Finding A Sustainable Reality To Live By

Dear Reader,

As though the world's problems are under control, the UK government looks towards making further decisions that really do not change the way the world is being governed - a system that only bends to reality when faced with an imminent emergency. 

World governments have been advised by the few wise men that exist for at least 50 years about how economic growth would affect world stability, and only when faced with utter devastation has some action been practically sought. 

Right now, the British government is talking 'up' the positives of what it has achieved - the COVID vaccination roll-out, and its effect on the virus transmission rate, the best CO2 reductions in the world (to combat Climate Change), and even Brexit. And the government talks as though matters such as pandemics and climate issues are close to being things of the past.

Even the leader of the opposition party - Sir Keir Starmer - has this week preached his version of the message 'getting back to normal', when he said:

The dedication of our frontline workers, the skill of our NHS, the brilliance of our scientists and the solidarity of the British people now point the way to a better future for our country and allow us to glimpse how we can thrive again as a nation.

Though it is true that Starmer also said: "We can’t return to business as usual" and called "To begin a new chapter in the history of our country – and to equip Britain for the opportunities of the future", he went on by saying:

If I were Prime Minister, I would introduce a new British Recovery Bond. This could raise billions to invest in local communities, jobs and businesses.

It could help build the infrastructure of the future – investing in science, skills, technology and British manufacturing. It would also provide security for savers. And give millions of people a proper stake in Britain’s future.

He called for unity between government and business to tackle social and climate responsibilities – and to build a better, more secure future.

He also said: "Demand we now create a new, more secure future. For me, this isn’t just a political question. It’s an economic question too, because if Britain is to succeed in the world if we’re going to be ready to face the challenges of the 2020s and the 2030s."

This, surely, is the same kind of rhetorical recipe that existed 20 years ago and more, apart from the fact he is relating to recent events. It's still the 'all will be alright, Jack - we will look after your incomes and improve your welfare and aspirations for a better economic future' message that voters succumb to regardless of whether the promises are couched in mystique or even whether there is validity about them. Let alone the question of their wisdom.

Admittedly, the government has some kind of plan - a report entitled Implementing The Sustainable Development Goals - but I seriously question whether the right approach and thinking is present. The plan appears to be an approach based on old economic thinking with the profiteers in mind.

The bigger picture - which politicians of all parties seem to be happy to put on one side - is that the world has been inexorably changing in extreme ways over recent decades, and in such a way that our thinking must change - both the thinking of governments and the voters. Heart must - surely - start ruling the head.

We have become more conscious of how governments are still happy to launch their countries into war on the merest whim - from Saddam Hussein's supposed hidden weapons of mass destruction to hovering on the brink with Russia and Iran while supporting the Israeli government in its forced acquisition of land in Palestinian territories. Let alone the refugee crises and the Donald Trump phenomenon.

We are still planning to replace our nuclear submarine fleet. We continue to tear up the countryside (e.g. HS2).

And as far as pandemics are concerned, we have no right to assume that the matter is on the point of being swept away. 

In a January blog, I reported:

As industrialised farming has spread around with world, diseases have followed. Densely packed sheds containing stressed animals, confined in filthy surroundings and being bred for fast growth has lowered their immunity.

It’s an ideal environment for a mutating virus or antibiotic-resistant superbugs to emerge. It’s no surprise, therefore, that three in four new or emerging infectious disease come from animals.

And also that a WHO report stated:

Potentially hazardous changes are also taking place in the use of land, agricultural practices and food production, such as live poultry and animal markets, and deforestation – which also leads to increased contact between people and wildlife. Some of these animals – monkeys, for example - are likely sources of new pathogens. Finally, ecological changes, such as climate change, also contribute to disease transmission.

Where, Messrs Johnson and Starmer, are the realistic plans to pull back on the notion of ever-increasing growth - to live sustainably? Are they frightened that the voters cannot take the truth, that winning the next election is more important than the truth?

The message to world leaders from 'wise ones' to change direction has been steadily increasing in recent years, but it goes back a long time. Business owners have always resisted any threat to their profits.

Scientist and thinker Peter Russell made this observation:

... the more developed nations argue that they too need continued economic growth.. Each new report of a nation’s economic growth is celebrated as if some new saviour had arrived. "Monthly industrial output up 0.4%" read a recent headline. Good news according to all the economic pundits paraded on the television. But I wonder how many paused to think what that means in the long term? Five percent per year extrapolated over the next thirty years amounts to a 250% increase in production – along with a corresponding increase in consumption, and in pollution. Extrapolated over a hundred years, it amounts to a 13000% increase in production.

Just where are these resources to come from when the Earth's supply has been depleted? From Mars? Some people seem to think so; witness this week's news on this very topic as a starting point down this road.

Peter Russell goes on:

In his recent book, The Growth Illusion, the economist Richard Douthwaite argues persuasively that the only truly sustainable economy is one with zero material growth.

He shows how, despite all its promises, growth has done very little in recent years to raise the quality of life. The promise of more jobs has been offset by the unemployment generated by increased efficiency and productivity from new technologies which the drive for growth has produced. ... 

Most dangerously, continued economic growth has seriously damaged the environment; impoverishing the soil, polluting the seas, fouling the air, fueling the global greenhouse, depleting the ozone layer and triggering a range of environmental disasters.

Douthwaite concludes that ‘the sooner growth is dropped from our thinking and we revert to setting ourselves specific and finite objectives that lead towards our steady state the better our future will be’.

Herman Daly of the World Bank puts it more bluntly in his essay in the book The Sustainable Society: 'It is obvious that in a finite world nothing physical can grow forever. Yet our current policy seems to aim at increasing physical production indefinitely.'

These statements are from a few of those many non-political people who know what is sustainable and what is not. Yet we - the general public - simply vote for what our politicians promise - and then criticise them when they don't deliver. How perverse!

Peter Russell thus observed:

Voters' short-term materialist interests are one reason why European Green parties have not fulfilled their initial promise. People began to realize that voting green was not just voting for a healthier environment; it was also, in the final analysis, voting for an end to growth, an end to unbridled consumption, and end to low taxation, and the loss of many personal comforts and conveniences. Who would vote for that? The fact that we may not be here in twenty years time if we do not is too distant a consideration. ...

To avoid suffering and return to a state of inner well-being is our most fundamental motivation. This is our most basic self-interest – the true bottom line against which we measure all our actions. In the words of the Dalai Lama,"the hope of all people in the final analysis is simply for peace of mind".

How do we find "peace of mind"?

One sure way is knowing the difference between truth and falsehood and living accordingly. In other words, living according to the inner conscience - not the brain. That way does not fail.

Once we realise that truth then inevitably we will find that there is some spiritual teaching that attracts us - whatever it is. The great author Leo Tolstoy did not see formal religion as the truth in itself, but he did understand the inner meaning of religion. He wrote a wonderful book entitled What Is Religion? In that book, he said: 

The truths of the religion common to everyone today are so very simple, intelligible and close to the hearts of all men. It would seem that parents, rulers and teachers only need to instil in children these clear and simple truths, common to people of all religions, the metaphysical essence of which is that the spirit of God is in man, and the practical law of which is that man must behave towards others as he would wish others to behave towards him ... this in itself would alter the whole of mankind's life.

It would surely alter man's view on how to live sustainably. As Peter Russell states: "Yes, we should treat the various symptoms that are threatening us so much. But we also need to look deeper and diagnose and treat the root causes of our predicament. Only then will we stand a real chance of creating a truly sustainable society."

Please see this selection of short videos entitled 'Change The Story'.

Thank you for reading this. Please read my website for some ideas towards practical solutions.