Anxiety

Posted by on

Epicurus told us that anxiety is worse than bodily pain. Present suffering soon passes; anxiety lasts a long time and undermines an otherwise happy life. He was right, and pharmaceuticals are not the answer; they only mask the problem. Many of them become less effective with time and I can think of one positively dangerous drug that makes things a lot worse.

I rather subscribe to the view that persistent background anxiety is actually chemical in nature, maybe an inherent trait in individuals and may be reduced a bit by meditation or reading a book, but seldom eliminated. Outside events and circumstances might trigger particular attacks, but there are some people into whom anxiety is hard-wired. It is possible that this is an ancient survival mechanism, a way the human being deals with perceived or possible threats in a hunter-gatherer society where there is no law and no rules.

I like the idea of the bell curve in things like this: the mass of people occupy most of the curve, well-balanced and modestly anxious over specific matters. Then, at the extreme ends of the curve there are those who are either in a constantly elevated state of nerves or who are never anxious at all. Some think the latter have no imagination!

Come to think of it little has probably changed in ten thousand years.

The rise of in-work poverty

Posted by on

An Oklahoma branch of Walmart once asked its employees to donate Thanksgiving food to hungry colleagues. “Hang on,” said incredulous staff, “these people can’t feed their families because you pay pitiful wages, yet it’s up to us to bail them out?”

In the UK this Christmas there are Tory MPs doing Christmas photo ops with food banks and urging us to help those in need. It’s meant to advertise their charity, but it just calls attention to the scandal that so many now depend on food banks to survive. Shockingly, one in six of the people who use the food bank network are in work. In the old days in working-class communities it was taken for granted that if you were willing to work hard you could earn enough to provide your family with at least the basics of life. The rise of “in-work” poverty has destroyed that basic precept: millions working full-time now can’t make ends meet, and have to rely on tax credits, and often food banks. The rise of “a working underclass of charity cases” is a sign of a dysfunctional economy. It is up to politicians to fix it, not call on us to make up for their failure. (Janice Turner, The Times and The Week 15 December 2018).

It seems to be the policy of the UK Tory Party to deliberately make the lives of working men and women so miserable, hungry and hopeless that they work harder. Is that it? Is that the great economic theory behind a relentless policy of misery for all except the rich. Epicurus would, I think, be forecasting serious trouble, and, lo and behold he would have been right! What do the working poor have to lose – vote Brexit, vote change at any cost.
Trouble is the government policy is not the fault of EU politicians. The opportunity for change came at the last election, and the working poor did not vote, or did not vote in big enough numbers.

Compassionate assisted dying

Posted by on

“Now, as I turn 85, with my life closer it its end than its beginning, I wish to help give people dignity in dying. Just as I have argued firmly for compassion and fairness in life, I believe that terminally ill people should be treated with the same compassion and fairness when it comes to their deaths. Dying people should have the right to choose how and when they leave Mother Earth. I believe that, alongside the wonderful palliative care that exists, their choices should include a dignifiedassisted death”. (Archbishop Desmond Tutu, quoted in the Washington Post, Oct.7, 2016).

Interestingly, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, strongly supports compassionate assisted dying as well. It is the Catholic church (not exclusively) that strongly opposes it, clinging to the old idea of the sanctity of life. This attitude was fine while lives were short and the population relatively small, but now more people are living to, and past, 100. The medical and other expenses associated with this trend are one thing, but I suspect that most old people would like a civilized release from the speed and complexity of modern life when, where and how they want it. Whether you like it or not, one gets into one’s old age and one loses energy – energy to sort out financial matters, house maintenance, the scariness of modern driving, and, most of all, the frustrations of computing. These and many others aspects of modern living cause un-needed stress. The sanctity of life crowd would make them put up and shut up. So much for christian loving kindness!

Was 2018 an Epicurean year?

Posted by on

This will be my final post of the year. The Christmas period is a very busy one for me, so I’m afraid I cannot post until 2019, when my weekly contributions will resume as normal. Cheers! 

