On the privatisation of public services: An objection on principle

Leave a comment

Amidst all the excitement surrounding the recent privatisation of the Royal Mail, the delivery of public services has been on my mind*. It’s long given me a sense of unease watching the current government increasingly privatise our public services, and up until now I’ve been unable to put my finger on why. I’ve begun to realise that it’s essentially the contrasting bottom lines upon which private and public these sectors operate that troubles me.

Fundamentally the bottom line for private business is profit maximisation, rather than provision of quality services. To some extent the two go hand in hand, but it is crucial to acknowledge this motive for profit, because it prompts decision-making all the way down. Public services should be, as the name suggests, a service for the public, not a service provided to maximise private profit. Don’t blame the people at the top of corporates for making decisions with profit at heart, blame the legal business model (company limited by share) which means they are legally obliged to maximise shareholder profit. They’re just doing what they must.

You can see the problem in other public services e.g. provision of healthcare. There is no money in prevention, and from a business point of view prevention makes no sense – if successful enough you put yourself out of business. In contrast, there is a lot of money in pharmaceuticals though – a point made by a healthcare professional in a seminar I went to recently. In order for these pharmaceutical companies to survive they need to sell more drugs, it would be bad business if they prevented health problems from arising in the first place as they would soon find themselves out of business. There’s a real tension there between what is good for people and what is good for business.

A justification for privatising services is that competition drives up quality, and so the market naturally filters out all but the best services. There is truth in this, but it is a blinkered perspective. The market also favours companies with the best advertising, who are the best at making people feel inadequate without their product/service. The market favours companies manufacturing products with a short lifespan, so that people have to keep replacing their products every year irrespective of whether they are actually still adequate for the job (iPhone 11 anyone?). The market favours companies who use whatever methods they can get away with to maximise their shareholder profit, including exploitation and tax evasion. The market is not a barometer of what is in the best interests of the public, and a blunt tool when it comes to ethics in decision-making.

There is also the question of ownership to consider. Public services remain in the hands, in theory at least, of citizens. How do we feel about the Government of Singapore being one of the biggest shareholders in the Royal Mail?

Of course, I am in danger of taking a blinkered anti-business view myself. The private sector is less susceptible to the political infighting and jostling that can so harm public services. And it does open it up to competition, which drives up innovation and efficiency. Without this the quality of service can stagnate. Another advantage of using business to provide service for the public, is that if it is an effective service then it stands a good chance of making profit, and thereby growing as Michael Porter points out in this talk, and CSR is gradually becoming a much more fundamental part of how we do business. It is also important to acknowledge that government is responsible for regulating industries too, although it is debatable where the power of balance really lies here.

Public services have weaknesses too. They can end up as government cash cows, as occurred with our eastern rail services. The government, like business, is concerned with its economic turnover and operates each year with a budget deficit. The loans they attain from banks to make up this deficit grow in interest every year, increasing the pressure and forcing them to compromise around their implementation of public services.

In my view, social enterprise could have a crucial role to play here in the future in terms of providing a better balance of service. Community Interest Companies are worth keeping an eye on, as they balance public interest against economic goals. However, the social enterprise sector is not yet generally big enough to take on large public service contracts. B Corporations are also opening up the opportunities for business to serve the public.

Public sector, social enterprise and charity all have their flaws, but to me all are preferable models when it comes to delivering services for society compared to for profit business, simply because of the bottom line. So my objection is a philosophical one. Public services at least are somewhat democratic, and if the public are not happy they put pressure on government to improve. Charities will likely die out unless they are having a significant and demonstrable social impact now, likewise social enterprise. However business, at the moment at least, has one bottom line – maximise shareholder profit. In my view, that’s not a good enough motive from which to create a service for the public.

*This article has a good debate on the pros and cons of privatisation: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/debate/royal-mail-privatisation-the-pros-and-cons-8814217.html

Floundering Intelligently

1 Comment

So it’s been a fair old time since I last wrote anything. Amongst other things, this blog will hopefully go some way towards explaining why.

