Words Beyond Meaning

This is my response to a blog post by Paul, available here, titled, ‘Vegetarians vs meat eaters – who’s really guilty of animal cruelty?’. I’ve copied the content in full of Paul’s article here, with my response to each of his points following immediately below those points in “bold”. I asked Paul over Facebook if he would engage on the issue if I produced this, and he graciously agreed. This response is written and intended in good faith and a friendly nature.

‘MEAT IS MURDER’ (APPARENTLY)

I’ve read a lot recently about animal rights activists and how cruel we meat eaters are.  Let me make clear that I find those who mistreat and abuse animals of any species abhorrent individuals. However, I feel strongly that there are certain groups whose definition of ‘abuse’ and ‘mistreatment’ is so wide of the mark it’s time to turn the accusation of animal cruelty back on them.

There are groups of vegetarians and vegans that claim consuming meat or animal related products, such as dairy, is cruel. They argue that anyone eating bacon or drinking milk is guilty of being cruel to animals. Yet surely it is the vegetarian lifestyle which places the welfare of animals at risk.

ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES

It is documented elsewhere, in a far more logical way than the way I can, the economic benefits of the agriculture and farming industries. However, I’m just a humble blogger for a web design business. I’m not a farmer so to be honest those arguments don’t interest me.

“We could consider further the claimed ‘economic benefits’ of agribusiness, but given the stated lack of interest, we’ll leave this aside for now”

What does interest me is the question of what would happen should every human on the planet decide from tomorrow that they will no longer consume any meat or animal derived product? This is what these militant vegetarians want. What would be the consequences?

“This is a meaningless and impossible hypothetical question. Firstly, the world isn’t going to go vegan overnight, which renders all further considerations of that scenario completely pointless. Secondly, no vegan (“militant” or otherwise) suggests this as likely or even necessarily desirable; making the world go vegan overnight simply isn’t a stated or achievable goal. Thirdly, every single ethical movement, from Abolition, to the Suffragettes, to Civil Rights and LGBT rights, took place over a long period of time, with gradual, incremental changes in attitudes, behaviours and – finally – legislature. Veganism is no different, save for the fact that it is a much, much greater challenge in scope than any of the aforementioned movements. The idea that wholesale change on this issue would or could take place quicker than the others mentioned is nonsensical. So again, the premise of the thought experiment, and everything that follows, is inherently flawed from the off.”

THE END OF MAN BREEDING LIVESTOCK

There would no longer be any need for many species of animal to be farmed. Man has farmed animals since the beginning of time, living off the meat and produce of them.

“A few points here; We already – in much of the developed world at least – no longer require farmed animals in order to survive, thrive or eat wonderful, tasty cuisines. It’s not clear why the current/future non-necessity of an industry that requires major suffering, death and environmental destruction is presented as a negative development here.

It’s also absolutely not correct that man has ‘farmed animals since the beginning of time’, nor have humans been ‘living off the meat and produce of them’ in the same time frame. Industrial scale farming is a fairly modern development, but regardless, the length of time that an act has been taking place has no bearing whatsoever on whether that act is ethical, sustainable or healthy. As a perfect example, war vastly outdates industrial farming, but is no more valid by default today as it was during the Crusades.”

If we suddenly stopped requiring the products animals give us unintended consequences would occur.

“Animals do not ‘give us’ anything. We breed them into existence and then take their lives and body parts through violent force against their will. It’s ‘taking’ by us, not ‘giving’ by them. There will also be no ‘suddenly’, as mentioned previously. The world isn’t – and never will – go vegan overnight, so any considered consequences from that proposition are fantasy consequences.

Also, if we’re being strict, the sentence should read; ‘If we suddenly stopped desiring the products of animals…’. Animal products are not a dietary requirement for humans. We’re Facultative Omnivores, not Obligate Carnivores. We matter of factly have no requirement to consume meat and dairy. The millions of healthy, happy, thriving vegans are living, breathing testament to this fact.”

It would create a situation where humans would no longer support cattle, pigs and chickens et al. Very quickly their numbers would dwindle as the farming industry would cease to exist and breed animals in huge quantities.

“Given that universal veganism isn’t going to engulf the planet overnight, the idea of stranded, abandoned and unsupported cattle is a fantasy one. As for dwindling numbers of cattle, this is the natural consequence of veganism *over time* through reduced demand for meat and dairy. We already manage breeding by increasing exponentially the numbers of farm animals to meet human consumption demands. As veganism rises, breeding would simply be managed in the opposite direction.” 

PEPPA PIG BECOMES AN ENDANGERED SPECIES

Take away breeding programs in the farming industry and what happens to animals such as cows, pigs and sheep?

“As already mentioned, breeding can be controlled in both directions, including down to sustainable levels. Current levels are far beyond sustainable – animal agriculture is the leading contributor to anthropogenic climate change, which is the greatest threat to the survival of our own species.”

Without the care of a farmer it is likely over the course of a few decades the numbers would drop to such an extent as to make these animals endangered.

“A few points; Firstly, animal agriculture is a leading cause in species extinction, so if concern for other species is a priority, then support for animal agriculture is incoherent and incompatible. Secondly, as mentioned, animal agriculture/dairymeat plays a leading role in our own major threats to survival; climate change catastrophe, anti-biotic resistance, pandemic obesity and our biggest killers in the western world, such as heart disease. Thirdly, we already have farm animal sanctuaries and many, many people keep farm animals as pets. While keeping farm animals as pets is not as practical as keeping say, dogs, people do it and do it very successfully. There’s no reason at all for farm animals to become endangered. With that said, they are bred into existence with the sole intention of exploiting them; violently by default. The reasonable question to ask is whether we consider it better to breed something into existence with the intention of inflicting pain, suffering and death upon it, or simply not creating it in the first place. The answer seems pretty straight forward…”

My point is it’s not a meat eater who is cruel to farm animals. Nor is it the milk drinker. I recently read that many activists refer to cattle farmers as rapists for taking a cow’s milk!

“I get that this is the point you’re attempting to make, but it starts with an impossible premise; that the world going vegan overnight would be bad, and then seeks to validate that position by explaining the consequences of something that simply wouldn’t happen. And whilst doing so, not considering any of the ethical, environmental or health implications that veganism is advocating for and considers carefully.

In the case of dairy milk, farmers are not called rapists for ‘taking the milk’. A female cow will only lactate once pregnant. The ‘rape’ component of the dairy process is the forced artificial insemination of a female cow with forcefully extracted bull’s semen. The procedure is highly unpleasant for a female cow, forced (therefore non-consensual, making it rape by any conventional human standards) into pregnancy, only to have their offspring taken away from them at birth – a terribly sad and stressful experience – and to suffer the same fate repeatedly throughout their life until they are no long ‘productive’, where they are then consigned to the slaughterhouse. Female calfs will suffer the same fate as their mothers. Male calfs will be slaughtered for veal. That’s the dairy industry. In human terms, we’d call it not just rape, but abduction, theft and murder. That’s the process, and it will always be the process for as long as we continue to create consumer demand.”

I believe it is actually beneficial to the welfare of cows for people to consume milk and dairy products. By doing so we give the cow a reason to live, a reason to be bred and a reason to be cared for by a farmer. Why remove this guarantee of the survival of cattle as one of the worlds most abundant species?

