Should Epicureans pursue competitive sport?

Posted by on

Epicurus believed a stress-free and communitarian lifestyle, where one tries to be friendly with as many people as possible. His teachings have informed a scepticism of ruthless competition and cutthroat business dealings here on Epicurus Today. But does the collaborative congeniality of Epicureanism prevent his adherents from partaking in competitive sport?

Firstly, I think its perfectly reasonable for any Epicurean to enjoy non-competitive sport. It’s good exercise, relaxing and a great way to meet people. I’ve played non-competitive sports my whole life with family and friends, and I enjoy them immensely. I think the benefits of non-professional sport go without saying. I also follow competitive sports, though not intensely, and partly for the benefit of being able to talk about it with friends.

However, competitive sport could be seen as un-Epicurean. Athletes and sports players often become incredibly stressed and anxious. In most cases, they must radically change their lifestyle: eating differently, sleeping less and training for long and often unsociable hours. They are under constant pressure to improve, and are made to feel inadequate if they lose, even if they’ve tried their best. I understand the vast majority of athletes and sports players enjoy what they do. But the demands of a sporting career are hardly fitting with Epicurean ideals.

The importance our society gives to competitive sports is un-Epicurean. Partly because of the sheer sums of money involved. We often mention the enormous investment American college sports receive, even as college classes are large and many academic staff are underpaid. American students should not have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in fees when so much of the money goes on sport, particularly if many of the students in question have no interest in sport. Equally outrageous is the wages many professional sportspeople receive. The most egregious example of this is European football, where South American superstar football Neymar, was transferred from Barcelona to Paris-St-Germain for €222 million. The wages of European footballers, particularly the English Premier League, are utterly vulgar and ridiculous.

I also deplore the idiotic tribalism often found in sport. I recently watched a football (soccer for our American readers) match between my university town’s team and another team from the same county. The match was kept under control by riot police wearing full protective gear and carrying an assortment of anti-riot weapons. Supporters of the two teams were shouting insults at each other. One of the songs sung by the home fans was about why the goalkeeper of the opposing team deserved to die; the goalkeeper was charged with manslaughter and dangerous driving. I got told off for eating a Cornish pasty made by a company that sponsored the opposing team. The overall atmosphere was brutally hostile and I left feeling very uncomfortable.

None of this is to say that competitive sport is inherently bad, but people need to engage with it with a sense of perspective. Sport should not make people as rich, famous or popular as it currently does. Just as importantly, sport should not come at the expense of other cultural activities, like the theatre, music, art or literature. In some working class parts of the UK, sport, especially football, is given funding and attention to the detriment of other pastimes. This means that footballers, who can be nasty, brash and unsophisticated, serve as role models for working class boys. Many British boys invest their time and money watching, playing and following football, seemingly disinterested in everything else. At school, football often constituted the sole subject of discussion amongst my male friends. I’m perfectly happy to talk about sport- I really enjoy doing so- but I don’t want it to be the exclusive preserve of my time. Sport’s clout needs to be moderated in my view. The only exception to that is the role sport plays in getting people fit. Much of the Western world is overweight- if sport motivates people to keep fit, then that can only be good.

 

The German government and the perils of Grand Coalition

Posted by on

After months of negotiation following an election in September, Germany’s two main parties, the Christian Democratic Union and the Socialist Party of Germany, have agreed to form a government, subject to a vote of approval amongst SPD members. This will be a continuation of the so-called ‘Grand Coalition’ government of the CDU and SPD, which has ruled Germany since 2013. But although the government remains the same, Germany has fundamentally changed. Angela Merkel, the CDU’s leader and Chancellor of Germany since 2005, has had her authority weakened. Her party suffered a significant slump in the election, as did Martin Schultz’ SPD. Voters has grown sick of the Grand Coalition; the constant need to compromise across such a broad ideological spectrum has prevented radical reforms from being enacted. Merkel’s popularity has taken a hit partly because of her controversial decision to admit refugees en masse. Many in her conservative base have defected to the Alternative für Deutschland party- a right wing populist outfit who have entered the Bundestag for the first time.