Last week I had the opportunity to go to a terrific event called the Festival of Education at Wellington College. The most memorable session for me was run by an education innovator called Guy Claxton. Everything about the talk resonated with me, most of all his vision and work on progressing towards a 21st century education system – one that exists to prepare young people for the working world. He was talking about the role of teachers in schools, particularly in relation to the value held in education that it is all about being right, rather than experimenting, potentially being wrong and learning from that. He rightly pointed out that in the adult world we are often confronted with situations in which there is no clear right or wrong, and in which we don’t have a bloody clue what we’re doing. He remarked that schools should be safe spaces for teachers and students both to work through unknown, complex situations where we don’t know what is right – safe spaces to flounder intelligently.

That phrase ‘flounder intelligently’ struck a chord with me, and has rattled around my head since. To be honest, I’ve been floundering ever since the beginning of 2013. The title of the blog is somewhat ironic because although at times I’ve felt very much as though I am learning and progressing, at other times the floundering has not felt intelligent in any way, shape or form. It’s just been floundering.

What I haven’t done, is be particularly open about it. I’m writing now partly because it’s cathartic, partly because I feel the learning is important, and partly because I don’t feel we as a society are anywhere near open enough about our struggles in life – in education or as adults. Be the change you want to see and all that – smart man that Ghandi fellow. I have some inspiring friends who have been transparent about difficulties they are having (much more significant than mine), and I thought I’d follow their lead.

2013 was the first year I didn’t set goals at the beginning of. My single intention was to carry on in the direction I was headed in, which was exactly where I wanted to go. The first six months in Sydney were mind-boggingly amazing and my life was just where I wanted it to be. No more than a week in to 2013, this all started to change. A combination of internal and external changes completely caught me off guard and de-railed me.

I was dependent on the university I was working at for both my visa and living wage going forward, and that went from looking likely to very uncertain and at the least not being available for a while. Significantly, I was aware that had I been in the UK where I’m a citizen then it wouldn’t have been an issue. A lot of promising work leads then started to fall through, almost comically so in some instances. In addition to this were two very unexpected changes in me; a strong desire to lay down roots and no longer be travelling from place to place, and a loss of motivation towards most of my current work. I realised that I wanted to move back to the UK and settle in London, and that I wanted to move away from mental health work towards environment/sustainability – a field I had no experience in.

So I find myself back in Swindon (which remains as dull as ever) living with my parents and struggling away to find paying work in London. To an extent, the novelty of being back in the country with so many of my friends and my family is still strong and it’s wonderful to now know that I want to stay here indefinitely. On the other hand, I’m still quite uncertain as to the work direction I want to go in and am finding it far more difficult to create work opportunities than at any point over the last few years. A lot of things fell in to place for me from my final year at university onwards – I thought I was very much in control of where my life was headed, turns out it was more that I was very lucky; a tough realisation to absorb.

It’s what’s been going on inside though that’s been really testing. My ideas, motivation, sense of purpose, intuition…things I had held very dear and had in riches in Australia all began to fade. I had come to rely increasingly on intuition over the years as my compass and it became stronger and stronger, but then at the turn of the year it went silent and would only pop up in glimpses. It’s still fairly quiet. I went from feeling like I was on a clear course and thriving to the absolute opposite. I had become increasingly calm and balanced (a few friends in Australia joked about me being ‘zen’), but this changed too – I grew easily rattled and cycled through feeling lost, confused, desperate and useless.

That last word was probably the toughest to acknowledge. It was very frustrating feeling like I was not of much use to anyone, especially compared to Australia where I held a number of leadership roles, I could influence change, was giving talks, and had connections. It has made me reflect on how special that time in Aus was. How lucky I was.

And I realised how very little I actually know! My goodness. That’s been humbling. One of the most profound realisations I think we can have is just how remarkably little we actually know. I know next to nothing about the world and how to change it. But I do now know that I have huge amounts of learning to do.