“The consumption of milk and dairy, as described above, requires by default the forced artificial insemination of a female cow, the removal at birth of its offspring, the slaughter of that offspring if male, a repeating of that process for the female cow throughout its greatly shortened life span and to end its existence with a bolt to the head – which often doesn’t stun the animal at the first go – in front of watching and terrified other animals who try to escape, before being hung upside down with their throat slit, bleeding out and often writhing around in pain and agony. It’s difficult to conclude that this is ‘beneficial’ to the welfare of the cow. It’s also difficult to assert that this is a reason that anyone would consider worth living for. Survival or existence of a species is less important than the quality of its existence. Not only that, but as mentioned previously, animal agriculture is itself the greatest contributor to species extinction, and the leading catalyst for the major threats to decent human survival. So again, concern for species survival and support for the dairymeat industry is simply incoherent.” 

A RADICAL SOLUTION TO ENDANGERED SPECIES WORLDWIDE

Every year millions of animals are bred on farms here in the UK alone. We already know this is done because there is a demand by humans for their products.

“This true, but tells us nothing about the ethical validity of the practice and industry itself. Thousands and thousands of Africans and West Indies’ were shipped to Britain and the USA to meet demand for slave workers in the plantations. Point being, the simple existence of a demand does not validate supply by default. What matters is whether the supply is ethical or not.”

Now, consider animals such as lions, elephants and rhinos. They are all endangered species with a very real risk of them becoming extinct in our lifetimes.

Why is it not feasible to commence a breeding program in farms by making use of the significant amounts of meat these animals generate? It may be a radical idea but if it prevents the extinction of these species is it not worth considering?

“I’m not sure I follow or understand the suggestion, but I read this as using the meat and dairy industry as means to feed lions, elephants and rhinos in order to help them survive? If so, elephants and rhino’s are herbivores, so not helped here, and in each case, the endangering of various species is largely down to a combination of factors such as habitat destruction (for which animal agriculture is the leading cause), game and ivory hunting, and climate change factors (for which animal agriculture is the leading contributor).”

A WORD ON PHYSICAL CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

That is not to say all farmers treat their animals well. Vegetarians will point to instances where animals are horrifically mistreated and do suffer.

I do not condone this one iota and agree these actions are reprehensible and the perpetrators should face the full force of the law. Which is another point. In the UK we have extremely strict laws governing the welfare of animals living on farms.

I’d be very supportive of any efforts to strengthen those laws, particularly where battery farming of hens and chickens is concerned. Those laws provide reassurance to me that animal produce I consume has come from a creature who has not suffered and did live a life in reasonable comfort. Certainly in more comfort than if it was in the wild.

“The notion of ‘humane slaughter’ and farm animal ‘welfare’ is purely mythical. Firstly, we as humans do not get to decide the fate of something/someone else. It would be no more acceptable for me to raise a child brilliantly and with love only to kill it in a way in which it likely wouldn’t feel any pain than it would to raise it awfully and murder it brutally. In either case the child is a victim, and the murderer a perpetrator. We’ve now crossed into the strange territory where perpetrators get to decide how much suffering is appropriate for the victim, rather than simply deciding not to create a victim in the first place. That simply isn’t the binary choice we face when it comes to animals – we don’t have to kill them, exploit them, artificially inseminate them, steal their offspring or do anything but care for them. We don’t have to choose between ‘free range’ and factory farms. We can choose neither.

Secondly, although estimates vary, by conservative numbers, we slaughter 100 billion land animals every year. Slaughter is not clean room, carefully controlled slaughter carried out by pHd graduates – it’s carried out by some of the least skilled and least educated members of the labour market, with some of the highest resign and rehire rates in the work place. The parts per million efficiency of slaughter (ie, the amount of times it works efficiently) is very, very low. But even with Silicon Valley manufacturing tolerances of say, 99.99% – in other words, 99.99% of the time, the slaughter is painless – that’s 1,000,000 animals slaughtered every single year in ways that are not painless, and that can accurately be described as ‘horrific’. But slaughter doesn’t have anything like the ppm efficiency of Silicon Valley. Even if slaughter were efficient 90% of the time – an outrageously high efficiency for slaughter – that would be 10 billion animals killed in ways that most ‘animal welfare’ advocates would themselves be opposed to. Based on the testimony of ex-slaughterhouse workers, slaughter is probably ‘efficient’ no more than 60% of time. This is incredible levels of suffering, pain, terror and agony that even ‘welfare’ and ‘humane slaughter’ advocates should find unacceptable by their very own standards.”

YOUR DUTY TO SECURE THE FUTURE SURVIVAL OF FARM ANIMALS

This is why I think that people who are living on a vegetarian or vegan diet are the ones guilty of cruelty to animals. They would have the farms providing regular food, warmth and security for millions of animals in this country shut down.

“Veganism isn’t about shutting down farms. It’s about reducing unnecessary suffering. The skills that farmers possess could be re-diverted to arable farming. Animals can be cared for at sanctuaries and kept as pets. Remember, these things already happen, and the notion of a sudden overnight global vegan awakening is pure fantasy, so these changes will – and indeed are – take place over time. Billions of farm animals are not suddenly going to be placed in overnight jeopardy.”

My feelings have certainly caused a lot of debate here in the office. I’m currently sat next to a colleague who is a vegetarian. It’s made her have a long think of what impact her eating habits have on animals. I refuse to be accused of cruelty myself when I am genuinely an animal lover as my pets at home can testify.

“The eating habits of a vegetarian are, unfortunately, still major contributors to mass suffering through the dairy and egg industries, which is inextricably tied to the meat and veal industries. Most people’s household pets would undoubtably testify to the love and care of their owners. But those pets aren’t being bred for slaughter. The testimony of animals trapped in an abattoir would be quite different. There is a clear difference between being a ‘pet lover’ and an ‘animal lover’. You cannot love animals whilst consigning them to the slaughterhouse, in fear, pain and death. That is incoherent.”

So, my message is continue eating steaks, bacon and burgers. Continue drinking your milk and eating dairy chocolate.

“A convenient conclusion reasoned from a fantasy scenario in which all relevant considerations have been removed.”

You are the people creating the need for these animals to be born and cared for. Securing the animals existence.

“Securing an existence of suffering, exploitation and death, as well as environmental catastrophe and a range of associated health risks for everyone else.”

Imagine your great grandchildren having to learn about animals such as pigs and chickens from books and videos the way we do now about mammoths and dodos. That is a real possibility if the militant vegan lobby have their way.

“This suggests that our sense of nostalgia is more important than the well-being and desires of the animals themselves. Preferring not to want to read about a certain species in hindsight does not in anyway justify the continued breeding into existence of that species if it’s life will be consigned to and based solely upon its ‘usefulness’ to us as humans, and all of the suffering, pain, death and grave environmental consequences that follow. What it would be better to tell our grandchildren is that we were on the right side of history; we recognised animals feel pain just as we do, that animal agriculture is the leading contributor to our children and grandchildren’s decent chances of survival, and that in recognition of those facts, we changed our attitudes and behaviours accordingly.

Better yet, we can take our grandchildren to the numerous animal sanctuaries created in the wake of our ethical realisations and explain to them that we saved these wonderful creatures from an awful fate, all in the face of massive resistance from the large majority who simply didn’t want to give up their bacon rolls. In short, we have the choice to make our grandchildren proud and thankful of our actions, or to feel ashamed of them.”