The likely continuation of the Grand Coalition for the next four years will be to Germany’s detriment. Plagued by internal divisions, the country will not be able to lead on the European stage as effectively as it has since reunification. This is good news for the French, who have long resented German ideas dominating the EU. Macron will push for his ‘Europe that protects’- a more social democratic Europe with more fiscal integration of the Eurozone. While not a protectionist, Macron believes European consumer standards should be put before making lopsided trade deals with more neoliberal countries like America or China. The hard line Germany has taken regarding southern European debt repayments is likely to the softened. The EU’s Brexit position won’t change significantly, but may harden due to a Macron-led EU’s determination not to allow British cherrypicking to undermine European unity.

The Grand Coalition will also be bad for Germany’s domestic politics. The country is becoming increasingly polarised, with parties of the radical right and left having increased in popularity at the expense of the centre. On the left, discontent is rising due to slow-growing wages, increasing housing costs and poor infrastructure. On the right, there is frustration at Germany’s culture of political correctness, mass migration from the Middle East, the lack of defence spending and commitment to NATO, and unusually high taxes to pay for a lavish but unsustainable welfare state. Germany needs a government committed to radical and swift reform. Merkel’s cautious nature and status as an incumbent for the past twelve years means she is incapable of delivering. Equally, Schultz’ SPD is for the most part, a defender of the status quo. Cautious centrism has led to the decline of European centre-left parties; the notable exception being the UK’s Labour Party, which has embraced left wing populism and benefits from First Past the Post.

Overall, Germany’s political parties have governed the country relatively well since reunification. The economy’s long term performance has been stellar. A strong manufacturing base has been retained. Germany’s level of deprivation isn’t on the scale seen in the US or the UK; poverty is kept down by the availability of well-paying blue collar jobs and a comprehensive welfare state. Germany has a lot to be proud of, having helped the EU deal with the challenges of mass migration, economic stagnation and Russian aggression. But Germany’s success is owed to its responsiveness. It encouraged Turkish migration to mitigate its post-war labour shortage. It passed labour reforms to reduce the rigidity of its labour market, while keeping unemployment low and job security high. It has successfully clamped down on hate speech and extremism in the post-Nazi era. But the continuation of a Grand Coalition threatens all this. Preserving the status quo in a changing world is not an option. Germany must find its own Macron: someone who can make reforms without ceding ground to extremism. The Grand Coalition is likely to be sclerotic and inflexible. If it is, Germany’s economy and influence will suffer, and disillusionment and cynicism will only increase.

We should be ashamed.

Posted by on

In 2013, a report showed that people in the US were in worse health and dying younger than those in other rich nations. Despite the alarm generated, five years later things look worse. The report, subtitled Shorter Lives, Poorer Health, documented a large and growing US “health disadvantage”. Evidence showed that compared with people in other wealthy democracies, those in the US under the age of 75 – male or female, rich or poor, of all ethnicities – die younger and suffer more injuries and illness.

Recent figures show life expectancy falling for two years in a row. Policies and poor living conditions play a part. As does the worst drug epidemic in US history – a long-term public health crisis that only got urgent national attention last year. Overdoses, often from opioids, now top road accidents as the leading cause of non-disease death for those aged 25 to 64. The US also continues to see higher rates of gun deaths and infant mortality. Such trends led life expectancy to drop for the first time in two decades in 2015, and again in 2016.

Despite this, the US outspends on healthcare: $9364 per person in 2016, compared with $4094 in the UK. US spending on social welfare is akin to that of many rich nations. The difference is US spending is less redistributive.

A key barrier to better health is “limited political support among both the public and policymakers to enact the policies and commit the necessary resources”. On this, too, the US continues to slip. While not perfect, the Affordable Care Act was, by 2016, providing millions of people with health insurance for the first time. Congress has tried to repeal it and aims to weaken it, while also allowing the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides low-cost cover to 9 million children, to go unfunded.

