, and I dropped the subject as having nothing to do with our tour.

When someone like that categorically denies the work of nearly all climate scientists it shows what a problem we are faced with. We pour gunk into our fragile, thin strip of liveable atmosphere for two hundred years – and where do the man-made climate change deniers think it goes? Conveniently, to the moon? Meanwhile, local authorities are having to build protective dykes, and other flood prevention projects, to protect houses that, arguably, should never have been built so near to the sea. Whether, in hurricane-prone areas these are effective we we will in due course find out.