Female wisdom

To The Daily Telegraph

You report that the University of Oxford wants 40% of its philosophy reading list to consist of work by female philosophers. I see no reason in principle why sexism should not be combated by such a tactic, and it may succeed in what is presumably its main aim of bringing more women to philosophy. There is, however, an unintended consequence: the reading list will become skewed towards philosophers of the late 20th and 21st centuries. As far as philosophy is concerned, this is a worse bias than sexism: women do not philosophise very differently from men, but recent philosophers do philosophise very differently from former ones, and for the most part (if I may venture a personal opinion) not nearly so effectively.
Dr Alex Abercrombie, Fishguard, Pembrokeshire
(The Week 24 March 2018)

There is a “philosophic” manner of talking philosophically which all professionals seem to indulge in.  My experience is that as soon as most people address “modern philosophy” they dive into a mumbo-jumbo that might well impress their academic peers, but is hard work for human beings.

But let me not be too negative.  Somewhere out there there might be female philosphers who can make it all come alive and even fun.  So bring them on!  Maybe they will encourage us to abandon the Oxford English Dictionary, a must at present, and talk English.  Who knows?  The problem is that they will want to be taken seriously by the male philosophers.

And this is an Epicurus blog!  When I started this blog I wanted to write in ordinary, comprehensible English about issues of the day that everyone understood, and try as best I could to suggest what Epicurus might have said were he alive today.  This is just one minor attempt to make the subject accessible.  But the fact is that you are reading it – and it doesn’t matter if it is written by a male or a female, does it?

NAFTA – not what it’s cracked up to be

The North American Free Trade Agreement came into existence in 1994. As a result of it  blue collar workers suffered.  High school drop-outs in areas heavily impacted by NAFTA  had 8% slower wage growth in the 1990s compared with those in less affected areas. The industries that lost the old protections saw their wages fall by 17 percentage points, relative to less NAFTA- affected industries. According to recent estimates the net economic gain to the US of NAFTA was well below 0.1% of GDP, e.g less than one tenth of one per cent of national income. Instead of putting resources into re-training, new skills, infrastructure etc that might have delivered decent jobs, the attitude was. “Well, we have to put up with losers. The country gains overall”. Well, it didn’t, and as a result we got……….Trump!

The shameful thing is that the Democrats were gung-ho about NAFTA, even though it had a painful effect on the Party’s natural base, the working class. Hillary didn’t get it at all. A lot of Democrats still don’t.  I remember years ago holding forth about the stupidity of shipping out jobs to China and South East Asia without energetically trying to replace them  at home .  There  was bound to be a huge backlash eventually.  Regrettably I was correct .  The “American Dream” died by economic projection.

It sounds as if Trump is right, too, all the more so because these trade agreements usually include provisions whereby disputes go before a small panel of lawyers who specialise in these matters. The lawyers are perceived to be “friendly” to corporate, not consumer, interests.  Of course.

(I owe the statistics above about the GNP to Dani Rodrik, professor of Political Economy at Harvard).

Why is America miserable?

For many Americans, particularly those of a conservative disposition, theirs is the greatest country in the world. Patriotism is a far more prominent feature of American politics and culture than in Europe, with adversaries denouncing each other for insufficiently loving and caring for their country. Much of this is justified, even if European liberals find it crass; America has a successful economy, is a world leader in a vast array of industries, is home to most of the world’s best universities, and provides the backbone of Western security. Were it not for high American defence spending, Europe would either be poorer or more vulnerable.

But there is one particular statistic that makes for grim reading. According to The Economist, suicides have declined everywhere in the developed world- America being one of the few exceptions. The article points out taking your life is easier in America because of easy access to guns. It also mentions the rise in opioid addiction as a significant contributor. But America isn’t the only country where drug addiction is a growing problem. Nor can high gun ownership rates explain this: America has always had relaxed gun laws, and the number of people who own a gun is actually in decline. Suicide is also unique in being a problem that affects whites more than blacks.

Rather, the cause of increasing suicide is that Americans are under increasing stress. Americans work longer hours than in most other developed countries. In Greece and South Korea- countries which have also seen an increase in suicides- working hours are also long. Spending less time relaxing and socialising inevitably takes a toll. Somewhat paradoxically, America’s increasing prosperity has increased stress. People work long hours to maintain what is considered a respectable lifestyle. The country’s materialistic culture means that people feel the need to own the latest innovations, even if it comes at the expense of time off. Growing income inequality compounds the problem. Average-income families see that more of their friends possess luxuries. Feeling the need to match their peers, they overwork and accumulate debt. It’s also worth pointing out that although unemployment in America is low, so is the labour force participation rate, with many Americans simply choosing not to look for work. To make matters worse, being unemployed is a less pleasant experience in America because unemployment benefits are less generous, health insurance and pension schemes are often tied to specific jobs, and having high personal debt makes unemployment more costly more quickly.