Amidst the relentless negativity that is the Western news cycle, 2018 was in many respects, a good year for Epicureans. War continues its long term decline, with even the violence in the Middle East, Yemen notwithstanding, beginning to subside. ISIS is a shadow of its former self. There weren’t as many terrorist attacks as we have been accustomed to. For those of us who live in NATO countries, we aren’t as involved in fighting wars abroad as were for most of our post-WW2 history. For all of Trump’s belligerent rhetoric, he hasn’t actually started any new conflicts or military interventions. Cyber warfare is an increasing concern. But fewer people dying in battle is something to be grateful for.

Alongside the decline of war has been the decline of mortality. Improving healthcare, lower murder rates and increasing affluence mean that in the vast majority of the world’s countries, we are dying less and living longer than ever before. This poses a challenge for our social security and social care systems, which are under increasing strain. But its a far better problem to have than premature death.

Technology continues to create new jobs and more opportunities at a breathtaking pace. Communication is cheaper and easier than ever before. Becoming and staying informed is a doddle, which not only makes for a more intelligent and vigilant population, it makes it harder for autocrats and corrupt politicians to get away with wrongdoing. Most importantly, technology can save lives, such as the new Apple Watch’s ability to detect abnormal heart rhythms that could be symptoms of circulatory problems.

The worldwide decline in absolute poverty and rise of the middle class continues. Fewer people than ever are living on less than a dollar a day. This is good for the developing world, but it also create new customers for the goods and services the developed world can provide. Of course there are challenges in having to compete with more countries for investment and talent, but the opportunities are considerably greater.

Even in the fight against climate change, there is reason for optimism. In a UN conference in Poland this month, delegates from almost 200 countries set out specific measures they would take to tackle climate change, to meet the targets set by the Paris accord. Moreover, the means by which we can reduce carbon emissions have never been greater, whether its cheaper batteries, more efficient solar panels, better housing insulation or the growing popularity of electric cars. In the UK, emissions from trains have dropped even as more people travel by train, because of the government’s railway electrification programme. Young people, who will have to live with the consequences of climate change, have never been more aware of it or more determined to prevent the worst of its effects.

However, even as these positive long term trends continue, there is immense discontent across the world. In the developing world, there is frustration that they are not catching up with the West fast enough. Countries like India or Pakistan are being held back by protectionism, backward technology, and systemic corruption. Many African nations feel exploited by foreigners- not just Western energy companies, but the Chinese government as well. The West’s attitude to the developing world has been one of patronising pity, fuelled by the soft bigotry of low expectations. Much of the developing world is growing and urbanising at an unsustainable rate, resulting in increasing air pollution, low-quality housing and the spread of disease. To make matters worse, climate change will impact the developing world the hardest; crop yields may decline and droughts increase in frequency and severity. Having said all that, the vast majority of the developing world is making enormous progress.

The same cannot be said for the developed world, which faces the prospect of stagnation and relative decline. The developed world has an ageing population, with fewer workers and more retirees. This will result in higher taxes and less generous social security systems. The economic performance of the developed world post-2008 has been very poor, whether its a sovereign debt crisis in Greece, a decade-long period of wage stagnation in Britain, a declining working-age population in Germany, or insane levels of inequality in the US.

Just as significantly, the West is increasingly politically divided. In the broadest possible terms, almost all developed nations have an older, less well-educated demographic who are increasingly supporting authoritarian political movements. These people feel frustrated with an establishment that they believes ignores them. They are sceptical of globalisation and feel very patriotic. They are also concerned about the increasing levels of immigration from the developed world, which has transformed much of the West, and undoubtedly will continue to do so. Juxtaposed to this are a cohort of younger, well-educated people who embrace globalisation and its opportunities, and do not express any nostalgia for the politics and culture of the past. Rather, they are concerned with the prejudices and illiberal sentiments of the new authoritarians, and are particularly sensitive to what they see as the plight of disadvantaged groups: gay people, ethnic and religious minorities, women and the transgendered. The divide between the supporters and opponents of globalisation is becoming more entrenched, with any prospect of compromise between the two groups becoming ever-unlikely.

That said, Epicureans should be thankful. 2018 could’ve been a lot worse. Despite the ineptitude of our governments, the human race continues to make great progress, achieving new and wonderful things all the time. We can only hope that moderation, common sense and decency will prevail. Merry Christmas, and have a Happy New Year!