I don’t think you can overstate the importance of acceptance – especially of that which we find hard. I should have been more open earlier, as I’m writing this now from a space where I’m starting to find clarity and move through it. I’m not sure whether it’s healthy to flounder, but it is what it is and I can’t deny that’s what I’ve been doing. We shouldn’t pretend to know all the answers or get caught up in the illusion that we are in control – life and people are unpredictable. But if we’re going to flounder – do it intelligently, reflect on the lessons, speak to others. So for now, I’m going to flounder a little more…

The limits of human understanding

2 Comments

One of my favourite modules during my Neuroscience studies had almost nothing to do with the actual practice of science. This fact seemed to confuse some of the academics as to why it then existed, and I would identify this confusion as the mean reason it ended up with such a bizarre and inappropriate name of ‘Biology in Society’. In essence, it was about the development of science (not just biology) through the ages, beginning with the ancient Greek philosophers.

A couple of learnings I took from this module were that our methods of understanding the universe have evolved enormously through the centuries, and also that as of the 18th century science really began to take over from religion as the de facto way of explaining just about everything.

I believe science to be of huge value but also grossly imperfect. My thinking behind this is not so much to do with science as a method, but the exponents of it… i.e. us.

The human brain has evolved a certain way over many, many years. As a result, it has given us an understanding of the universe that far exceeds any other species we share the planet with (to the best of our knowledge anyway, we have no proof that snails can’t explain the creation of the universe). We can perceive, and explain much. However, we only have so much space in the brain and so many neural connections that can be made. Evolution has sacrificed certain abilities along the way, to enable others to flourish. The parts of our brain dedicated to sensory input are vastly inferior to many other animals. The eyesight of a bird makes us look blind in comparison; it can see farther, processes motion in a way we don’t, and can even see different light spectrums that are invisible to us. There are things in the world we simply can’t perceive because our brains are not wired that way (although the tools we create can compensate in some cases). You can find examples for hearing, touch, taste, smell…

But we’ve evolved differently. Our frontal lobe is enormous compared with most of the animal kingdom (apes aside). This has given us some unique abilities and advantages. But it does not make us perfect.

The universe is deeply complex. We are simply a product of evolution. Why do we think that evolution has given us the ability to understand and explain everything? We already know that there are many things our senses can not perceive…but what else is there that we do not yet know about? Are we so special, that it just so happens that the evolution of our brains allows us to understand everything about how the universe works? Oddly, that seems to be the expectation. On the whole, as a species, we see ourselves as some master race. We’re not; we’re just different to the others. And oddly, of all the species on the planet, we seem least able to exist in harmony with our environment.

There are many fundamental concepts we have been unable to explain. The way forces act on the universe (hence the creation of the as yet unproven forces of dark matter, dark energy and dark flow). Theories that there are four , five or even six dimensions. That other universes may exist around us.

Human thinking is somewhat binary in that there either is something, or there is not. Such thinking bumps in to obstacles. Although we have theories now around the big bang, they mostly seem to posit that a couple of random particles bumped in to one another. But where did they come from? How was there space around them in the first place? Somehow, there was once nothing and then there was the universe. Try and get your head around that. How did absolutely nothing at all turn in to something? That makes no sense. And how is that once nothing existed at all? Or perhaps the universe is timeless, it has always been here. But again that doesn’t seem to fit our way of thinking…how can we analyse that? Stick that in to our formula? Our brains don’t handle the concept of infinity especially well.

A similar example is the size and shape of the universe. There must be an edge right? Whatever shape it is, again this requires that there be something (the universe) and then…what? Nothing again? What is outside of the universe? And like with respect to time, perhaps the dimension of space is also infinite. So yet again, we bump against a concept – infinity – that we struggle to comprehend.

It might just be possible that in between nothing and something is a concept that we aren’t capable of understanding. That for all that our brains can do as a result of evolution, they can’t quite figure this one out. We can’t explain everything that is going on around us in the universe, because we have limitations. The universe did not develop specifically to fit in to the paradigms of understanding of just one its countless species.