 

 

Of course it’s national anti-slavery week. When aren’t we celebrating the abolition of slavery these days?

Whether it’s the unshakeable sense that they’re convinced of their superiority, or the aura that comes with knowing that they’re marginally less likely to die with shame and guilt, smug anti-slavery activists seem to be everywhere.

I’m sure that most who oppose slavery lead happy, blameless lives, but there is a definite sub-category among the pro-abolition movement who deserve to be called out.

It’d be fine if they didn’t want to constantly tell the rest of us about their labour choices. Some who oppose slavery seem to have made the decision not to keep slaves for reasons that they are unable to keep to themselves.

Into that category must go William Wilberforce, who gave up slavery after becoming attached to other people almost 50 years ago, and might have the honour of being the world’s worst anti-slavery advocate.

Such is the man’s dedication to doing his own household chores that Wilberforce attended the West Indies and told the natives to resist capture.

Wilberforce’s snobbery towards slavery is thought to have played a part in bringing like-minded British Quakers and Anglicans together in the same organisation for the first time, raising public awareness and support for the ’cause’. At no point has he stopped to ruminate on the effect that these positions have on Francis Drake’s appeal with the rest of us. The prominence of Wilberforce’s objection to slavery is such that the slavery-hating lefties, Sons of Africa, were moved to warn that Wilberforce faced assassination for his views.

Like many of William Wilberforce’s political positions, anti-slavery is too niche and too removed from the mainstream to give it the possibility of mass appeal. Rather than fight the big political issues of the day, Wilberforce seems routinely to be distracted, to be steering his party out to health and safety-riddled plantations. He has tried to bring forward the bill for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, he has pulled out of a tribute to John Hawkins on his birthday, but he refuses to share a platform with the Home Secretary, Lord Melville over the most important vote in his lifetime. He’s a man who seems to make up his strategy on the hoof, and whose lack of enthusiasm for the subjugation of black people risks an outcome for which the establishment and wealthy gentry would never forgive him.

There is a passivity to abolition, too, which reflects a serious problem that the Left has with engagement in politics. Those who oppose slavery for the most part aren’t trying to change the system that tortures, ships and enslaves people for our workforce and entertainment; they just want to wash their hands of it. William Wilberforce’s Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade likewise seems to be more interested in remaining a band of protesters rather than a force for actual change. The purity of the movement is easier and more comfortable than the compromises of governing; the choices to be made are cleaner. Wilberforces’s life as a rebel MP is indicative of the disengagement between the rest of even his own party, and the rest of the country. Wars and the middle passage will still get made, but Wilberforce wants no part in helping or hindering either.

Beyond this, Wilberforce’s problem is that he seems joyless, like a man struggling to survive a 50 year long stint of tending to his own fields. If the abolition movement are going to get their voters out on June 23^rd, their leader needs to start projecting a more engaged, enthusiastic image of the party. What’s so wog about Wilberforce? Right now he’s presenting the electorate with a dish of civilised, compassionate and overworked-in-their-own-homes white people.

Rupert Myers – The Telegraph, 1787

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/jeremy-corbyn-is-joyless-vegetarianism-made-flesh/

Dear Johnny,

I hope you are well as we enter the festive season.

I write to you as an ex-almost constituent of Moor View (born in Plymouth, raised in Saltash but now living in Wiltshire – close enough, right?!) in response to your article, ‘Jeremy Corbyn Vetoing UK Foreign Policy? No Thanks. I’m Out’, published in the Huffington Post dated 17/11/15. I hope that you will take the time to consider and respond to my comments on your article, which follow below.

You write:

“The attacks in Paris were not altogether a surprise. A threat is defined by a capability and intent: IS have long had the intent, and now we know they have the capability.

I keep getting asked “are we safe?” We are as safe as we could possibly be in this country. We have the finest security services in the world, from the Secret Service to the United Kingdom Special Forces Group. But there is an element that is letting us down”.

You conclude that the element, “letting us down” is Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘veto’ of “surgical foreign intervention”, intended to, “defeat threats while they remain some distance from our borders”, so that we can, “be as safe as we possibly can from these threats”.

There are several points of contention here. First, you tell us that we are, “…as safe as we could possibly be in this country”, but then directly contradict this by suggesting that, “surgical foreign intervention” – a technical term for state violence – is necessary in order to be “as safe as we possibly can”. We are either, ‘as safe as we could possibly be’, or we are not. Which is it? The ‘threat’ to the British public, as you must surely know, is greatly exaggerated in order to further the British state’s policy goals. As former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray writes:

“In the last decade, now 7/7 has dropped out of this statistic, only one person has been killed in the UK by an Islamic terrorist attack… That unfortunate death was Lee Rigby”.

Continuing, Murray observes:

“Which is why you would have to be a lunatic actually to believe MI5’s repeated claims during the last decade that there are thousands of dedicated terrorists out there, fanatical determined and organised, but in a decade of constant effort they have succeeded in killing nobody else. There were, MI5 claim, six actual terrorist plots this year but fortunately MI5 saved all of us.

If you believe MI5’s stories, there are two possibilities. The first is that we have security services of a quite incredible efficiency, able to foil random terrorism, generally regarded as near impossible. The second is that we have thousands of dedicated terrorists of such incredible ineptitude that they can’t manage to kill anybody, even when they could choose any random undefended target in the entire UK and any method from knives to poison to hit and run to shooting to bombs, and don’t mind losing their own lives in the attempt. We have rubbish terrorists.

There is of course a third possibility – that these thousands of dedicated terrorists and these scores of foiled plots in the last decade were inventions, or at least the grossest exaggerations, by the security services”.

Of course, none of that is to say that there is zero threat of terrorism to the British public. Recent horrors in Paris, Beirut and elsewhere, as well as the aforementioned 7/7 attacks and murder of Lee Rigby, are evidence enough to the contrary. These threats – large or small – have well understood roots. The most prevalent factors in the very existence of these threats is conspicuous by its absence in your article. The key contributor to the threats you discuss is the same ‘interventionism’ that you advocate as a solution – violence in the Middle East.

Assessing the likely consequences of the UK joining the US in its plans to invade Iraq, a declassified US State Department document notes:

“… [the invasion of Iraq] could bring a radicalization of British Muslims, the great majority of whom opposed the September 11 attacks but are increasingly restive about what they see as an anti-Islamic campaign.”

The ex-M15 boss, Baroness Manningham-Buller, as reported by the BBC, said that the invasion of Iraq had “substantially”, increased the terrorist threat to the UK. “Our involvement in Iraq, for want of a better word, radicalised a whole generation of young people, some of them British citizens who saw our involvement in Iraq, on top of our involvement in Afghanistan, as being an attack on Islam”.

As reported by the New York Times, the assessment of the Joint Terrorist Analysis Center, shortly prior to the 7/7 attacks, was that:

“Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist related activity in the U.K.”

The NYT times goes on to report that, ‘…the Royal Institute of International Affairs, an influential private research organization commonly known as Chatham House, concluded that Britain’s participation in the war in Iraq and as “pillion passenger” of American foreign policy had made it vulnerable to terrorist attack’.

Additionally, as US journalist Glenn Greenwald has documented, the long-standing and continued violence of western governments in the Muslim world is repeatedly cited by the perpetrators of both successful and attempted/would-be terrorists, from 9/11 to 7/7 to Boston and so on, as a primary motivator for their actions.