Driverless cars: developing something because you can develop something

Posted by on

To The Guardian
It was sad to see David Edmonds fall for the propaganda from Silicon Valley regarding driverless cars. This new technology will require that drivers be able to intervene, but it’s well known that the less you do something, the worse you get at it. So the less you drive, the less skilled your intervention is and the more dangerous autonomy becomes. The same is likely to be true of ethics. In essence, dependence on technology is a form of outsourcing. To outsource (as many companies are discovering) is to export skills. Do we really want to export ethical thinking to technology companies?
(Margaret Heffernan, Farrington Gurney, Somerset. The Week 24 Nov 2018)

I have to admit that I don’t see the benefits of driverless cars, unless you are in the transport or taxi businesses. I can, on the other hand, imagine riding in a driverless car, petrified and ready at the slightest excuse to switch to manual. What are you expected to do in one of these vehicles? Watch a movie, read a book, have a deep conversation in relaxed mode about the national fiscal deficit? Really? More likely, it’s all about allowing former drivers uninterrupted time on their cellphones as they travel from A to B. Which means that the they are not watching where they are going and how many people they have nearly knocked over.

Message to techies: spend your time eliminating hate messages on social media and malign foreign interference in elections. And helping the poor, sick and underpaid!

The Supreme Court … thoroughly politicised

Posted by on

The US Supreme Court, with the addition of two hard-right justices appointed by Trump, has now become so politicised that one could argue that a Republican Senate is almost unnecessary. The Court has five of the most conservative justices there have been for a hundred years. Although John Roberts tries to temper the extreme views of people like Brett Kavanaugh the fact is that we can now “look forward” to dire changes to laws on abortion, affirmative action, voting rights for minorities, workers’ rights, and such gun safety laws as there are. Then there are likely to be decisions in favour of religious groups which would allow them to opt out of civil rights and other duties of a normal citizen.

Whatever else Trump has done to dismantle the effectivenes and image of the US overseas, at home he has potentially cemented a right-wing judicial coup. And this is without the scores of judicial nominations which were held up by Republicans under Obama until there was a Republican President. These now threaten to make the country suspiciously like Hungary or Turkey, where dissidents and minorities increasingly are deprived of their rights. We no longer have politicians willing to compromise; on the contrary, they are mainly “yes-men”.

The above sounds alarmist and distopian, and I sincerely hope I am wrong. But where are the old-style good guys with integrity and honour? If you can name any, please comment below.
(Oh, and while you are about it, explain why the GOP, formerly the party of honour, patriotism and fervent support for the Constitution and democracy, became the lapdogs of the rich and purveyors of bigotry and xenophobia. This is an issue now being discussed by right-wing writers like Max Boot, Charles Sykes, Rick Wilson and Jeff Flake in books being published in a steady stream, omitting, of course, any discussion of their own responsibilty).

Why is this connected to Epicureanism? Because you cannot have a pleasant, enjoyable life under the rule of law if you know that the rulers care only for rich donors and are prepared to dismantle a “country-for-all” in favour of an oligarchy where the ordinary, struggling citizen is promised the Earth, but gets zilch, nada or nothing, in that order. And the worst of all disgraces is the packing of the Courts of Law with nobodies who, one fears, will do what they are told.

Time to rein in corporate power!

Posted by on

One of the few areas of agreement in Washington’s “bitterly divided politics” is “the need to tackle the omnipotence of the Faangs (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google). Donald Trump may be a Twitter addict, but he has been “sharply critical” of the power of big tech. The Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives and its powerful committees are also “committed” to taking them on. No one is expecting the sort of “full-throated antitrust pursuit” that had the White House taking on the monopoly of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil more than a century ago, but public opinion is turning against Big Tech. San Francisco voted recently voted to adopt “Proposition C”: an extra tax on its biggest businesses that will raise funds to combat homelessness. A good thing too!