And let’s think about this for a moment…thanks to evolution we have learned to better understand the world around us. This has been an adaptive mechanism that through developments such as medicine and technology enables us to thrive as a species like none other. Our understanding of our planet is phenomenal. However, why would it be adaptive in evolutionary terms for us to understand the universe? Up until midway through the last century we had never even left our own planet. In a fierce and competitive environment in which every little bit of space in our brains has evolved to give us an adaptive advantage, why would space be wasted trying to understand concepts like the beginning of the universe which have little to no impact on our ability to survive on Earth? Take the example of infinity – the Earth is finite and full of finite limits. Understanding infinity would not help us much here.

Of course, this does beg the obvious question of why we would even try to do so, and I’m afraid I have no answer to this.

We do a mighty impressive job, but I don’t believe everything in the universe fits within our limited way of understanding and explaining things. Heck, we don’t even understand our own motives most of the time.

Time to re-think our values?

Leave a comment

Over the last few years I have watched enormous resources (human, financial, material) thrown at various social and environmental issues. Organisations coordinating the programs all report back with tremendous positivity about the impact they are having. And yet…at a holistic level we don’t seem to be getting anywhere. I recall working on a project attempting to tackle homelessness, and we were told by the experts that homelessness has actually increased, quite remarkably, in parallel with the resources invested in tackling it. Have we really made such great progress in areas like health, education, economy, environment, poverty? There have been many leaps forward (we have met some of the Millennium Development Goals already), and yet personally I do not feel that we are making particularly impressive progress given the resource investment. Perhaps we are tackling the symptoms, and not the cause.

 

I believe to understand where all of humanity’s problems come from we must first accept a most uncomfortable truth:

 

We are the cause of every single one of them.

 

I have learned from my experience of depression as well as my time in social enterprise that we must first accept a problem in its entirety before we attempt to tackle it. Taking responsibility is perhaps also an important step, given how inclined we seem to be individually and collectively to absolve blame and point the finger elsewhere. By taking responsibility for a problem, we can then take responsibility for tackling it.

 

I am not telling you of course to take responsibility yourself for the entire 2 billion people living in poverty. A problem of such scale is not the fault of one individual, or even one nation, but the fault of billions of individuals collectively. Whether you like it or not, you have had a role to play though, as have the people you see around you. By buying materials and produce made by those living in poverty at such a reduced rate you are contributing. We buy from corporations whose greed-driven purpose is to maximise profit, by nature then exploiting those who have so little. On a systems level we are all players in the game of capitalism, which polarises wealth.

 

I see the fault for many problems we face lying within our cultural values. Here are some of the values that define mainstream society today:

Greed

Throwaway culture

Short-term interests maximised at long-term cost

Break down of close-knit communities

Quantity over quality

Demand for constant growth

Consumerism

Lack of respect for environment we wholly rely on

 

Unfortunately many of these values have spread from the ‘dominant’ west which much of the rest of the world aspires to imitate. The west looks impressive on the surface with its big shiny buildings, fancy technology and 2 cars per household, but that conceals the rotten core beneath. Record levels of obesity, stress and mental illness are hardly symbols to me of a flourishing civilization. I can think of few who feel particularly satisfied or purposeful in how they are living their lives. And all this for a lifestyle which is, quite simply, unsustainable.

 

The car crash of our misplaced values is playing out in slow motion, right before our eyes, as our economy wobbles with little sign of recovery, the climate inches ever closer to dangerous levels of warming, and ever more of us find ourselves fighting over ever fewer resources on this planet.

 

Such a state of things has been caused by contemporary approaches and contemporary values. To chart a more sustainable and prosperous course for ourselves going forward requires a new approach. It requires new values.

Changemaking: A flaw and an opportunity to do good better

2 Comments

This recent article from Nesta sheds light on a worrying observation for those working to create social or environmental change. Despite the consistent increase in resources (human, financial, tech) invested in social and environmental issues, the underlying trends that we are trying to reverse continue to worsen. The article ends by asking whether we are willing to ‘abandon Business-As-Usual approaches’ and embrace new approaches to social innovation. In attempting to ‘do good’, ethics dictates that we must be critically assess our approaches, and aim to invest resources in the most effective manner possible.

I’ve observed a clear and worrying trend during the time I’ve split between Australia and the UK. It’s certainly not the root of the issues outlined above, but it is a clear opportunity. It is as follows:

The concept of being an agent of positive change, of ‘changemaking’ has become far too synonymous with social entrepreneurship. I see this as a fundamental flaw in our approach to generating change, and with that an excellent opportunity to do things better. I will explain.

