Category Archives: Politics & Society

Are we too future oriented or not enough?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Watch the video above. It presents an interesting view on why certain cultures exist, and why the pace of life varies from place to place. But if it’s right, and you can group people into past, present and future-oriented groups, then it means that we can change a great deal by making people more or less future oriented.

The video implies that future-oriented people are likely to increase economic growth more than those who live in the present. Does this then mean that we should make people more future oriented? Or should we instead realise that future orientation is causing people to say “I sacrifice friends, family and sleep for my success”? Should we encourage more future orientation or less?

A Death Knell for Utopia

Posted on by One comment

Utopian visions have caught the imagination of some of the greatest minds in history, and formed a theme that has been echoed in historic libraries around the world. We have Plato’s Republic, Thomas More’s Utopia, an unparalleled publishing of nearly 100 utopian fantasies between 1875 and 1905, and more recently the publishing of Fukuyama’s ‘The End of History and the Last Man’, in which he says that the future will simply be managing past ideas. Most now agree that ‘the end of history’ reflected no more than a mood at the time. In fact it’s no coincidence that each utopian vision is eventually discredited. A state of universal perfection is a backward concept. It belongs with the absolutes of Newtonian physics; not with society past the teachings of Einstein. What’s perfect to one person is an abomination to another. And what is perfect to someone at age 40 may be an abomination to that same person aged 50.

So in fact there is no such thing as a true Utopia. However there are such things as ideals, and as such the closest we will ever get to utopia is a state of constant reform, adaptation and evolution.

Do you agree? Is the mood today one that will result in a death knell for the continued publishing of utopian visions?

Can we trust people?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Statistically speaking the extent to which we’re able to trust others reflects on our ideological leanings. So the answer to this question may say more about your politics than anything else. But a new study suggests that our modern pre-disposition to trust strangers may result from a change in social norms e.g. urbanisation and increased market behaviour i.e. increased dealings with other people.

The results of this new study, based on more than 2,000 participants from 15 societies across the globe, show that “fair” behaviour during a bargaining game increases the more a society has incorporated market exchange and world religions.

But all this doesn’t say whether or not we should trust strangers, and to what extent, and in which circumstances. So, in your opinion, are humans intrinsically trustworthy or not?

Is America shifting towards the left?

Posted on by 2 comments

The United States defined itself during the Cold War against the USSR, and some people believe that made the US more right wing than it might otherwise have been. Obama is today accused of being a socialist, and he has provoked a right wing ‘tea party’ movement. But is his getting into power part of a wider trend, whereby in the long run we will see America more ideologically aligned with Europe?

How can we decide whether strikes are justifiable?

Posted on by 2 comments

The global recession has resulted in numerous strikes around the world. On June 30th there will be public sector strikes in the UK, and up to a million people are thought to join in. Yet there are strong voices and arguments both for and against the strikes. And that argument should most certainly be had. So what do you think? Are strikes justifiable in the midst of these cuts?

>What makes a great book?

Posted on by One comment

>I read/watched War and Peace recently (I read the first couple of books and then switched to watching the BBC series) and I have to say it really is quite brilliant. The reason I find it so brilliant is that no matter what Tolstoy is writing about he doesn’t get bored or seek to rush on to a more action packed moment. This means of course less sales. But it also means Tolstoy is able to weave a truly epic tale based not on pure fiction and exageration but on normal life. As the title suggests it deals with the lives of Russian aristocrats during the Napoleonic Wars both in peaceful times and in war. It follows a huge number of characters, and its effort to describe all aspects of life, rather than just those that sell more books, mean that he’s able to develop a wonderful character in Pierre. Pierre is a confused philosophical character, who up until reading/watching War and Peace I wasn’t sure if any book could do justice to due to the depth of character inherent in such philosophically minded people.
But pick up the book not knowing of its reputation and you’ll probably put it down through boredom or confusion with all the different names in the first couple of chapters. So what is it that makes a great book? Is it the characters? Is it the writing? Is it just the presence of something new and interesting? Is it the action? What entertains us and makes us buy new books? And how are we able to appreciate books such as War and Peace and at the same time read tabloids and books designed for children?

>The 3 Fundamentalisms Of Our Time

Posted on by Leave a comment

>When you hear the word fundamentalist what do you think of? Most people think of terrorists and Islamic Fundamentalism. But is it really that simple? Is Islamic Fundamentalism the only ‘big’ fundamentalist force in the world?

There’s a good book called ‘The Reluctant Fundamentalist’ in which the reader is led to believe (it’s all very cleverly inferred) that there is a clash of civilisations and we don’t know who’s going to win, between the Western and Eastern/Muslim civilisations. I can’t remember who said it but there’s a quote that goes something like “the whole world’s at war and only one side knows it”. I would completely agree, and here’s why:

The Cold War dominated a large section of Twentieth Century history, and was characterised by a fight between the ‘extremes’ of Communism and Capitalism. Now during the Cold War neither side embraced those ideologies completely. But after the collapse of the USSR and people like Fukuyama publishing “The End of History” people believed Capitalism had won, and was undoubtedly better. This led to a version of Utopian economics in which people like Alan Greenspan thought the market would always provide the necessary solution. These ‘radical’ Capitalists today are in my opinion one fundamentalist force, to which Islamic Fundamentalism has grown to oppose.

Note how less extreme Capitalist governments tend to be accompanied by a lessening of the call to terrorism.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree?

« Older Entries Recent Entries »