We on the Epicurus Blog are of a social democratic disposition, and would therefore call for a stronger social welfare system and legal entitlements to time off work. All of that is necessary, but America also needs to change its culture. Americans could learn from the Germans: save more, spend less, borrow less, and most importantly, work less. The average German works fewer hours than anywhere else in the world, yet Germany is relatively prosperous. Fiscal conservatives often bemoan America’s large national debt, and rightfully so. But if it is bad for the nation to be in debt, it is also bad for individuals, which is why a stronger safety net is necessary.  Unsustainably lavish lifestyles should be discouraged, with higher taxes on non-necessities like big houses and expensive cars, used to fund tax breaks for savers and investors. All of this may reduce Americans’ material standard of living. But it would create a more economically secure and happier nation, helping to reduce the country’s appalling suicide rate.

The ugliness around us

British Transport Minister John Hayes recently proked criticism after a speech to the Independent Transport Commission in which he spoke of the ugliness of Britain’s transport architecture and the importance of making our public and industrial buildings more beautiful. Why give us a “trivial and twee” homily on aesthetics, carped the critics: aren’t there more pressing issues, such as air pollution and affordable housing, to worry about?

But I’m with Hayes, says Clare Foges. The look of our public spaces isn’t a secondary issue; it has a direct impact on people’s well-being. The rich can buy their way “to sights that soothe the soul”. But “what if your constant visual diet are the wind-whistling plazas, in 50 shades of grey; the corrugated retail warehouses; the blank faces of municipal buildings; the graffiti and litter; the asphalt and concrete”? We fret about preserving the beauty of listed areas, yet let a “garish corporate free-for-all” spawn elsewhere, as if the look of such places didn’t matter. It does. As the naturalist John Muir said: “Everybody needs beauty as well as bread”. And those with less bread need life-enhancing public spaces all the more. (Clare Foges, The Times).

I entirely agree. Architects have ceded their roles to engineers, whose sole preoccupation is making sure the cheap steel and glass stand upright and won’t be blown over. Opposite our apartment there was, until recently, an elegant building, put up about 30 years ago, but which apparently didn’t make money. It has been demolished and the visuals of the replacement show a hideous monstrosity with nothing whatsoever to commend it. Henceforward we will have our view blocked by a building clearly designed by steel and glass engineers intent on making the building look cheap and tawdry. The local council planners did not even notify adjacent residents that this was going to happen. Even less did they insist on a design that fitted the immediate environment in an old part of the city with rather attractive Edwardian buildings around it. Protests elicited no response. And I won’t, in public, even mention the rumours about where the money for all this came from. I’m sure the reader’s imagination will fill in the gaps!

Some good news on Easter day

Amidst all the angst, hand-wringing and gloomy forecasts, a rather encouraging thing is happening in the UK: young people are drinking and smoking less, taking fewer drugs and having fewer babies. In 1998 54% of young people said they had taken drugs; by 2016 this percentage was down to 36%. The use of LSD and heroin use is down, and the only drug that has maintained a steady use is cocaine at 10%.

In 1999 64% of youngsters were smoking; by 2014 that figure had fallen to 36%. Excessive drinking is out of fashion – in 2005 29% of 16-24 year olds said they had drunk excessively during the previous week. By 2014 that percentage was 20, with 36% saying they were teetotallers. Meanwhile, there has been a drastic drop in teen pregnancies (qQQq15-17), from 47 conceptions per 1000 in 1998 to 21 per 1000 in 2015. Young women, it seems, are using contraceptives (or abstinence), but not getting abortions.

How to interpret all this? It could be cause and effect. By this I mean that jobs are harder to get, insecurity has grown as wages have stagnated. Young people might be looking with trepidation at this scene appearing on the horizon and coming up with their own, intelligent, answers: if I am to survive in what seems a grim environment I have to work hard, be sober, be responsible. Tearaways, drunks, know-nothings and wastrels will be very much on their own; the old social props are being whittled away by hard, cold employers and uncaring politicians. To thrive I have to know something and be smart.