Nonetheless, the power of big companies to push governments around seems unchanged at the moment, and is demonstrated by the way in which Amazon set about choosing locations for its new HQ. As well as demanding good roads, public transport and educated locals (all paid for by taxpayers), the company stated that “incentives” from state and local governments would be “significant factors in the decision-making process”. We can see much the same thing in Britain, where the chemicals giant Ineos (which is run by the UK’s richest man, Jim Ratcliffe, and made some $2bn in profit last year) appears to have persuaded local authorities in the Tees Valley, one of the poorest areas in England, “to build a factory for him”. Leaving the EU will probably make Britain “more vulnerable” to such “corporate blackmail” as it tries to retain and attract jobs. It may well make short-term sense for companies to treat people’s jobs as “bargaining chips”, but if it ends up eroding support for capitalism and globalisation, “it will come back to bite them in the end”. (The Week, 17 November 2018)

Actually, what we do need is precisely the sort of “full-throated antitrust pursuit that had the White House taking on the monopoly of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil more than a century ago.” These arrogant people, especially the tech companies, have coarsened discourse, encouraged crude, vulgar bullies, racists and political extremists, weakened the traditional Press and caused huge social changes, in my opinion none of them good. The bosses never meant, I’m sure, to undermine society, even elections, but, having done so much damage they are now prevaricating and avoiding doing their duty to society. They need to be brought up with a jolt, and the weak-kneed, mamby-pamby Congress must stop paying obeisance to them and treat them like any other public service (especially regarding tax). Otherwise the public will turn against modern, disagreeable, divisive capitalism altogether.

Alleluia!

Happiness

Posted by on

The Greek word that usually gets translated as “happiness” is eudaimonia, and like most translations from ancient languages, this can be misleading. The main trouble is that happiness (especially in modern America) is often conceived of as a subjective state of mind, as when one says one is happy when one is enjoying a cool beer on a hot day, or is out “having fun” with one’s friends.

For Aristotle, however, happiness is was final end or goal that encompassed the totality of one’s life. It is not something that can be gained or lost in a few hours, like pleasurable sensations. It is more like the ultimate value of your life as lived up to this moment, measuring how well you have lived up to your full potential as a human being. For this reason, one cannot really make any pronouncements about whether one has lived a happy life until it is over, just as we would not say of a football game that it was a “great game” at halftime. For the same reason we cannot say that children are happy, any more than we can say that an acorn is a tree, for the potential for a flourishing human life has not yet been realized. As Aristotle says, “for as it is not one swallow or one fine day that makes a spring, so it is not one day or a short time that makes a man blessed and happy.” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1098a18)

Pursuing this idea, let us imagine postponing any conclusions about our happiness until the end of life (or near to it anyway – one would have to be sentient). Then can I propose some searching questions? Ask yourself, for instance:

– Have I lived a full life, using all the abilities and talents given me to good effect?
– Have I lived an honest life, privately and in my job?
– Have I treated other people with consideration and kindness?
– Have I been generous in spirit and in giving?
– Have I done enough to help the sick, the poor and those not blessed as I have been?
– Has there been enough beauty and tranquility in my life?
– Have I given love and support to those closest to me?
– Have I come to terms with any regrets I have?

It is a rare human being who can honestly claim a perfect, happy life, but a quiet conscience gives a clue.

Brains and bias

Posted by on

Female students do better at school and are more likely to go to university than their male peers, but a gender bias study has found they are seen as less capable of “brainy” tasks. In one experiment by US researchers, women were about as likely as men to be referred for a job requiring “consistent effort”, but less likely than men if intelligence was specified. In another, children tended to pick male teammates for games that they were told needed someone very clever. Athene Donald, a physics professor from Cambridge University, said the findings should be “a wake-up call to our society to change our thinking and how we pass on these biases in our daily lives to the next generation”. The findings were written up in American Psychologist.

The idea that women are less capable of “brainy” tasks than men is baloney, and always has been. Until fairly recently a good education was offered to boys because “girls get married and have children; they don’t need extra schooling or higher education”. (I quote my father, a dear man, but with an infuriatingly atavistic attitude on this subject). Epicureanism teaches that gender doesn’t matter; are all born with a huge variety of talents and mental abilities, regardless of gender; the problem is to bring those talents out and nurture them (education!).

In my old university college (a men-only institution when I was there), 60% of the students are now women, all addressing “brainy” tasks equally with their male colleagues. We should sincerely celebrate this fact of human nature and use the talents of women for the benefit of humanity – and abandon old-fashioned prejudices still lingering among those who should know better. (How much does the prejudice owe to the competition from women for jobs and preferment, and resulting resentment? Who knows? No one is going to admit it).