I define ‘changemaking’ as the act of generating social or environmental change with the aim of improving upon current circumstances. Or more simply if you like, trying to make the world better. There are clearly a great many techniques one could use for achieving this, but one approach has taken on an excessive and unjustified prominence; social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship is the act of building a new organisation with a social or environmental purpose. I have nothing against social entrepreneurs and would apply that label to myself – I have  founded two organisations myself and have had a significant hand in the establishment of two others. The title of this blog is a bit of a giveaway. I would, however, suggest that this makes me well-placed to critique.

In Australia I searched for programs that develop my ability as a changemaker. Overwhelmingly, they support or prioritise social entrepreneurs; The Foundation for Young Australians’ Young Social Pioneers program, Centre for Sustainable Leadership program and of course the School for Social Entrepreneurs. When I was invited to attend the Foundation for Young Australians’ ‘Young and Extraordinary’ event, most of the delegates were attempting to start their own initiatives. Likewise as I have searched further afield for leadership development programs or networks, it is rare to find one that doesn’t expect you to be working with an organisation that you have founded. In other words, they expect you to be a social entrepreneur.

This learning towards social entrepreneurship is not just evident in the programs that cater for them, but also in how we praise them. Founding an initiative is seen as a stamp of approval, and to some extent I felt as though I wouldn’t be perceived as credible within the changemaking community unless I did so. In Australia, many of the winners of the ‘Young Australian of the Year’ awards had founded their current organisations. Social entrepreneurship is seen as sexy and we place these people on a pedestal.

And yet…social entrepreneurship is just one piece of the complex puzzle that is changemaking. It has its place yes, but setting up a new organisation is hardly the solution to every problem we encounter. In fact, I feel it irresponsible to assume that it is, given the resources we then expect people to put in to it, and given that every positive step will have some negative side effects. There are only so many resources to go around, so splitting them between ten organisations (there are over 50 breast cancer charities in Australia) with identical missions is hardly ethical or efficient. A little competition is healthy and valuable yes, but it has gone to to absurd levels. We must weigh up our options carefully if we are serious about generating positive change, and there are other approaches we can use. Perhaps this particular social or environmental problem needs more public awareness. Perhaps it needs corporate resourcing. Perhaps it needs a different systemic approach from government. Perhaps what it definitely doesn’t need is a new organisation launched to tackle it.

So what about intrapreneurship – generating powerful change from within an organisation that already has resources waiting to be put to use? There’s collective impact, which recognises that real change is only possible when corporates, governments and nonprofits are all sat around the table. And what about politics? Whether we like it or not, government and politicians run the country (along with banks and heavyweight corporates, depending on what you read). What about campaigning and rallying people around certain issues that matter – empowering social movements? Or how about producing and publishing research that moves our understanding forward? There are other subtle ways too, like speaking or writing where we can reach many people and have a positive impact. These are the different techniques I speak of.

I’ve had to search out these other areas myself. There is no School for Social Intrapreneurs. No course for people who want to make a positive difference through politics (and my goodness could we do with one). I’ve learned about collective impact by searching out organisations who have this at their core and getting involved. I’m learning now about politics by chasing up and spending time with my local Councillors and MP. There are two barriers here:

1) We do not encourage changemakers to explore these areas.

2) We do not have the programs to cater to these interests.

These issues I feel are especially poignant for young changemakers entering the space with good intentions and uncertainty around how to channel them. Currently, they will get pushed towards social entrepreneurship as a default, which I firmly believe to be a mistake.

Ok, so I’ve mostly covered the flaws. What’s the opportunity? The opportunity of course is to channel the tremendous energy, skills and good will of people to make things better in a much more effective way. I have some suggestions for how, but I would turn to people with more experience in changemaking to critique these and generate their own. So in the context of the two issues I highlighted above…

Encouraging changemakers to explore other means of generating change

I’d like to see individuals who are using these other techniques to generate change celebrated more and given a higher profile. Intrapreneurs, those working in government, campaigners, speakers. Leaders in change who are not just social entrepreneurs. I’d like to see these other techniques given more attention at changemaking events. I’d like to see programs and organisations that cultivate changemaking build in to their program at an early stage a lot more learning and information about these techniques. To critically ask; ‘is setting up a new organisation really the best and most responsible way to tackle this issue?’

