‘A Global Future’; more than a buzz word

So I’m making the shift from following my childhood passion to be an author of works of fiction and studying creative writing, to studying the economics and politics of developing countries in the hopes of spending my working life in the arms of a Non-Government Organisation. Don’t misunderstand me: I haven’t lost my deep love of literature, or my own drive to write, but I don’t feel I can continue on a path that doesn’t help at least a couple of people out more directly; though, as I am discovering, these two loves are not so antithetical.
Part of the reason I’m leaping from the lilly pad of writing  into the deep and chilly waters of development studies is partially because of this idea of a ‘global future’ that I have noticed emerging in the last three years (though it has been around for longer, it is only now that it is becoming urgently mainstream). In the last year I’ve seen a huge surge in the publication of books that address these ideas, as well as radio shows, TV programs, public speeches etc.

It’s a concept that you will find discussed by Ian Goldin on T.E.D, my new favourite site with 6 minute essays on all sorts of topics, delivered by fascinating and eloquent people from around the globe.
Though Goldin has an odd vision that the world will continue to be able to support vast populations and further globalisation, his idea that individuals will participate in and drive the globe’s future is delivered with much hope. I’ve seen this idea hit a few people hard in the last few years, and the ones who understand it fully have thrown themselves wholly at devising ideas to create positive change.

 The concept of global responsibility on an individual level does not seem to be one that is instilled in (forgive a 22 year old for saying this) the ‘young people’ of today. It is a concept that actively asks people to re-think themselves as well as others, and probably requires a whole new set of skills and ideologies to the ones that are being taught in schools presently.

Goldin also speaks about new technologies in science and medicine, and the need to manage the way these technologies are meted out. He asks us to recognise the danger of scientific and economic benefits that are available only to the few who are able to afford them. Considering that schools in many countries, including Australia, still struggle to support their students with the simple technology of literacy materials, this is a very real danger (See Room to Read and the Indigenous Literacy Project  for more details).

The other thing Goldin talks about is the idea that in the future, an individual experiencing disillusionment or inequality will be capable of bringing a society down, and that therefore the way we deal with and treat individuals needs to change.

Though I find the idea that we ‘can all get along’ an overly optimistic and naive one, instilling the hope and skills to implement the same in school-aged children wouldn’t be a bad way to start. These skills begin with being able to communicate and empathise with others – an ability that requires the clarity of self-expression and articulation that comes with literacy.
I know I bang on about literacy an awful lot, but since being involved with the ILP and Room to Read I’ve begun to realise with dawning horror, how many years of work it takes to make a child literate to the point necessary to function in our fast-paced world. And how much else hinges on a child’s comprehension of language and their use of it to understand the world and people around them ie. through media, literature and inter-personal interactions. In his book The Big Questions: Philosophy, Simon Blackburn says,

                “…Words excite ideas. Their meanings are given by the ideas they excite and we understand each other when the ideas in my mind correspond to the ideas in yours…The child learns his mother tongue by induction into a social practice, and it is by doing so that its mind becomes a mirror of those around it (pp76,83).”

I would argue that one of the most important things in fostering a sense of ‘global future’ in individuals is to imbue a sense of responsibility for literacy. I have taken literacy very much for granted in my life despite being told almost daily by my father ‘how lucky we are’ and growing up with a sense that I should be helping others find the same ‘luck’.  My realisation that I can help care for my own future and that of society as a whole by finding ways to help change illiteracy rates has chipped away most of the fear I felt in my late teens.
There’s a strange sentence that sounds like something from the Wizard of Oz or some children’s book that keeps going around in my head, “It can’t all end, for we haven’t got it right yet…” but there always in my subconsious as well is that wonderful and analagous final line from Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s ‘One Hundred Years of Solitude’: ”Races condemned to 100 years of solitude did not have a second opportunity on earth.”

Thoughts? Do you experience ‘future-fear’? In what direction does it drive you, or are you driven by other factors? What do you think of the idea of a ‘global future’ and of Goldin’s talk?

Across the Nightingale Floor For Emissions

In the Lian Hearn book Across the Nightingale Floor, the young adept warrior Takeo learns to silently cross a floor specifically designed to squeak when it is being stood on. Not so Victorian Judith Troeth and Queenslander Sue Boyce, who today defied squeaky new Liberal leader Tony Abbott to cross the floor, stepping across the line that divides one annoying sibling (Labour) from its irritatingly messy brother (the Liberals).
These two women crossed the floor to support emissions capping despite a prior statement from their new leader that sounded a lot like a warning – Abbott said he didn’t think many would cross the floor because they owed too much to their party. And this is true – before the change of leadership, twelve Senate members supported Labour’s Emissions Trading Scheme and amendments that were to be taken to Copenhagen – only two today followed their convictions and crossed the floor.

With the potentially career threatening decisions of Boyce and Troeth in mind I want to explore the psychology and philosophy of decision making.

