Category: Society

The Unselfish Organism: Why the Rioters Aren’t Evil

August 9th, 2011 · · Society 4 comments

Let me start like most of the politicians have today: there is no excuse for the violence that has been perpetrated on the streets around this country and the wanton destruction and theft that have been committed by the rioters and looters. They should be pursued by the law, arrested and prosecuted. OK?

But what next? Are we to believe that the riots were a one off? That these were the spontaneous acts of hundreds of individuals who just fancied smashing up their own neighbourhoods? That they are just ‘thugs’ and ‘evil’, as they have been described? That they just need a good long stretch inside to sort them out?

I don’t buy it. On any number of levels.

For a start, this isn’t the way humans behave. If people did this without reason and provocation then we simply wouldn’t have a society. There are a number of theories as to why (such as those posited in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins), but whichever theory you subscribe to our recorded history shows a propensity for people to act within social norms.

“But these are different people. Not like us. They are ‘evil’ people,” the tabloids say. Bollocks. I’m afraid I don’t believe in evil people. Mad people? Yes. But these people weren’t mad. They were angry, desperate, and disconnected from the society whose rules they so clearly violated.

So yes, we should respond to their crimes in the way that our society has agreed. Protect our streets, arrest and prosecute. But we need to do a lot more than that if this is not to be a common occurrence.

For a start we need to talk to these kids – and the adults backing them up for that matter – and find out what brought them to this point. We need to make sure that when they leave prison they are not in the same situation they were when they went in. Then we need to make sure that the generations behind them do not ever reach that situation.

Whatever the reasons I doubt the solutions will be simple, or quick. But I know for sure that no simple, quick solution – like just locking them up – can possibly solve the problem.

Rational Thought for the Day: Original Sin – Where Faith and Science Diverge

August 1st, 2011 · · Society No comments

I’m one of those annoying people who objects to Thought for the Day, the slot on Radio 4′s Today programme where one religious leader or another gets to relate the big news of the day back to the teachings of his or her preferred religion. Most people find it pretty innocuous, and I confess I quite enjoy hearing some of the little morality tales. If nothing else the speakers are usually fairly eloquent.

So why do I object? Because I don’t believe that any religion should be given access to such a powerful platform for preaching on a national scale. That faith should be given an exclusive opportunity to proselytise, when despite what the zealots might tell you, it already receives such privileged access to the media and government.

My objection usually just bubbles under. At most I might occasionally change channels for a few minutes. But last week one of the ‘thinkers’ really raised my ire, and in doing so, illustrated for me, more clearly than I ever have been able to, the fundamental split between faith and science.

The speaker was the Reverend Canon Dr Giles Fraser. His topic was ‘Original Sin’. You can read the full transcript of what he said here: http://www.stpauls.co.uk/News-Press/Latest-News/The-Revd-Canon-Giles-Fraser-BBC-Radio-4-Thought-for-the-Day-26-July-2011.

Like the good doctor I am no economist and I’m certainly no theological scholar. Unlike the good doctor, having confessed my lack of expertise I won’t now go on to pronounce that one approach or another to the debt crisis is inherently flawed. At least that’s what I assumed he meant by comparing Keynesian economics to Original Sin.

It’s not the criticism of Keynes that angered me though. This is a minor issue compared to what the piece really shows. Because you can strip out finance as the target of this article and replace it with anything you like: science, art, any form of human endeavour. It seems to me that the doctor is making a general point not limited to man’s chasing of money.

He appears to be saying that ‘Original Sin’ is an exhortation for human beings to know their place, to recognise their limits and never try to exceed them.

This I cannot understand. Surely the strive to exceed our limits is what makes humanity great? The desire to do more, know more, create more. Sure we might trip ourselves up when we overreach occasionally, but on a global, historical scale it is this drive to exceed our limits that has brought us to where we are today. For all our problems it would take a deep cynic to refute the fact that we have progressed an incredible amount over the last few thousand years.

If what Dr Fraser says is an accurate portrayal of the Bible’s teachings then it is no wonder that the Christian religion – and others – have often been on the side opposing progress. From Galileo to stem cells, the church has opposed scientific progress. More than that, if what it takes to have faith is an acceptance that humans should never strive for ‘godlike’ limits then for me that implies a fundamental conflict between faith and science.

When you look at what science has given us – the power to cure disease, communicate across the globe, move at supersonic speeds and visit the heavens, then you have to say that any person of faith in previous centuries would describe these things as godlike powers. Things that were beyond the limits of mere humans.

According to Dr Fraser, faith means accepting these limits – limits that science has proven utterly false. That is why I will always be a man of science and never a man of faith.

If NewsInt goes, will it take ‘Yah Boo’ politics with it?

July 12th, 2011 · · Society 2 comments - Tags: , , ,

As usual on my long early morning drives, I was listening to the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning. On it was the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, an eloquent man who rather delightfully described the whole phone hacking affair as a ‘rumpty to’, or at least that’s what I think I heard. The nice thing about Christopher Graham is that although he has an axe to grind – he wants stricter penalties for breaches of privacy by the media and others – he makes his case in a measured tone backed by (very current) evidence of why his recommendations make sense. For this reason I find him quite compelling to listen to.

I am not saying this because I want to curry favour with the ICO (although we are working with them on the implications for one of my business interests). Rather it is out of desire to hear more argument like this and less of the usual base level of political debate to which we are exposed. ‘Yah boo’ politics as it has been termed is the absolute antithesis of evidence-based, consensus-driven progress that I believe most intelligent people, of most political flavours, would like to see. For me ‘Yah boo’ politics’ is about more than just objecting to the opposition’s policies whatever they may be (as the term is defined in one online dictionary). It is the way that objection is communicated: shouty criticism based on heavily biased stats; beating each other up with histories of previous decisions, actions, or inactions; the constant calling for a politician’s head whenever a mistake is made.

This last point is a neat segue into the media, because of course it isn’t just the politicians themselves who are responsible for the descent of decent debate. The media plays a role: it fuels fundamentalist fervour, sways even the sensible with threats of ridicule or exposure, undercuts the authoritative with irrational arguments. The Murdoch papers are far from the only culprits in this case, though they are the ones most in the spotlight today for using underhand tactics in order to generate stories to support their positions or diminish those of others. And the prospect of their demise seems to have emboldened MPs to challenge all of the media, not just the NewsInt hegemony.

I hope that they – and we – seize this opportunity to reset the tone of political debate. Sadly I don’t see much evidence of that from our leaders so far, but it isn’t just an idle hope. A friend of mine – he can reveal himself in the comments if he chooses – has good experience of politicians in action, behind closed doors and away from the media spotlight and the Westminster furnace. He tells me that absent the pressure of media appearance and party lines, politicians are eminently capable of agreeing with each other and finding common ground. Of listening to evidence and rational argument and choosing a common path for progress.

Of course they don’t agree on everything and there will remain differences over issues of rightly and fiercely held principles. But even where that remains the case, however passionate the debate, it should remain one of logic and fact.

The desire to see more consensus based politics like this is what drove me – and many other people – to vote Liberal Democrat for the first time at the last general election. That was an experiment that hasn’t turned out too well, as the Conservatives have forced through a programme driven by radical right-wing ideology barely disguised by a veil of pragmatism.

But I haven’t completely given up hope. Though I will most likely revert to voting Labour at the next election, I hope that by the time I do so it might be in a less fevered climate where both politicians and media can take a more considered, more consensual view.

I’m not naive though: it is very much more hope than expectation.