Giving the elderly a raw deal

Posted by on

It’s a major issue that every rich country has to deal with today: how to care for the swelling number of old people. And in Britain we’re dealing with it badly. Local councils have been squeezed of funding; residential homes are being sold to property developers; home services are closing. Allied Healthcare, one of the largest home-care providers, is in danger of going bust. And in hospitals, around one in ten beds are occupied by an elderly person who’s medically fit to leave, but has nowhere else to go. They do things a lot better in two of the most rapidly ageing nations. In 1995, Germany introduced a long-term care insurance system: workers and employers each pay half of the compulsory levy; the retired pay all of it. Japan did the same in 2000, when it introduced a tax that everyone over 40 has to pay. Each system has flaws of course, but what both ensure is security – a centrally funded system that doles out funds to be delivered locally. In those two countries, no one “is living with the crippling uncertainty or the sense of unfairness that haunts us here”. (Camilla Cavendish, Financial Times)

Much is made in the media of the resentment among some young Brits about the difficulty they have buying homes and the insecurity of the jobs available. I entirely sympathise, and feel angry about what is happening to them. But when they criticise the elderly who do not have houses they own and have only Social Security to live on then they are not being fair. Not everyone, when younger, had a fancy income from a City bank or owned a house free of a mortgage. On the contrary, such people are/were a minority. Tens of thousands live on a meagre pension, have no family to care for them, and have to live in for-profit homes where the care is lousy, the food is worse, and the inmates sit watching TV all day in a dreary dayroom. I had an elderly, distant cousin who had been disabled from youth. She depended on the local Council for preparing her daily food and for her personal care. Her death at home was in a way fortuitous because the Council, starved of money by government, was apparently about to cut her benefits while pretending to offer her “choice” (what choice had an old lady who was incapable of helping herself?). But increasing impoverishment of the elderly has been Conservative government policy for years. People were better off with fish, olives and bright sunlight in Greece in the time of Epicurus.

The three choices facing Brexit Britain

Posted by on

Regular readers of Epicurus Today will have noticed an increasingly frequent number of posts on Brexit. This is because we have reached a crucial point in the negotiations, whereby the terms of our departure have been agreed, and just need ratification from the British parliament.

The problem facing Britain’s lawmakers is that the country is incredibly fragmented and polarised in its attitudes towards Brexit. Some, including Robert and myself, strongly believe in staying in the EU, despite 52% of our fellow Britons having voted to leave it. Amongst Leavers, some wish to retain a relatively close relationship with the EU, akin to Norway or Switzerland, while others would prefer to be treated like a non-European country with only a simple trade deal with the EU, like Canada or Japan.

The point is, regardless of what you ideally believe Britain’s relationship with the EU ought to be, there are now only three options. Accept May’s deal, which diverges from the EU to a greater extent than Norway or Switzerland, but encompasses customs and regulatory agreements that go beyond a normal third country. Reject May’s deal, and leave with no deal at all, with perhaps only a few informal agreements to keep planes flying and food coming in. Or stay in the EU. There simply isn’t enough time to renegotiate with Brussels, regardless of who controls the government. And even if there was, the European Commission has explicitly refused to renegotiate, on the understandable basis that May’s agreement took over a year and a half to agree upon- reopening contentious policy areas would prove too costly and create too much uncertainty.

May’s deal has attracted immense criticism from both Leavers and Remainers, and it is very unlikely the deal will pass Parliament. For Remainers, the deal damages the economy by leaving the Single Market, which would create new barriers to capital and conducting business across Europe. They also hate the end to the free movement of people, which will exacerbate Britain’s acute skills shortages in industries like construction and healthcare, and deprive British people of the automatic right to live and work in Europe. Most Eurosceptics have an equal animosity towards the deal. It requires Britain to abide by EU-equivalent fiscal and regulatory policies, preventing a dramatic economic liberalisation some Conservative Brexiteers believe is necessary to thrive outside the EU. It keeps Britain subject to European Court of Justice rulings. And most significantly, if a means of averting a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland haven’t been agreed upon, a backstop is triggered, which would result in Northern Ireland being in a separate customs territory from the rest of the UK. Not only would such a backstop be economically damaging, it would undermine Britain’s status as a true union of nations.

