Robot care commodifies old age

Posted by on

Across the developed world, the combination of slow economic growth and an ageing population is creating a market for cheap, hi-tech solutions to elderly care. There’s the RoboCoach: an android that is being used in Singapore to give exercise classes to senior citizens, using motion sensors to detect whether they are doing it right. Then there’s IBM’s Secure Living programme, being trialed in Italy, which puts sensors in the homes of elderly participants so their activities can be monitored from a remote control room. In China, the Roby Mini provides “companionship” to the elderly: it can recognise faces, tell jokes and order groceries. Of course, none of this really constitutes “care”, since the robots feel nothing for the people they serve. Neither do the corporations that make them: their chief interest is in harvesting data from living clients. Any human activities that might lead to higher costs – say, reading a book, rather than doing health-boosting exercise with the RoboCoach – will be strongly discouraged. Welcome to the “dystopian future” of ageing.  (Evgeny Morozov, The Observer).

As a follower of Epicurus I look out for people and companies who are exploiting, dissing, talking down to and ignoring the humanity of people old and young.  Care homes are a very good example of the corporatization and the putting of profit before humane treatment.  All too often they are dreary, featureless places where the only distraction is day-long TV, tuned to channels that cater to the lowest common denominator.  The food is dreadful, the care is cursory, and the “personnel” can be rude and even cruel (we are supposed to call them “carers”). I have the suspicion that caring for helpless old people is not the first choice of job for many poorly paid people: the result can be favoritism, bullying, and indifference. Before going into such a place my wife and I will, I hope, shake hands on a suicide pact, if the interfering nosey-parkers in Congress haven’t rendered voluntary euthanasia illegal.

Has the socialist left come to accept liberal globalisation?

Posted by on

I wouldn’t normally post more than once a week. But a friend of mine has shared an article I think couldn’t be more relevant. The Financial Times’ Janan Ganesh argues that the rise of anti-globalisation right wing populists like Trump and the pro-Brexit campaigners, have inadvertently made social democrats defend the neoliberal global order they used to criticise. He writes:

“If an investment bank threatened to move staff out of Britain in normal political times, the left would drive them to the airport, bundle them on to the plane and arrange a transfer at the other end. The enemies of rootless capital now cite such threats as prima facie evidence against Brexit. Even Goldman Sachs, the cartoon villain of high finance, can count on Labour MPs, and not just Blairite ones, to rue its relocation of workers to Frankfurt and Paris.

This sudden concern for the City of London is only strange until you remember what else the left has come to cherish of late, spurred by the realisation that populists do not. An unexhaustive list includes the European single market, free trade, Nato, America’s role as guarantor of world peace and, ever since President Donald Trump questioned their work, intelligence agencies…. they now realise these are not just a rightwing stitch-up. Instead, they have  reasonable hunch that whatever is opposed by Mr Trump and the wilder edges of the Eurosceptic movement deserves protection.” (https://www.ft.com/content/13a06188-0fc9-11e7-a88c-50ba212dce4d for the full article, they don’t want me to copy everything from their website.)

Now I personally don’t share Mr Ganesh’s enthusiasm for America as the world’s only superpower. I think its time Europe stepped up to the plate, and worked alongside America as its equal. There needs to be more co-operation between the European nations on security issues. The challenges the continent faces- Russian aggression, Islamist terrorism, mass migration and the rise of China- can only be solved if Europe works as a cohesive whole.

But on the whole, I agree with him. By challenging traditional conservative orthodoxies, Trump and the European populist right have made the Left question their own. Most importantly, the Left now realises the limits of state power. When Trump says, “we’re going to take care of everybody” regarding healthcare, he sounds like a socialist. But because he’s Trump, the Left quite rightly distrusts him. Bold promises that intend to apply to everyone are notoriously hard to fulfil, particularly in America where the nature of the political system almost always necessitates compromises.

Where I depart somewhat from Mr Ganesh, is that I don’t think the left should become unabashed defenders of international capital, however much the populist right seems to oppose it. Partly because this would be a strategy that would eventually lead to electoral oblivion. If the Left are just as avid in their defence of the global free market as the conservative right, what is the point in voting for the Left? Clinton did significantly worse than Obama amongst working class voters for this exact reason: he was seen as the friend of the little guy, she was not. And although I share Mr Ganesh’s enthusiasm for globalisation as a whole, economic globalisation included, you would have to be incredibly oblivious and out-of-touch not to notice it has left some people behind. I think Bernie Sanders’ beloved Denmark probably has it right. On the one hand, it embraces the EU, NATO, free trade, co-operation with America, and other aspects of the liberal world order the socialist left despises. But it balances its liberalism with a strong social welfare system, and a high degree of localism. The right-wing populists’ aversion to globalisation may be socially regressive and economically illiterate. But to dismiss the concerns of its voters out of hand would be a grave mistake. Working class communities ought to be empowered, and need to feel that they can control their own destinies.