The investigative journalist, Nafeez Ahmed, in his ‘Open Letter to Britain’s Leading Violent Extremist, David Cameron‘, cites the conclusions of a joint Home Office and Foreign Office study, which concludes:

“It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment amongst Muslims including young Muslims is a perceived ‘double standard’ in the foreign policy of western governments (and often those of Muslim governments), in particular Britain and the US…
Perceived Western bias in Israel’s favour over the Israel/Palestinian conflict is a key long term grievance of the international Muslim community which probably influences British Muslims.
This perception seems to have become more acute post 9/11. The perception is that passive ‘oppression’, as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to `active oppression’ — the war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.
This disillusionment may contribute to a sense of helplessness with regard to the situation of Muslims in the world, with a lack of any tangible ‘pressure valves,’ in order to vent frustrations, anger or dissent.
Hence this may lead to a desire for a simple ‘Islamic’ solution to the perceived oppression/problems faced by the ‘Ummah’ — Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir and Afghanistan.”

As you are well aware, the ‘bias’ in favour of Israel is not merely a ‘perception’. The government, of which you are a part of, approved £4m worth of arms sales in the months proceeding Israel’s brutal military assault on occupied Gaza in the summer of 2014. The British state, already up to its neck in violence, terror and war crimes, can also add deep complicity to Israel’s terrorising of Palestinians to its list of overseas horrors.

I haven’t mentioned Cameron’s cheerleading of the NATO destruction of Libya, nor have I mentioned Britain’s long held and continuing support for various brutal, dictatorial regimes – subservient to western strategic and economic goals – across the globe, which makes the only appropriate response to government claims of “supporting democracy”, hysterical fits of laughter. In the words of the researcher and author, Mark Curtis, who has written several books on British Foreign Policy post-1945 with extensive use of the declassified documentary record:

 “What the record shows is that, more than anything, we don’t like independent, popular governments, nationalist governments who want to do things their own way, using their own resources – look at Nasser in Egypt, look at Mossadeq in Iran, look at Jagan in Guyana.”

Conveniently (but unsurprisingly), your article in the HP makes no reference to any of this – and this is merely the tip of the iceberg. You also make no mention of Britain and its allies longstanding support for various radical Islamic groups for the furthering of its own strategic goals. Those goals were discussed in a meeting held in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 5 December 1957 (document T234/768) as:

‘…(i) maintenance of our position as a world power, (ii) the strength of sterling, (iii) ensuring continued United States participation in world affairs, (iv) the importance of our trade, (v) safeguarding our oil interests’.

Those goals have not changed – at least not significantly – in the time passed. An MOD publication titled, ‘Future Character of Conflict’, first published in 2010, states that:

‘The UK has significant global interests and will therefore wish to remain a leading actor on the international stage as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), a nuclear power, a key member of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union (EU) and other international institutions, irrespective of the potential for its power base to decline’.

The paper goes on to make the following observations:

‘The UK will act with others where shared interests and values coincide. We will routinely operate with allies and partners, in particular as a supporting partner in a US-led coalition…

The access to resources (energy, food or water) will drive states’ security interests; control over these resources and their methods of distribution through the global commons will be a critical feature of conflict in the international system. It may dictate why we fight, where we fight and thus how we fight…

The UK will retain multiple global interests with inextricable ties to Europe and North America…’

And finally, as is consistent with the US State Department’s acknowledging of our policies bringing about a “radicalization of British Muslims”:

‘Within the UK, a changing demographic balance towards a more multi-ethnic society means that some conflicts will create risks, including extremism, within our own communities.’

In your article, you pose the question, “if we cannot cross this threshold and contribute in this instance, what does the future look like for Britain on the world stage?”. The answer, as should be obvious at this point, is that the future security of British people (rather than vested interest groups), should be plainly improved. It is surely no coincidence that we do not ask these kinds of questions of Iceland, Estonia or Liechtenstein. To continue engaging in military aggression and violence with the stated goal of decreasing the threat of reprisals is demonstrably nonsense, as I have evidenced here, and can only be deployed if the actual goals are quite different from the publicly stated goals.

If you do, however, harbour any genuine aspirations for decreasing the threat of terror on these shores, you will support those constituents and members of both the public and parliament (regardless of party) who are against state-sponsored terrorism (bombing, by definition, is the textbook definition of terrorism), rather than promoting it, backing it and implementing it.

There are of course other contributory factors beyond British foreign policy that feed into the threat of terrorism, but it is quite clear, as the record shows, that our longstanding policies are the greatest factor.

I want to finish by reminding you of the most basic (yet important) elementary moral principle; The most important consideration to make when faced with any decision is, ‘What are the likely and predictable consequences of my actions?’.

The consequences of bombing – “surgical” or otherwise – are well understood and practiced. Bombing will result in the deaths and suffering of humans (and animals). It will lead to the displacement of people. It will lead to the destruction of civilian infrastructure and it will lead to the further creation and facilitation of conditions that aid, rather than ameliorate, extremism and reprisals.

On the other hand, Jeremy Corbyn’s focus on the funding of these radical groups such as ISIS, the arming of them and the creation of conditions that are ripe for the growth of extremism are quite clearly rational, sensible approaches to the issue, supported by the best available evidence and conform with international law, common decency and diplomacy.

Given the weight of evidence that shows that our militaristic, aggressive foreign policy is at the heart of the threats to the security and well-being of British people (and, of course, those on the receiving end of ‘our’ violence), how is it that you can advocate more of the same policies? That is the question I would like you to address, with recourse to the evidence provided.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,

Ryan

 

This will be short, sweet and teachable to primary school children. And it should be.

I do not recall being taught basic ethics at school. This is not to say I wasn’t taught the subject, I just can’t recall it. I have friends who are school teachers. I don’t think they teach it to their students either, so I suspect my memory is not failing me. Here’s what I should have been taught:

What is it that gives an Asian lady, a black man, a white teenager, a gay bloke, someone with a disability, a person with the intellectual capacity of Sarah Palin and someone who likes cross dressing, equal rights? In fact, what is it that gives them rights at all?

The answer is consciousness. Entirely consciousness.

Consciousness is a broad term, but at it’s core is the capacity to feel. More pertinently, it’s the ability to suffer – physically, mentally and emotionally. The aforementioned group of people have (or should have), the same basic rights not on the grounds of their race, colour, sexual orientation or intellect but on their shared consciousness. They can all feel pain, they can all suffer.

If the existence of rights is centred entirely on consciousness, then it follows that rights should be extended equally to all things conscious. This, of course, includes animals. As the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness states, ““non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.” [1] [2]

If the one prerequisite to suffering is consciousness, then it follows that rights must be apportioned when consciousness is present. This has to be true, or else consider the opposite; that non-conscious things would be entitled to rights, such as chairs, tarmac, the colour yellow, plastic cups and abstract concepts. Rights and ethics simply do not make sense in the absence of consciousness.

If I am as capable of suffering and feeling pain as a cow, a dog, a pig, a woman, a Syrian refugee, a homosexual male, and yes, Sarah Palin, then it is for that reason that anyone or anything with the intellectual capacity to understand all of the above should not intentionally or knowingly harm me. For the same reasons, I should not be permitted to harm anything or anyone capable of suffering.