Catering to other means of generating change

Here I’d love to see existing programs for changemakers start to build in these other techniques. To give those on the program a flavour for collective impact, for politics, for intrapreneurship. In time, to see programs in place that specialise in these other techniques, just as there are so many excellent programs now that specialise in social entrepreneurship.

If we are serious about generating change in a more efficient and effective manner, then we need to move away from our flawed obsession with social entrepreneurship and take advantage of this great opportunity to do things better.

A school from the future

2 Comments

In my last blog I went to town on the current system of education and questioned what a better, more modern one would look like. Just a couple of weeks before leaving Australia my call was answered, as by good fortune a friend told me the Northern Beaches Christian School and its education innovation centre; the Sydney Centre for Innovation in Learning. I jumped on their free tour today and checked it out.

It’s very, very impressive. The ‘learning spaces’ (not ‘classrooms’) are open and bright – one of the first things they did was knock the walls down between rooms to remove that closed feeling that I remember the rooms had when I was at school. Classes are allowed to mix with one another, and even with different age groups. They use the phrase ‘guide on the side rather than sage on the stage’ to describe their teaching paradigm. The learning is student-directed, with the teachers moving around and helping students along. For the most part, the students get on with it using their own initiative. A lot of the learning is focussed around real-world scenarios and collaboration. There is not such a feeling of competition as typically emanates from educational institutions. Students bring their own computers in to school and do a lot of the work from there, with an e-learning platform providing the template for their lessons.

As they bring in more innovation and non-traditional methods the student performance on standardised government assessment has improved. The numbers of negative behavioural incidents has dropped by 80% from the time they began adopting a different pedagogy. Their graduates adapt well to university, because they are more accustomed to self-direction and adopting their own learning structure. The skills they prioritise are ‘soft’ skills – those such as communication, self-management and problem-solving that will prove valuable no matter how much the world around us continues to change.

Those are the details. But it was the feel of the place that stays with you.

You could tell how engaged the students were. 9 and 10 year olds without a teacher supervising them and getting on with their exercises – and clearly enjoying it. You could tell that it was a place students were happy to be, rather than waiting until they could go home. No bells. No students being disciplined. The kids were quite confident chatting to the adults walking around and answering their questions. Trust was placed in the kids to learn as was best for them. It was student-centred; not teacher-centred.

I’d like to go again – 2 hours is barely a glimpse.

It’s obviously not as straightforward as picking up this system and replicating it elsewhere. A school is so complex, with dozens of staff and 100s of students you have enormous interaction and so many layers of processes taking place. Having not worked in a school myself (next step..?) it’s hard to understand all of that. They are also open that they do not currently have a ‘model’. It’s more of a series of continuous innovations. In fact, they suggest it works well because they are continuing to move forward. Not everything works, and you need good responsible staff in charge of such innovation because these are the children’s lives you’re experimenting with here.

What struck me when I was reflecting afterwards, is that of all the non-traditional schools I’ve looked at, there are some startling similarities in the themes that emerge. Student-centred. Teacher as a guide. Open spaces. Real-world skills and learning applications. Collaboration. Fostering many forms of intelligence, not just academic. It is surely no coincidence that educators have questioned the current system and looked to innovate have come to such similar conclusions as to what must change.

If schools such as this were to become the template, rather than the current traditional, industrial model of education, the paradigm shift would be astronomically complex. SCIL say that the transition from traditional to non-traditional is one of the toughest things and you inevitably see resistance when the status quo is changed. It’s not just a model for the school you need, but a model for the transition. Do you transition existing institutions? Or start new ones and let the old ones die out? And for public education (North Beaches Christian School is a private school), you need a massive change in policy around the way education is administered. That requires senior government figures with vision willing to put their necks on the line for something that will radically change the status quo and that people will resist. It requires long-term evidence-based models to compare with the outdated ones.