Mature Adults Could Be Gone Within 50 Years,’ Experts Say

Posted by on

Nation Down To Last Hundred Grown-Ups

According to alarming new figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau, the nation’s population of mature adults has been pushed to the brink of extinction, with only 104 grown-ups remaining in the country today.

The endangered demographic, which is projected to die out completely by 2060, is reportedly distinguished from other groups by numerous unique traits, including foresight, rationality, understanding of how to obtain and pay for a mortgage, personal responsibility, and the ability to enter a store without immediately purchasing whatever items they see and desire.

“Our grown-ups are disappearing at a much faster rate than we previously believed,” said Census Bureau chief Robert M. Groves, who believes the decline in responsible adults may now be irreversible. “Unfortunately, we’ve only recently noticed this terrible trend, perhaps because of this group’s unusual capacity to endure hardships with quiet dignity instead of whining loudly to draw attention to themselves.”

“If nothing is done, these individuals, with their special ability to consider the long-term consequences of their own behavior and act accordingly, will be wiped-out completely,” Groves added.

According to recent data, the grown-up population has plummeted dramatically since 1950, when a Census count found that more than 24 million Americans could both admit when they were wrong and respect a viewpoint other than their own. Today, only one in three million citizens can provide thoughtful advice to a fellow human being instead of immediately shifting the topic to their own personal issues or what they had for lunch.

Experts confirmed the mass extinction of grown-ups has coincided with the rapid expansion of other demographic groups, including people who seek medication for every problem they encounter, 33-year-olds who participate in organized kickball leagues, personal injury litigants, and parents who try to become friends with their own children.

“Grown-ups are as fascinating as they are rare,” said anthropologist Arthur Ambler, who has lived among level-headed adult populations and documented their lifestyle. “It may seem odd to the rest of us, but for mature adults, occasionally putting the greater good ahead of their own interests or remaining calm when something doesn’t go their way is commonplace.”

“Imagine confronting a problem directly instead of pointing a finger, cowering in fear, or pretending it just isn’t happening,” Ambler added. “This is how these people actually live, if you can believe that.”

Many social scientists, including Ambler, have called for a complete record to be made of the declining population’s customs, worrying that knowledge of how to dress for a job interview or when to rotate one’s tires could soon be lost to civilization forever. Future generations, they soberly note, will likely go their whole lives never knowing a grown-up person.

When contacted for comment, Colorado resident Ray Vogel, a grown-up, told reporters he was resigned to his group’s fate.

“We recognize that our time has come and gone, and we’re prepared to let nature run its course,” said the 54-year-old, who has a well-funded 401(k) and has never taken out a high-interest loan to purchase a Jet Ski. “I’m just grateful my two children didn’t turn out patient and considerate like me. They’d never be able to get anywhere in today’s world.”

According to Vogel, the nation’s remaining grown-ups have drafted a letter to be read by the rest of us when they are gone that implores us to make “good decisions” in their absence and explains how to reignite the pilot light on the hot-water heater should it go out. The note is also said to include some money with firm instructions that it should be used only in case of a real emergency”. (NEWS, MAy 19, 2011, VOL 47 ISSUE 20, Survival)

The author might well have been thinking of the era of Trump, Brexit et al, only back in 2011 all this was unthinkable at the time.

Northern Ireland: where moderation is a rarity.

Posted by on

It’s often said that American politics is increasingly polarised. Republicans and Democrats vote on party lines more frequently, with dissenters being scorned as ideologically impure. Many academics believe this polarisation has been an elite phenomenon, with most ordinary Americans maintaining relatively centrist views. But even if America’s stark political divisions are purely the failure’s of its leaders, the same cannot be said for Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland is currently in the midst of a political crisis. It started when the largest party, the DUP, ran a Renewable Heat Incentive scheme. The idea was to encourage people to use renewable energy, but the absence of proper controls meant people were making money simply by heating their homes, at great expense to the taxpayer. As a result, Sinn Fein withdrew from the government, triggering an election in which they inevitably gained a higher proportion of the vote. Following the election, talks between the two major parties have broken down, with either side refusing to compromise. Sinn Fein want the DUP’s leader, Arlene Foster, to resign, because of her role in what is now commonly known as the ‘cash for ash’ scandal. They also want cuts to funding for Irish language classes to be reversed, gay marriage, and a poll on Irish reunification- the latter is largely to avoid Brexit, in which most Northern Irish voted against. The DUP have refused all of those demands, believing concessions to be a sign of weakness and the demands to be unreasonable. Eventually there will be either direct rule from Westminster, or another election- which would be the third within a year.

The country has a long history of sectarianism and political polarisation, which has been far more brutal than even politics in the US. Although he eventually came to the negotiating table, the recently diseased Martin McGuinness was a murderer and a terrorist, and never renounced his violent ways. But the old debates over whether the Nationalists or Loyalists were responsible for more deaths, or whether Irish unification is a good idea, are both beside the point when it comes to today’s conundrum. As a historian, I find it tempting to judge the the agencies of the present based on their actions in the past. For instance, its very easy to be critical of Germans because of the Holocaust, or accuse Russians of not feeling guilty enough about the gulag. But eventually, however unacademic, we ought to move on from the past, and assess people based on their current behaviour.