Now go and teach that to children…

In the wake of the recent killing of Cecil the Lion, the popular attraction at the Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe, Walter Palmer, the American dentist responsible for his death, became public enemy number one. The name ‘Walter Palmer’ and ‘Cecil the Lion’ trended world wide on Twitter. Palmer’s dental practice closed down during the media storm and leading public figures, from Richard Dawkins to Ricky Gervais, led the choruses of condemnation. Palmer, a big-game hunter, had paid in the region of $50,000 to hunt and kill a lion in Zimbabwe – that lion just so happened to be well known and much loved.

It is entirely understandable (and heartening) that people the world over would be appalled at the senseless killing of a majestic animal. That the act was rooted in the desire and thrill derived from the hunting and act of killing in and of itself makes it deplorable, and rightly raises questions about the mindset of Walter Palmer and his peers. But whenever an entire group or population of people condemn such acts, it will inevitably lead to others questioning the lack of outrage over similar and more everyday acts. The performer Kat Von D caused a stir on social media when she wrote:

It’s hard for me to empathize with those of you who are upset about the recent killing of an innocent lion, yet choose to eat animals. The only difference between Cecil the lion, and all the animals killed for meat: NONE. The only difference between Dr. Walter Palmer, and those who consciously choose to eat meat: NONE.

Predictably (and understandably), the reaction to this post was overwhelmingly negative across the board.

Normalised psychopathy

In the midst of the media storm surrounding the killing of Cecil, the BBC reported that Daylen Brickley, a six-month old boy from the US state of New Hampshire, had been granted a lifetime permit to hunt and fish. The BBC reports that, ‘the whole family was raised around hunting and fishing’ and that Daylen’s mother, Erica, felt the granting of the license would be, “…only natural to kind of keep it [the family hunting tradition] going”. The article states that, ‘Wildlife officials say that the new lifetime permit has been popular’.

This raises some interesting questions about the unique levels of condemnation aimed at the likes of Walter Palmer and other big-game hunters. If it’s the case that many hunters – like Palmer and young Daylen Brickley – are raised from a very young age into an environment whereby hunting is the norm, how much condemnation and anger can we lay at the door of the individual? Furthermore, this raises additional questions about the culture of meat eating. We are all raised and conditioned into a society dominated by meat eating. It is entirely ‘normal’, therefore, that most of the world’s human population are meat eaters. Kat Von D may have inadvertently been correct when she wrote that the difference between Walter Palmer and people who eat meat is, “none”. Big game hunting is as normal for Palmer as inseparably as meat eating is to the rest of us. Hunting is not normalised for the majority of the population, so it is much harder for us to empathise with those that participate in it (particularly when the victim is much loved, has a name and a story to boot!). The same is true for many acts throughout history that are now uncontroversially considered ‘evil’. It would have been entirely normal to have kept a slave during the 17th and 18th centuries. Although we may look back on the slave trade with utter disbelief and dismay, the likelihood is that a great many of us who now condemn Palmer and his ilk for their ‘evil’ would have kept slaves (even if reluctantly) ourselves had we been born into a society that normalised its practice. It simply would have been the ‘done’ thing.

There is no discernible difference between the process of normalisation when comparing hunting, meat and dairy consumption, slavery or other forms of indoctrination and cultural subordination, such as militarism, patriotism or religious belief. All begin in childhood and are pervasive throughout virtually all cultures, societies and traditions. One need only look at the striking similarities between the stated justifications of some of these behaviours to see that the differences are perceived, rather than actual. Sabrina Corgatelli, a game hunter, received widespread media attention earlier this year after posting photos on her Facebook page showing off her recent kills, which included a giraffe. In an interview, quoted in the Huffington Post (see last link) she said:

“Everybody just thinks we’re cold-hearted killers, and it’s not that,” [We’re good people really, just like you!]

“Giraffes are very dangerous animals. They could hurt you seriously very quickly.” [Survival argument]

“Everything I’ve done here is legally, so how can you fault somebody because of their hobbies?” [Focus on legality (avoids ethical argument) and “I enjoy it” (greed)]

Compare the above to the usual justifications for meat and animal product consumption***:

“I try to source free range eggs or humanely treated produce.” [I’m a good person in spite of my support of slaughter]

“Other animals eat animals, it’s natural.” [Slight variation of the survival argument]

“I like steak, it tastes nice.” [Avoidance of ethics/greed]

The acts themselves may differ (despite the obvious crossover), our responses to ‘their’ actions versus ‘our’ own may also differ, but the justifications for those actions are virtually indistinguishable.

***I had intended to quote from a discussion I had with a former work colleague over Facebook but after reasonably challenging her points was removed as a friend (but not before being called ‘closed minded’, ‘self righteous’, etc…) and am no longer able to access the exchange, but these are essentially the same points made and are often used across the board to justify animal agriculture.***

Trickle-down ethics?

If there is one major learning from Cecil-gate, the reaction to Kat Von D’s post and a desire (flawed though it may be) for only consuming humanely produced animal products, it’s that people are quite capable – despite the normalisation of the unthinkable – of thinking compassionately and ethically. You’ll be hard pressed to find someone who can sit through video footage depicting the kind of cruelty on display in abattoirs and factory farms, circuses and game hunts without becoming angry or saddened by what they are witnessing. This is undoubtedly a positive. The challenge then becomes harnessing that anger, that sadness and compassion into tangible, effective action. It’s at this point, however, there appears to be a roadblock.

In the build up to the UK General Election, David Cameron constantly repeated the need to build a ‘strong economy’. What Cameron neglected to mention was who that ‘strong economy’ was being primarily built for. The claim that building a strong economy ‘at the top’, will lead to prosperity for all is a nonsense, as new research from the IMF reaffirms. Instead, Cameron and Osborne’s ideologically motivated austerity is simply a vehicle for moving wealth from public to private hands and further concentrating wealth and capital among an elite and small percentage of the population. The wealth will not ‘trickle-down’, and inequality will widen, not lessen. The folly of trickle-down economics could well be a lesson in how not to approach our ethics – from the top down. After all, if this approach does not work economically, why would it successfully transfer to other areas of society? For example, would ethics structured from the top down work? Would looking after the people at the top of society eventually benefit everyone else? Or, more broadly, would learning to best look after each other (humans) trickle down to everyone and everything else? How might we react if a slave owner suggested that the best way to look after slaves was to make sure that slave owners were themselves taken care of first? Rights and privileges are seldom handed down from above.

It is often said that a society can be best judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members. This almost always refers to the elderly, people with disabilities, the poor, the unemployed, children and the sick. There’s little doubt that these people could be described as vulnerable, but there’s an entire population often overlooked here – animals. The number of animals killed each year is greater than the number of people killed in all wars throughout human history. Consider also that animals are conscious (meaning they are capable of feeling physical, mental and quite probably emotional pain, ie, they are capable of suffering just as humans are), and that animal agriculture has a truly disastrous effect on the environment. Surely then, animal welfare is both a significant ethical issue as well as a necessary and pressing environmental one.

If trickle-down economics is not effective in benefitting those at the bottom (the most vulnerable in society), it makes sense that we should seek an alternative, a ‘bottom up’ approach to our economics and politics. The street level politics seen in Scotland with the rise of the SNP, the ‘Green Surge’, the support for Syriza and Podemos in Greece and Spain respectively and the Labour Party leadership campaign of Jeremy Corbyn all strongly suggest that momentum is gathering among people all across Europe for an alternative to the austerity driven politics of the status quo. Top-down isn’t working, and people are catching on.