Having said all that, May’s deal has a few benefits. Unlike a Norway or Canada-style deal, it ensures no hard border in Ireland. It provides a degree of certainty to businesses, particularly exporters, which is why the CBI supports the deal. It also achieves many of the objectives set out by Leave campaigners in 2016. It ends annual payments to the EU, even though the economic damage from Brexit and the cost of replicating EU regulatory bodies will massively outweigh the UK’s net contribution. It ends free movement, which I personally support but was a crucial cause of the Leave vote. It also leaves the EU’s common agriculture and fisheries policies, which are widely blamed for the decline of the rural economy.

But unfortunately for Theresa May, most people oppose her deal. Unfortunately for May’s Eurosceptic critics, most people also oppose leaving without a deal. As for Remainers, some polls show a majority in favour of staying in the EU. But support of Brexit has remained surprisingly persistent given how badly the negotiations have gone. The fundamental causes of Brexit- opposition to free movement, the belief the EU is an encroachment on national sovereignty, a feeling ordinary people aren’t listened to- haven’t gone away. The main problem facing Britain is that no single solution commands anything approaching a convincing majority of the public.

So what’s the solution? The first step is to oust Theresa May as Prime Minister and vote against her deal. The second step ought to be to put the three choices facing Britain to a referendum. Given the gridlock in parliament and the increasingly visible divisions in the country, as clearly seen by the thousands of left-wing and far-right protestors clashing in London last weekend, a referendum on the terms of Brexit is the only way to resolve this impasse. The referendum isn’t a perfect idea. It won’t resolve Britain’s divisions, which are with us for the foreseeable future. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, a significant proportion of people will be bitterly disappointed. I’m not advocating a new referendum because its a good idea, I’m advocating it because its the only way to move forward in a legitimate and orderly fashion. Forcing through May’s deal, using the prospect of crashing out as a threat, would be undemocratic and morally suspect. Leaving without a deal, without having consulted the people, would be equally heinous, because Leave voters were promised a Canada-style trade deal at the very least. And unilaterally deciding not to leave the EU would be a violation of the 2016 referendum, and would result in civil disorder and a collapse of trust in democracy. Rather, Britain needs a new referendum. I’ll be campaigning for one with as much vigour and urgency as I can muster.

 

One small point of light

Posted by on

Yesterday, the pound slumped below $1.26 to the lowest level since April 2017 after the prime minister said she cancelled the vote on her Brexit plan rather than see it rejected by a “significant margin”. Sterling was worth $1.2563 and €1.1062 late on Monday, and at time of writing its fortunes are little changed.

Nothing to do with Epicurus, but everything to do with the international view of Brexit and its effect on the UK. Not just shooting yourself in the foot – using a machine gun. Good for exports, though.

Why is big business silent over Brexit?

Posted by on

Entrepreneurs and small firms on both sides of the argument have spoken out freely about Brexit. So too have bosses of foreign-owned companies. But the “Trappist silence” maintained by many of the UK’s largest firms “has become deafening” – even though surveys suggest the majority of corporate bosses would prefer to stay in the EU and support a second referendum. One can understand their reasons for keeping quiet; they’re afraid of alienating politicians, their own people and their customers. No business leader wants to be accused of being “an enemy of the people” or of “improperly interfering in the democratic process”. And they don’t want to be labelled “defeatist” either.

Even so, directors are “required by law to disclose to stakeholders issues that affect investment, viability and jobs – and there are few bigger potential issues than Brexit”. It’s hard to see any of the generals of British business breaking their silence for a while yet. “But if Brexit goes ahead and does, indeed, prove a disaster”, they will have to explain to shareholders “why on earth they said nothing when they had the chance”. (Patrick Hosking, The Times, carried in The Week 17 Nov 2018).

Business silence is not the only silence. Britain badly needs a rapid realignment of politics, and quickly. On one side we have dangerous plotters, who lied to the people at the time of the referendum, are alleged to have taken Russian money for their misguided campaign, and who want to dismantle the welfare state. On the other hand we have a Labour party led by a Brexiteer stuck in the thought processes of the 1950s, and equally unsuitable as national leader.

Where are the Liberal Democrats and moderate Conservatives and Labour politicians? Why are they not forming a Patriotic Front to drop Brexit altogether and focus on the legitimate concerns of those outside the South East of England who feel ignored and powerless. This realignment might be disagreeable to some and might turn out to be temporary, but the future of the country is at stake, and much within the purview of all who espouse the teachings of Epicurus and who want peace of mind and a pleasant, un-fraught life, without turmoil and deprivation.

