Wakey wakey...

I have been missing for the past couple of months; redesigning the website to greater reflect our remit and activities, and communicating this to our contacts is my excuse. But now we are back.

I have struggled to come up with a suitable topic for this first, or should I say return, newsletter. Should I talk about alternative energy development? Or maybe I could touch on the global consolidation of the food industry? Or I could look at why sincere alternative development may prove "undemocratic" for your everyday voting immortal (email me, I’ll explain…)?

I couldn’t decide so I’ll write about something that affects all of these subjects: thinking. Don’t worry – I am not about to indulge in an in-depth analysis of what makes us (humans) tick. On the contrary, all I’ll aim to do is suggest why at present we think as we do and how this is reflected in our actions.

I can’t say that thinking is what differentiates humans from other animals – because I don’t know what other animals think. Nor do you. I suppose for many it is a question of faith; that humans are "supernatural" beings made in the likeness of a higher being – that drives some to assume thought, or even the abstract notion of conscience, separates us from the rest of species. But without knowing this for sure none can say it is the truth. So for all humans who subscribe to the thought that thinking separates us from the rest, the truth is that one can only, excuse me, hope and pray this is so. This allows many of us not to think about living, thus saving us the anxiety of doubt or explanation - a kind of consolation from reality. It also enables the illusion of purpose, and thus another consolation, if you will, for the lives we may lead. The power of such mystic faiths and consolations to influence our actions is vast. Prevailing ideological doctrines are based on such faiths – and the illusions of reality, the consolations for our purpose, are used to shield the wielders of this power from the reality of their actions. Derivative notions stemming from such ideologies include the concepts of morality and ethics – and the humanist values attached to these. It is said we have these because we are conscious; because we are human, different, we can chose between right and wrong, we are aware of ourselves. These may constitute controls. Ironically such controls are devoid of meaning when viewed in practice by the very ideologies that demand them. Often to the point of extinction of fellow man - ethics, morality and subsequent values have gone hand in hand with war, slaughter and destruction to satisfy mans’ need for recognition of his exceptionality. Are these actions the products of rationale thinking? Or could they be better described as faith based ideological conceits on the meaning of life – or even something more primitive? Let us ponder the "progressive" roots of Stalinism, Nazism or Apartheid using this critique; at once they appear deluded humanist and faith-based attempts towards efficiency and human betterment. Are there similarities in the "thinking" of today’s capitalist democratic ideologies demanding free markets and generic democratic social assimilation into a "globalised" congregation for human betterment – under the delusion that this is moral, just and the truth? The methodology has changed but the thinking remains.

The thinking remains the same. However, while ideologies and doctrine can span generations, the human condition remains individualistic and thus short term. Hence the relatively short term nature of new methodology, and the constantly flawed consequences of its application. We are human, live for at most one hundred years, and will no doubt witness at least two new manifestations of human betterment methodology or doctrine in our lifetimes. In the future this may increase as science and technology increase our knowledge. While greater knowledge provides us new skills and solutions to some of the concerns of the day its development and applications remain dependant on both fashionable doctrine and short-term individualistic human desires. For example, proponents of GM crops tout the technology as the solution to a mixture of human problems. Supposedly the application of GM technology will break the circle of poverty blamed for the 800 million or so people starving tonight. For its academic proponents, the equation is simple; knowledge and the application of this knowledge equal progress – in this case feeding the hungry. While the knowledge and innovation behind such technology is a definitive product of human inquisitiveness, and also a truly amazing feat of our times, the knowledge is primarily the product of the ideological doctrine of the times. In fact, It is not the processes and techniques that are the technology. The technology is the scientists; educated and geared to prove the worthiness of the faith based ideologies that created them. The technology is in the control of the boundaries of human imagination and perception – to predefine our appreciations of abstract concepts of progress or choice or even freedom. The GM food issue reveals beautifully how the doctrine of the day, and its technology, works. The prevailing doctrine of power is that classified as capitalist democratic; here, the faith is that the world can be a better place through the blurring of the lines between democracy and capitalism. So through a political system of supposed parity of the people, progress is championed by the pursuit of individual profit and gain via financial economic systems of resource allocation. Could the starving people of today and the future be fed without the introduction of GM food? The answer is clearly no; not while resource allocation and power is skewed to this doctrine – while people accept this thinking as the truth. GM crop introduction is a "morally" and "ethically" just objective of poverty/hunger alleviation that qualifies the human cause of progress, always achieved while maintaining the individualistic short-term objectives of the powers behind the promotion of this particular methodology. Are there alternatives to this? The answer is clearly yes. Ultimately the assumed need for GM crops is only a consequence of the doctrine of the day, pioneering scientists are at present merely a technology of this doctrine and the poor are in this case its product, yet also by design its ticket to justification; maybe even a promise of some kind of distant salvation.

The thinking remains the same. But thinking has, can and will change. Of course the question is when, how and why. Distraction and suggestion guide the rich through today’s times, while necessity and scarcity guide the poor. This may change – culminating in a redundancy of today’s doctrine and the search for some new expectation for the future. However, as times have shown, knowledge and expectation are not always important, as it is inevitably the thinking that predicates the actions and results. For now, maybe we should forget about thinking outside the box- and try looking inside it.

AC 2003