Bottom-up ethics. Suitable for meat-eaters (may contain compassion).

In order to build a thriving society based on basic principles like equality, compassion, moral universality and so on, we might consider adopting a ‘bottom-up’, street level ethics, similar to the aforementioned political movements. If we are capable of showing the utmost compassion for insects, cows and other vulnerable species, then it follows that we should see that very same compassion spill over on to our own species. It’s difficult to image a world full of vegans supporting austerity, the invasion of Iraq or Israel’s relentless occupation of what is left of Palestine. Could veganism and the prioritising of animal rights act as a catalyst for substantive change on a political level?

In 2003, up to two million people in the UK marched in protest against the eventual invasion of Iraq. Globally, as many as 30 million may have taken to the streets to voice their disapproval of an invasion that would end up resulting in the excess deaths of upwards a million people. As Noam Chomsky observes, global opposition to the invasion of Iraq was “much larger than the anti-Vietnam-war movement at any comparable stage”. Yet, despite this, it did not stop the US and Britain from invading.

Opposing and seeking to alter government policy and that of power can only be done through popular movements. A large portion of society must rally around a cause, collectivise and campaign relentlessly. Despite the amount of energy and effort exerted by those who participate, as the invasion of Iraq shows, there are no guarantees it will work. This is not to say that it doesn’t ever work or that political activism is a lost cause – the opposite is certainly true. Imagine the reaction of a black slave in the 18th century being told that a couple hundred years down the line, there would be a black president. To say he would have been sceptical would be putting it mildly.

Defending the rights of animals is a vastly more simplistic endeavour than trying to change government policy making. Ending the suffering of billions of animals every year requires virtually no effort, no expense and no collectivisation. There needn’t be mass popular protests on the streets, guest speakers at demos or tarpaulin. Defending animal rights and opposing the annual genocide of conscious animals is as straight forward as buying Linda McCartney sausages rather than pork sausages, grabbing a pack of tofu instead of chicken nuggets and dousing the morning cereal in almond milk instead of dairy milk. The positive effects of going vegan are numerous (literally speaking, a vegan could be saving the lives of up to 200 sentient beings per year), especially when compared to the minimal effort required in making a simple dietary switch. Throw in the benefits to the environment through decreasing the demand for animals products (and therefore animal agriculture) as well as the health benefits and it would appear to be the proverbial ‘no-brainer’. It’s worth noting that, due to the minimal effort and investment required to go vegan, that this switch of emphasis to a ‘bottom up’ ethical approach does not and needs not infringe upon other forms of activism. It is comfortably possible to campaign politically for change as well as uphold and defend the rights of animals.

There are other additional benefits that might not seem apparently obvious. As David Edwards of Media Lens writes:

‘The evidence is now overwhelming that the human brain continually changes as a result of experience. In his book, Destructive Emotions, psychologist Daniel Goleman notes that this ‘neuroplasticity’ has been observed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), for example, in musicians:

“MRI studies find that in a violinist… the areas of the brain that control finger movement in the hand that does the fingering grow in size. Those who start their training earlier in life and practice longer show bigger changes in the brain.” (Goleman, Disturbing Emotions, Bloomsbury, 2003, p.21)’

This has some interesting implications for how the adoption of an animal-centric, bottom-up ethical approach might have on our capacity to act with increasing levels of compassion and to the benefit of our own personal happiness. Edwards continues:

Research conducted by Richard Davidson at the University of Wisconsin recently studied brain activity in a European-born Buddhist monk, Oser, who had spent three decades meditating on compassion in the Himalayas.

Davidson’s research had previously found that people who have high levels of brain activity in the left prefrontal cortex of the brain simultaneously report positive, happy states of mind, such as zeal, enthusiasm, joy, vigour and mental buoyancy. Oser was asked to meditate intensively on compassion and then to relax after sixty seconds while being monitored by an fMRI magnetic imaging machine. Goleman describes the results:

“While Oser was generating a state of compassion during meditation, he showed a remarkable leftward shift in this parameter of prefrontal function… In short, Oser’s brain shift during compassion seemed to reflect an +extremely+ pleasant mood. The very act of concern for others’ well-being, it seems, creates a greater sense of well-being within oneself.” (Goleman, ibid, p.12)’

If then, we are able to train ourselves to become more compassionate and more concerned for the well being of others (whilst simultaneously boosting our own sense of well being and happiness), what easier way of doing so than placing animal rights front and centre of our thinking? As already mentioned, it requires such little effort to implement that we can start training ourselves today at the supermarket. (And those Linda McCartney vegan-friendly sausages really are quite tasty!)

As David Edwards summarises, “Compassionate individuals are happier, and a society of compassionate individuals is a happier, more peaceful, more sane society.”

Like clockwork, every run up to a general election produces the same ‘hot’ issues and topics. At the top of the agenda for the public comes the dreaded ‘immigration debate’. News and political TV shows can always be relied upon to show interviews with members of the public on their local high street, asking them, “which issues are most important to you?”. No matter what the political climate, the same answer pops up again and again. It’s little wonder, mind, given the lavish attention immigration, benefits and welfare are afforded across the media spectrum. There’s a case of the Chicken or the Egg when it comes to immigration and those receiving benefits. Are we so hung up on it because politicians and an embedded corporate media give such prominence to the issue? Or are politicians et al simply responding and playing on a genuine public concern? Either way, there’s little doubt that the ‘immigration debate’ is a convenient side show for our political class. Keeping the public’s turrets pointed firmly at those barely reaching the bottom rung of the ladder ensures that those at the top; HSBC, Starbucks, Hilliburton and co, need only feel a fleeting warm breeze blow in their direction from time to time.

Invariably, and unsurprisingly, TV programmes like Benefit Street and Jeremy Kyle feed in to the collective public distain for those living off of, or supplemented by, the state. The World Trade Centre attacks on 9/11, the 7/7 London bombings and the Charlie Hebdo murders feed and fuel anti-Muslim/Islamophobic sentiments globally. Israel’s cyclical ‘mowing the lawn’, continued settlement expansion and occupation of the remnants of Palestine culminate in spikes of anti-semitic behaviour across Europe. All of these issues elicit mass media commentary on the one hand, and fever pitched outrage among the public sphere on the other – and understandably so. Yet, where is the outrage among the public at ‘our’ crimes? Where is the continued, fever pitched distain and anger being directed at corporations and financial institutions, themselves the biggest beneficiaries of government welfare going? In 2012, the name Joseph Kony penetrated the minds of the social media-using public. A video documentary, which went viral, was seen by more than half of young adult Americans in the days proceeding its release. Compare this to the recent video of Barack Obama posing in the mirror, acting normal and ‘cool’, or any of his public appearances on popular talk shows hosted by famous comedians and actors.

Where, might we ask, are the viral videos denouncing Obama’s drone campaigns? As Noam Chomsky describes, Obama’s drone program is, “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times”, and that it targets, “people suspected of perhaps intending to harm us someday, and any unfortunates who happen to be nearby”. Despite this, we likely shouldn’t anticipate any viral campaigns seeking to bring war criminals Tony Blair, George W. Bush and Barack Obama before the Hague any time soon.