Why we stopped trusting elites

Posted by on

“At the heart of successful liberal democracies lies a remarkable collective leap of faith: that when public officials, reporters, experts and politicians share a piece of information, they are presumed to be doing so in an honest fashion,” writes William Davies, the sociologist and political economist. “To understand the crisis liberal democracy faces today – whether we identify this primarily in terms of populism or post-truth – it’s not enough to simply bemoan the rising cynicism of the public.

“The problem today is that, across a number of crucial areas of public life, the basic intuitions of populists have been repeatedly verified. One of the main contributors to this has been the spread of digital technology, creating vast data trails with the latent potential to contradict public statements, and even undermine entire public institutions. Whereas it is impossible to conclusively prove that a politician is morally innocent or that a news report is undistorted, it is far easier to demonstrate the opposite. Scandals, leaks, whistleblowing and revelations of fraud all serve to confirm our worst suspicions. While trust relies on a leap of faith, distrust is supported by ever-mounting piles of evidence. And in Britain, this pile has been expanding much faster than many of us have been prepared to admit.”. (BBC News, Nov 29, 2018).

We have become cynical. We ascribe bad motives to too many in public life and simply assume they have their hands in the till. This blog has done its (small) best to spread that idea, I afraid. And yet the constant drip-drip of reporting from a score of sources has, over the course of years, embedded the idea that the very rich and the big corporations get – or pay for – their way at the expense of the rest of us. Meanwhile, as the investigation being pursued by Muller daily suggests, the American Administration, for one. is full of people with conflicts of interest or are prepared (for enough money) to connive with the nation’s enemies. Where do these people come from? Who “educated” them, brought them up? What did they learn, apart from “winning” being the only thing that matters?

Democracy always was a fragile flower, but the knowledge that you have a say and that those in power are on your side is all part of the idea promoted by Epicurus – that life should be pleasant, full of friends and happiness, without the need to constantly fear death or the overturning of your life at the whim of a self-absorbed, malevolent autocrat or an uninformed, resentful crowd. Fragile maybe, but a wonderful thing, however dependent on mutual goodwill.

Above all government has to be for ALL the people, inclusive and without favour. Such government is fading throughout the world, and the rich and powerful (with notable exceptions) do not seem to care. Those who study history understand the perilous position we are in and the ease with which our system can be (is being) subverted. Unfortunately, studying history “doesn’t get you a job”. I am at a loss…………

Pubs lose their popularity

Posted by on

“The way the British used to meet, we all used to go into a pub randomly with friends, everybody would get way too drunk, and three years later you’d wake up one morning and realise you had a boyfriend,” says Emily Hill, writing about the life of a single woman. Alcohol is an antidote to the stiff upper lip – it starts to wobble, feelings start to come out and sexual frisson starts to happen … I say this all the time, but dating apps have done to love and romance what machines did to humanity in Terminator 2.”

“The endless stream of strangers being served straight to your phone means it has never been easier to have no-strings-attached sex, if that’s what you’re looking for, writes G2’s Elle Hunt. The real problem is finding connection – today, Hill says, people are less likely to spend their Fridays mingling with friends of friends at their local, fostering, in weekly increments, the kind of attraction that might only come with time and familiarity. So is the decline of the British boozer coupled to young people having less sex?” (BBC 28 Nov 2018)

Yes, it seems to have become too quick and clinical: a visit online, a photo, an assignation, a hook-up – and little real connection. Well, at least the population growth has stalled, and will stall further with our climate woes. Nonetheless, it’s a pity. To go to the pub, with its banter, chatter and frequent camaraderie, is fun. It’s good for the community and good for the introverts who, without it, might meet nobody.

But now the tax on beer has made drinking that beer expensive. You cannot (rightly) drink and drive, and fewer people are in the bar. The only good things happening in the pub business are the greatly improved food and the bigger range of local ales with imaginitive names. The pub habit is still strong in London, where establishments are packed; outside London the small, independent-of-brewery-ownership pubs are disappearing. Add to this the the closure of high street shops and stagnant incomes and you have a depressing situation in small towns and villages in Britain, the outward signs of the dissatisfaction with life that has created the dreadful mess called “Brexit”. Epicurus believed in a pleasant life – too many people have been robbed of that pleasure.