So in this instance, regardless of who has the worse history, the DUP are presently far more obstinate and unreasonable in their political views and expectations than Sinn Fein. Arlene Foster ought to do the decent thing and resign, even if an investigation shows no evidence of any intentional wrongdoing. Although it would look embarrassing for the DUP in the short term, the longer she stays as leader, the worse the party’s electoral fortunes will be. Moreover, Sinn Fein’s social policies are perfectly reasonable, even if they (along with the DUP) expect far too much money from Westminster via the Barnett Formula. Gay marriage is supported by a majority of Northern Irish and even a majority of MLA’s- only the Good Friday feature known as a ‘petition of concern’ prevented marriage equality from becoming law (like it already is the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the UK.) Funding for the Irish language is also reasonable, even if it is currently only spoken by a small minority. As for Brexit, the DUP seems to have no qualms about taking Northern Ireland out of the EU against its will, even though this will probably result in a hard border between it and the Irish Republic- customs checks and immigration controls would be impossible without one. The Good Friday Agreement was enacted on the basis of the UK’s continued EU membership; such a dramatic change warrants a referendum.

None of this ought to be read as an endorsement of Sinn Fein. They are still too closely tied to crimes committed during the Troubles by the Provisional IRA, even as those like the late McGuinness are slowly dying out. Their brand of left-wing nationalism has a subtle feeling of xenophobia, as shown by slogans like ‘get the British out.’ They inaccurately refer to British rule over Northern Ireland as an occupation, sometimes even going as far as to compare themselves to Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. Such a comparison is totally facetious: the two situations are completely different, and most Northern Irish still want to remain British. To describe Britain as an occupying power is to deny the people of the right of self-determination. As for economics, Irish reunification may be beneficial in the long term. Northern Ireland is currently poorer than both the Republic and the rest of the UK, so unionism is hardly a guarantor of prosperity. But in the short term, the North would have to go through an austerity programme, because of the loss of Barnett Formula funding. Having personally witnessed the late McGuinness give a speech on the perils of Tory austerity, even from the perspective of a region that receives more than its fair share of funding, the prospect of fiscal conservatism is hardly a rallying call for reunification, particularly with a Republic that has a centre-right majority.

On a sombre conclusion, Northern Ireland may be one of these places where true moderation is impossible. You either believe Northern Ireland should be British or Irish (unless you’re one of the few deluded individuals that thinks the country could survive as an independent state.) Whatever position you take, roughly half the country will vehemently disagree with you. I am personally ambivalent on the Irish question from a purely philosophical perspective, though the prospect of union with a country racing towards the hardest possible Brexit, led by people who believe that no deal with the EU is an economically viable option, is hardly an appetising one. At present, Britain looks like it will have a Tory majority in perpetuity. The opposition Labour Party languishes in the opinion polls, and is totally unwilling and/or unable to hold the government to account on anything.  Conversely, the Irish Republic is currently one of the developed world’s fastest growing economies. Unemployment is still a problem, but it is in decline. It already has a GDP per capita that exceeds the UK, and the gap will only grow. Northern Ireland has a chance to end its dependence on Westminster subsidies, and embrace the entrepreneurial culture the Republic has so successfully fostered. If the DUP really believed in democracy, which it insists is what Brexit is all about, then it would allow Northern Ireland a say on its future. And if the country voted for reunification, I would hold nothing against them.

 

Even Isis can’t stop spread of secularism

Posted by on

The rise of Isis and fanatical Islam might lead you to think that far from fading, religion is making a comeback. But the reverse is true: it’s humanists who are on the march. “The fastest-growing belief system in the world is non-belief.” In Saudi Arabia, 5% of those polled in 2012 described themselves as atheist and 19% as non-believers – a higher proportion than in Italy. In Lebanon, the figure was 37%. True, Arab governments are now cracking down on atheism – Saudi Arabia has made it a terrorist offence – but this is “evidence not of confidence but of alarm”, just as the fanaticism of gun-toting jihadis is evidence of their fury at the spread of secularism. But the efforts of the militants to shore up belief will be in vain: the pull of materialism, rationalism and scepticism is too strong. Whether you’re Christian, Jewish or Muslim, there’s “just something about living in a society with restaurants and mobile phones, universities and social media, that makes it hard to go on thinking” that morality derives from some divine law. Jihadism is a grave threat today, but be assured, “secularism and milder forms of religion will win in the long run”. (Matt Ridley,The Times)

Epicureans do not believe in priests and Popes, Pearly Gates, or a angry gods. They believe in the bringing out the very best instincts of human beings: generosity, care, good humour, cooperation, to name a few, all without priests. But I myself am not sure Mr. Ridley is correct. Suddenly, we find ourselves in uncharted seas, surrounded with angry, vulgar and often violent people. This sudden reversal from the relative calm and quiet, the social and economic progress, of the last half century is quite likely to drive rational people back into irrationality and false hopes of a better after-life. This will only make matters worse – religions tend to have that effect.