As the brilliant Media Lens have documented over the years, our corporate and state media set the news agenda. The ‘liberal’ press, such as the Guardian, The Independent and The New York Times, impose sharp boundaries on what passes as acceptable mainstream discourse. The primary role of the print press is to sell their product (privileged audiences) to their customers (advertisers). The print press depends on other businesses (advertisers) for the majority of its revenue. What we would not expect to find then, is a print press that is scathingly critical of a corporate dominated, state capitalist economic system to which it is not only dependent on for survival, but is itself very much a key component of.

With that in mind, we may feel able – at least to a certain degree – to absolve ourselves for not fully understanding the root causes that lead to the very things we are outraged over. With very rare exceptions, we do not learn how US and UK foreign policy acts as a catalyst for radical Islamic extremism. We do not learn of the true geostrategic and economic vested interests and motivations behind the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and so on. We do not hear of the need for wholesale systemic change of an inherently destructive economic system in the face of near-ecological disaster from those public commentariats bringing climate issues to the forefront. But at the same time, it’s not as if we are never exposed to this stuff. The latest scandal over HSBC is the perfect illustration of this.

For all its faults and flaws, if there’s one thing social media (Facebook, Twitter etc…) allows us to do, it’s to monitor the responses of our peers to the issues of the day. It gives us each our own ‘boots on the ground’ view of how a particular news story is being received. I can report personally, to having not seen a single mention of HSBC by any of the 448 ‘Friends’ I’ve amassed on Facebook. I have, however, seen Obama’s selfie stick.

The Grand Canyon-sized hole in our world view

Travel is a passion of mine. When the topic of travel comes up, I’m often asked the question, “What’s the most amazing thing you’ve seen?”. As much as I’d wish to give a more original answer to the question, the Grand Canyon is pretty hard to look beyond. Though, conflictingly, I also found the Grand Canyon to be underwhelming. The GC is intangibly vast. Looking across to the North Rim from the South, getting my head around the fact the the opposing Rim was several thousand feet high was, and still is, impossible. The sheer scale of the GC is unimaginable, even when stood on the edge and looking at it. I recall feeling as though I could reach out and touch it, literally. To me it didn’t look real. It looked like the most spectacular and beautifully painted billboard ever created. On the one hand, the experience, the view, the scale… was utterly magnificent. On the other, the scale, size and magnificence was too unimaginable, too vast and difficult to get my head around. It almost didn’t feel real.

Could our lack of outrage, anger and focus on big issues be partially attributed to scale? Accepting that the real beneficiaries of mass state welfare is Big Business, and not the guy who lives at number 17, represents a Grand Canyon sized problem. Condemning faceless, invisible corporations, institutions and organisations poses more challenges to us than targeting someone on the dole. A corporation, a bank, a conglomerate… These things are intangible, huge, and vast in much the same way as the Grand Canyon is. We know they exist. We know they aren’t necessarily forces for good. We feel so small by way of comparison. We can of course comprehend someone taking benefits (maybe when they needn’t be). We can visualise them, see them. We know them. We went to school with these people, see them daily in our communities, see them on the TV. We often don’t like what we see. It conjures images in our minds (rightly, wrongly, fairly or unfairly) of tracksuit bottoms, sports shoes, beer cans, a Liam Gallagher-esque walk, behavioural issues and luxury council flats with big TV’s. But we can deal with that. It’s entirely tangible – we know exactly who and what we are against. But when it comes to banks, government, corporations etc… who are we up against? Who and what exactly are we to be angry with? “The System”? Our anger, or would-be anger, is less redeemable. To be truly angry and focussed on these issues requires a more in-depth understanding of the way our economies are structured and tiered. Like trying to fully imagine the scale of the Grand Canyon, that’s a daunting task. Aiming fire at those we perceive to be beneath us is just a damned sight easier.

A recent article in the Daily Mirror told of a young wheelchair using girl who had had her benefits cut for not being ‘disabled enough’. It later transpired that the benefits were being cut because the girl’s farther works in Germany. The ensuing Twitter comments were quite revealing about the way we go about attacking the wrong wrongdoers. Whilst a healthy portion of the comments were indeed aimed at a combination of government and the organisations that deal with the allocating of benefits, some took the opportunity to deal a blow to others who may be in need:

Em wrote:

@DailyMirror they probably decided some fat lazy bastard who’s ‘disabled’ because they’re too fat, needed it more.

Rob came wading in with support:

@Em @DailyMirror spot on

Mizz expressed similar sentiments:

@DailyMirror @Utdsgalactic if only they were this strict over child benefit for kids who don’t even fucking live in this country!

And so on…

In a sane, balanced society that could truly comprehend the real problems we face today, the latter Tweet might have read:

@DailyMirror If only they were this strict over UK-trading companies who don’t even fucking pay tax in this country!

A bite-sized Revolution

A child’s first piano lesson does not begin by placing Tchaikovsky in front of them. A young and aspiring guitar player does not cut his teeth on Buckethead. First we must realign our sights at the right targets, and keep our gaze there. That in itself is not easy, and is an issue to which we shall return to at a later date. But we do know the serious issues. We do. We just allow ourselves to divert back to fringe issues, the easy targets, the click bait.

We must first accept that we cannot make serious and meaningful systemic change in one fell swoop. Identifying Corporatism, State Capitalism, Profit as the catalysts for many of the world’s ills is fine and fair. But on those terms, and on that scale, there isn’t a lot we can do about it. What we must do is small chunk the problems. When trying to understand the world, scientists don’t just ‘do’ science. Trying to figure out the workings of the universe cannot be done with a general observation of everything that is happening all at once. ‘Science’ is the umbrella term, the method, the procurement of evidence. We then break that down into sub categories; Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology and Sociology. Within each of those fields are further sub categories, and those sub categories are further broken down, rinse and repeat until we start reaching a molecular level (and beyond!). We take something so vast and incomprehensible and break it down into manageable chunks. Those individual ‘small chunks’ may themselves still be incredibly complex (don’t ask me to write about atoms and cells, for example!), but are vastly less complex than looking out of the window and trying to explain what is happening.

This is the approach we must take to tackle those Grand Canyon sized issues, to scale things down to tangible problems that we can both perceive and actively participate in today. It starts in our homes, in our workplaces, our communities. To give a personal example… I’ve worked as an Online Delivery driver for a leading supermarket chain. There are aspects of the job that are needlessly difficult, to which there is an overwhelming consensus among the drivers. On occasion, you will be scheduled to deliver to five or six properties within an hour. Delivering to five properties within the allotted time frame is extremely difficult, bordering on not being possible. Delivering to six is impossible. Why then, would this scheduling exist? It does not come from the drivers, the workforce, the people actually doing the job. No delivery driver or courier would ever give themselves such ludicrous scheduling. We all moaned about it. But that’s where it ended. We moaned and did it anyway. You’d think that, given the consensus among the team, getting everyone together to collectively oppose this and implement change would be easy. It probably would have been, but I’d be lying if I said we tried. Part of that comes from the conditioning we are subjected to through childhood that I touched upon previously. But part of it is laziness. We take the easy option. Organising everyone, putting a case forth, fighting for change, taking it up the ladder via the proper channels… It’s easier to moan, grin and bare, than to get active. Ironically, the benefits of change would have made our lives much easier.