The founder of the pragmatic maxim, Charles Sanders Peirce propounded logic as a way to clear apprehension of the mind and drive thought to purpose in decision making. Perhaps it was logic which drove him to part his hair and beard clean down the middle…

 Clearly not trying to be obtuse but managing it anyway because of his subject matter and the thickness of his beard, he said: “It appears, then, that the rule for attaining…clearness of apprehension is as follows: Consider what effects, which might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.”
Meaning: You step on the floor knowing it will squeak, and you cross the floor knowing you may lose your job and hurt the reputation of the party you have spent a large part of your life and effort supporting, and knowing also that you may be the one to tip the scales in favour of a policy that seems good to you. Your understanding of the effects of this decision will drive the action of your decision.  This all seems like very straight-forwardey commonsense, but when put in a high pressure situation as Troeth and Boyce were, decision-making can be swayed by other factors.

William H. Whyte coined the term ‘Groupthink’ in the 50s (think Mad Men, the rise of CEOs and the urban way of life), for the way cohesive groups rationalise decisions. I’ve got to admit, I love the term. It makes me think of ‘Newspeak’ in George Orwell’s 1984. The man who followed in the ‘Groupthink’ footsteps of Whyte, Irvin Janis defined it as:
“A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”
Malcolm Turnbull certainly seemed to expect this way of thinking from his party, growing increasingly frustrated and outraged with the many crossings of the floor last week. However, Whyte, not happy with coining a whole new term, jumped upon his soapbox to declare that there were several ways of telling if a flock (in this case of politicians) was following the sticky road of Groupthink. The first was that they would have ‘illusions of invulnerability’. Despite Turnbull’s attempts to put a positive spin in the media on the votes for the Emissions Trading Scheme, and on his own popularity within his party, this year’s current of change in the social arena, in climate awareness, and in unsteady popularity numbers for the ALP certainly won’t have gone any way to creating illusions of invulnerability. A sudden change in leader certainly hasn’t bolstered any ‘illusions of unanimity’ either.
Will the Liberals show a bit more uniformity in the future under Abbott, and is this a bad or a good thing, do you think? Personally I love the idea of individuals making their own informed decisions regardless of the Groupthink of their party. In a perfect world crossing the floor would have no repercussions. What do you think? Check out Groupthink and see if you can spot it in the coming weeks in Abbott’s Coalition. Have ten Senate members succumbed to peer pressure and Groupthink? You decide and let me know just WTF you think!

(Read Kerry O’Brian’s interview with Troethe here)

The Sunday Quickie

Here’s a wonderful idea from the folks at Getup.org.au – Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme wasn’t good enough for them, so what did they do? In the words of Adam Savage from the MythBusters team, “I reject your reality and substitute my own”… check out what their impersonator Rudd said he would do for us all in Copenhagen…

Any thoughts on the stunt or the big ole’ rise of 5% emissions cuts to 40%? Comment your asses off!

The Sheik Up

WTF would YOU do?

Imagine all of your family members had been murdered thirty years ago, and you and your sister survived the massacre only because you were out of the country. Your father was the first Prime Minister of your country, who worked for independence. Imagine that some of the men that had murdered your family had gone on to become high ups in the military. Only in the last decade has the trial begun to punish these men, and only because you became the Prime Minister of your country and pushed for the trial to take place. The men are now facing the death penalty, and they have thirty days to appeal to the Prime Minister (you!) for leniency. Though the President will make the final decision, he will do so on your advice. Do you recommend the death penalty for the group of men who have boasted about the murders for the last thirty years? Or do you grant leniency and find peace in forgiveness?
This is the decision facing Bangladesh’s Prime Minister, Sheik Hasina. Whatever she decides, it is a fascinating and illuminating question for debate, and no doubt everyone has their own opinions. I’d love to hear them. To get the ball rolling, here are the questions that went through my head when I heard the news story.

MY THOUGHTS

If I were faced with this decision, these are the thoughts that would plague me:

Politically: I would be concerned about public opinion because this is such a political and public trial. Would I lose respect for granting leniency to the worst of criminals? Or would I, by deciding on the death penalty, vindicate the supporters of the six men and create further divisions and violent disruptions in Bangladesh?
I would also be concerned either way about the supporters’ reactions further down the track. If appeal were granted, would the murderer’s supporters continue their attacks in an attempt to see their release? Would their deaths spark rioting or a coup?

Morally: Do I go with my gut instinct that tells me that to cause death to another person is wrong? This is a decision which will stay with me for the rest of my life, and it is a decision which will be made in cold blood and though ultimately the final choice rests on the head of another, it is on my advice that the decision is made.
The desire for revenge on men who show no remorse for merciless killings would be strong, but would it justify my decision to punish them with death? Should one man die because he has taken the life of another? I have the authority to make that judgement, but does that mean that I have the right? Is life imprisonment a clearer punishment to give?

Psychologically: I would certainly feel survivor’s guilt, guilt for not being with my family when they died, for being out of the country. I would feel horror for what was done to them, and I would not want it to happen to anyone else. As the men will be imprisoned if they are not hanged it is unlikely they will be in a position to commit atrocities again. But does it bring to a balance the things they have done if they are simply faced with life imprisonment? Or do I want them to feel the fear of death my family must have felt?

Is time a factor in my decision? I find it very hard to imagine that such a loss becomes any less real over time. But perhaps the lives of the men have changed. I would have to look very hard at their histories and families before deciding on each of their cases. Is their lack of remorse a just reason for siding with the death penalty? If they had repented would this change my decision about their appeal?

For more information on this story visit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8366329.stm

So…there it is…wide open for debate. What would your decision be?  I want to hear opinions (or at least read comments), and lots of them!