The American health disadvantage continues to grow. Until the nation starts to bridge some of its divides and act on the evidence, its people will continue to pay a steep price. (Laudan Aron, study director of the Shorter Lives, Poorer Health report, Institute of Medicine and US National Research Council. Aron is a senior fellow at the Urban Institute)

The opiod death crisis has to be one of the most egregiously shameful things of all. Why do we allow Chinese and pirated opioids into the US? Why do we not disbar any doctor seen to prescribe over-large amounts of the stuff? Why don’t we tackle the American manufacturers who are churning out huge quantities of pills (no, I am not naive. I know why, like you know why). Think of the huge amount spent on police, the FBI, intelligence generally, and tell me why the perpetrators cannot be rounded up and put out of business. Some states are taking it seriously. Congress needs to, but it should also attend to the other side of the coin – rehabilitation, without which other measures are only half the answer. This is a huge social issue whose resolution should be on the minds of caring Epicureans.

Dealing with crime

Posted by on

Politicians have long focused on “being tough on crime” – to ensure that those who are jailed are not just unable to escape their confinement, but also “feel” the punishment.
Yet if we want prisoners to rehabilitate, the evidence says this strategy does not work. Such punishment usually fails to deter reoffending. On the contrary, much crime is committed by those who “go in and out” of prisons. In some UK jails, 75 per cent re-offend.

There is another way. At Norway’s Bastøy prison on an island south of the capital Oslo, it is different. Re-offending rates are a fraction of those in the UK: 16 per cent at Bastøy, and less than 30 per cent in the country overall. This is despite some 65 to 70 per cent of Norway’s inmates having drug and alcohol problems. Personality disorders and antisocial behaviour are also common, and in that sense the prison population is like the UK’s. So why such different outcomes?

A prison sentence in Norway of course means loss of freedom, but it is not a regime that harms offenders mentally or physically. To make prison a place for rehabilitation requires finding a way to ensure that inmates are kept in jail while at the same time being treated as humans and keeping their civil rights – such as the right to vote. This means changing security methods, with fewer walls, fences and locked doors. There must be a focus on culture and ensuring that staff hold high qualifications and ethical standards.

Bastøy runs as a community, with most of the services, opportunities and challenges of a small Norwegian village. It is a place where inmates can learn and develop responsibility for the way they think and act. Developing respect and self-esteem is a priority. This starts with making each prisoner aware of what they think of themselves. All staff are trained to treat and socialise with inmates in a respectful way. Dignity and humanity are central.

Countries such as the US and UK should make more use of low-security and open-prison regimes. These cause less damage to mental health than high-security ones. To anyone who is still wedded to the primitive idea that retribution is essential, it is possible that the person they would like to see suffer in prison might one day return to their neighbourhood as a bigger threat.

We need politicians who heed research, best practice and experience, and are prepared to say “enough is enough”. A change is needed now, or some societies and countries may lose the fight against crime. They will certainly lose ataraxia and feelings of security.

Income inequality? Or a massive squeeze on incomes in the UK

Posted by on

How often statistics that grab the headlines divert attention from what’s really going on. From the furore over BBC payscales, you’d think incomes in the UK are getting more unequal, and the pay gap between men and women larger. Not so. Income inequality is lower than it was before the financial crisis; and though women still earn less, their “earnings are higher relative to those of men than they have ever been”.

It’s not rising inequality but “the massive squeeze on incomes right across the population” that presents the biggest challenge of the past decade. Average real incomes are below their 2008 level, a fall “unique in at least 150 years”. But that’s not because more are out of work: most of those classed as poor live in families where someone has a job. As for middle-income families with children, a striking trend is that half now rent their property: in the 1990s, more than two-thirds were owner-occupiers. Many also get in-work benefits, so they increasingly feel they’ve more in common with the poor than the rich. These are the key trends shaping our society, not some “non-existent spiraling in income inequality”.  (Paul Johnson, The Times)

What is the relevance of these trends to Epicureanism? I suggest it is the general level of happiness or unhappiness:
Happy people are kinder and more helpful to others – i.e. increased altruism.
Happy people are more successful and show more effective leadership.
Happy people have better physical health, adding up to nine years to life expectancy.They also have better mental health, i.e. less depression, and a more healthy self esteem.
Happy people can think more effectively and expansively.
Happy people are more likely to change the world in a positive way than unhappy people.

If your income is static and prices and inflation are rising happiness deteriorates, however many friends you have. The “economy” is supposed to be about flesh and blood people, not statistics. How have we ended up with the majority of the population increasingly feeling that they are sinking? It is bad for society and certainly bad for those yearning for peace of mind and more pleasure in their lives.