In a democratic society, the work force will dictate how the job should be done. They are the ones doing it, they know best. It’s not for anonymous, hidden, ‘higher ups’ to dictate the terms of the job, especially if those terms are unreasonable and counterproductive. The role of management should be to implement the necessary changes and amendments to a current existing situation on behalf of and for the workforce, in tandem with the stated wants and needs of that workforce. Any ‘higher ups’ not meeting those simple criteria should be dismissed by the workforce from their position. In fact, taking it further, people at a management level should be elected by the workers they are seeking to represent. Is that so hard to implement? Is that too intangible? Can we get our heads around that?

We do not need to truly comprehend nor understand the vastness or scale of the Grand Canyon to accept it’s considerable magnitude and beauty. We cannot see all of it when stood on the South Rim, but the bits we can see are stunning enough. To view it in its entirety would be to look down upon it from tens of thousands of feet high. But then we’re so far removed from it, can we really appreciate it in enough detail? Even the Grand Canyon will look small from far enough away.

We’ve spent too much time already ducking away from things we can do – things we can change and affect. Big change can come about through small, localised actions on a tangible level. There’s no excuses.

Anyone who has kids, spends time with children, or themselves remember being a child, can all attest and identify with the natural inquisitiveness and curiosity of the little-uns. Children, often with repetition far beyond the point of tedium, will ask grand and usually unanswerable questions. “Who invented money?”, “Why do I have to go to school?”, “Why do I have to do what my teacher tells me?” or even the dreaded… “Why do I have to do what you tell me!?”.

As adults, our answers to these questions are usually utterly illegitimate… “You just do!”, “That’s just the way it is”, and, “Because I said so!”. Yet, these questions, which collectively ask, ‘why is the world the way it is?’, are entirely reasonable and demand serious answers – not, as is often the case – limp, dismissive responses to be taken on the grounds of authority alone. But how do we go from being inquisitive, curious, questioning and challenging young minds to… something else? Do we stop asking those same grand questions in adulthood simply because we know the answers? Or did we, somewhere along the way, just forget to keep asking?

Paint like Raphael? No Problem!

As one of the 20th century’s most influential, revolutionary and world renowned artists, Pablo Ruiz y Picasso could reasonably be described as a ‘creative mind’. Picasso’s ability to produce profound, deep, and technically proficient pieces of artwork were, and still are, far beyond the capacity of most mere mortals. Yet, arguably it is not his technical ability that we should most marvel at. The brilliance of Picasso, and all other artists operating at the elite end of the spectrum of their respective trades, is in the ability to even imagine the ideas that they later turn into physical realities. They leave the rest of us wondering, “How did they even come up with that in the first place!?”. Picasso, however, was able to shed some interesting light on just that question:

“It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child”

In order to be at his creative best, Picasso needed to tap into something child-like, to re-learn – practice even – to think, and therefore paint, like a child would. But what does ‘painting like a child’ really mean? It would seem that what Picasso was really telling us was how to avoid thinking like an adult. Adulthood, and all that it entails, places major constraints on our ability to think creatively.

In adulthood, we learn to view ‘things’ in the world as having set, definite Functions. A chair, for example, affords us the ability to sit down or, ‘sitability’. A frying pan affords us ‘fryability’, a paperclip, ‘clipability’, and so on… Compare that to the way a child might interpret or use such inanimate objects… Pots and pans suddenly become hats, chairs become props during playtime, a paperclip is more likely to be deployed as a sword for fighting miniature evil fairies than for keeping documentation neat and orderly in the office paper tray…

Routine is another constraint placed on creativity in adulthood. We’re constantly told that Routine creates habit, habits breed efficiency, efficiency breeds success, and success breeds wealth. In our busy, hectic consumerist lives, it’s difficult to tackle issues in creative, innovative ways. There simply isn’t time to ponder and reflect on how to think about decision making processes. Time is money, and money – or more precisely, profit – in our state capitalist, corporate dominated economic system, is King. We spend most of our time following structures, processes, rules, being tested, developing patterns of behaviour, towing the line, being obedient and ‘getting by’.

Are these – Function and Routine – the most conductive behaviours and traits for good thinking? Are these the conditions in which creativity can flourish? Would we expect a football player returning from a lengthy injury to dive straight back into competitive action without undergoing rehabilitative training and immediately produce his or her best form? Surely not. Then can we expect, when we most need to, to be able to flick the creative switch on at the drop of a hat? We spend much of our lives, right from childhood, having our creative abilities drummed out of us. We learn pretty quickly never to commit the sin of ‘answering back’ to perceived authority – teachers, parents, bosses. We learn that the only way to get to the next level is to pass that exam, be well behaved, not to be ‘difficult’ or disobedient. We learn to accept that things are the way they are, “just because”. We learn that there’s nothing we can do about it, so not to worry about it. Don’t challenge it. Don’t question it. Don’t ask grand or difficult questions.

The Proverbial Lemmings, Marching Towards the Cliff

The reality for humanity is quite stark. Unless, like Picasso, we are able to relearn to ‘paint’ like children, we won’t start re-asking those essential, grand questions. Our entire political and economic institutions and structures do not, and are not, designed to serve the interests of people or planet. Political choice in the UK, US and elsewhere is consigned to a few parties who represent the same (or carbon copies of the same), vested interest groups. The interested parties – corporations, financial institutions, private concentrated wealth and power, have the same, legally binding goal – the attainment of short term profit maximisation Über Alles. The consequence and manifestations of this being the environmentally catastrophic plummeting of the Earth’s natural resources, the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons, never ending cycles of rapacious violence and state sponsored terror enacted upon the third world for the attainment and solidifying of geostrategic goals veiled behind noble sounding pretexts like, ‘fighting terrorism’, ‘humanitarian intervention’ and ‘spreading democracy’, the corrosion of even the most threadbare democratic illusions, crippling austerity inflicted upon the poorest in societies globally, ever widening economic inequality, support for brutal regimes and known human rights abusers (including the apartheid state of Israel), extra-judicial murder by drone, and a compliant, complicit corporate and state media that impose sharp limits on the boundaries of what passes for acceptable mainstream discourse.

Asking those grand questions – let alone answering them, has never been more important. How, then, can we start asking those big questions about the world when we’ve been so well conditioned to do exactly the opposite? And how are we mere mortals supposed to do this, when even the most creative, innovative minds in history battled and struggled so hard to do the same? What chance do we possibly have, then? Musician, composer and producer Brian Eno, along with artist Peter Schmidt, may have stumbled upon something close to an answer.

The pair devised and published a set of cards called Oblique Strategies in the 1970’s. Each card offers it’s reader a different aphorism designed to help break through creative blocks by promoting and encouraging lateral thinking. Examples of these aphorisms can be found here. By thinking laterally about problems, issues, tasks etc… we can begin to break current or prevailing thought patterns (Routine), as well as broaden the search for new, creative and fresh ideas, helping us look beyond basic, adult-constrained Function.

It is, therefore, possible to free ourselves from the indoctrinal constraints that shoehorn and ‘refine’ our natural, childhood curiosity and creativity into passive acceptance of the status quo through routine and functionality in adulthood. Moreover, the encouragement of lateral thinking in children, could – and most probably should – be at the very core of our education systems.

If our children are encouraged to ask the big, grand and often difficult questions, to think laterally on the issues and messes that we will inevitably leave for them to clean up, there may just be time for them to stumble across the solutions, too.

So next time someone – especially a child – asks one of those annoying, impossibly big questions, maybe we should consider learning the answer ourselves. The future of the species may just depend on it.