It’s not easy, but in my mind there’s no doubt it needs to happen. As Ken Robinson says, we are failing to make use of our most valuable resource – human potential. The role of public education in this is massive.

If you’re interested in other models of learning, Ken Robinson’s ‘Out of Our Minds’ is well worth a read. I also strongly recommend watching this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByO41gE3dPQ

 

I’m slowly compiling a list of the great examples I come across…

Let’s talk about the future

5 Comments

Futures

 

 

Well, I must begin by wishing you a Happy New Year. I hope it was a refreshing Christmas break, and the first month or so of 2013 has treated you well (and some of those resolutions still remain intact).

 

I have been writing, but not blogging. I have also been thinking. In fact, thinking rather a lot. Again, I am pleasantly reminded of how time and space away from our busy lives enables understanding of life, the universe and everything to come to the surface.

 

So a few things happened whilst I was away travelling around Australia with my parents, and the end result of this is that my direction going in to 2013 is rather different to that which I had originally pictured.

 

In the work I’ve been doing over the last few years, I’ve come across a lot of noble individuals tackling social or environmental issues around the world. Something that is preached across this space, is the need to understand the problem thoroughly before trying to make things better.

 

The thing driving me over the last few years has simply been to try to make the world a little bit better for the people living in it, and that’s generally taken on the form of mental health. But now I experience a desire to understand the world better before I continue trying to contribute to it in a positive way, as mental health feels like a less dominant theme in my life. Whereas last year was largely spent ‘doing’ and busying myself, recently I am more drawn to reading, talking with people and generally learning, or ‘being’. Unfortunately, it’s more straightforward to earn money for doing things, rather than just ‘being’ and learning stuff, so I’m still working this one out.

 

And the problem I need to learn about is the future.

 

What has become apparent to me is that we are facing some monumental challenges in the 21st century. A few things have never sat well with me – a global economic system predicated on exponential growth and debt, exponentially growing nonrenewable resource consumption (resources that are running out), exponential energy use and as yet no global strategy in place to transition over to a world in which we use renewable, clean energy.

 

I read a book whilst travelling in Australia called The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future, which neatly presented data from economy, energy and environment and tied it all together. I’m not going to make any bold predictions here about what’s coming next, only to say that there will be great changes ahead. A way of life which has depended on exponentially growing consumption of nonrenewable resources is simply not sustainable, no matter how you spin it (and there are some very clever ways of spinning it). We face potential shortages in food and water (http://www.earth-policy.org/book_bytes/2013/fpepch1), along with the threat of climate change, to name just a few.

 

These are some considerable challenges facing us. I, for one, am not comfortable sitting around and hoping that it just all works out and that life will continue along as usual. That the decision-makers in power will get us out of this mess, when they got us in to in the first place. I’d like to play some role in the sustainability of our future, and I believe that we all can in one way or another, even if I haven’t figured out what that is yet.

 

It’s tough stuff to come to terms with, as it doesn’t paint the kind of picture we’d like. It’s heavy and depressing. The last month or so my mind has gone through various stages of trying to reject this information, only to then see how clearly it makes sense. I’ve seen it in others I’ve introduced some of this too as well – they know there are some big warning signs, but at the same time they’ve had a desire to turn away from it all and ignore it. It doesn’t help that the crux of the counter-argument comes down to two main themes of ‘human ingenuity will save us’ (human ingenuity got us here in the first place) and ‘technology’ (why aren’t we making use of it?).

 

Since then I’ve been on an information-gathering journey that has touched on the issues I’ve already mentioned, future studies and evolutionary psychology. I’ve been noticing patterns in human behaviour throughout history and looking out for trends that may suggest where we’re headed in the future, as well as trying to understand where we actually are at the moment. If that sounds less interesting to you than the previous topics I’ve been writing about then I do apologise, as the next few entries will mainly be about this kind of stuff.

 

On we go…

 

 

 

For those interested in these global challenges I’ve (painfully briefly) mentioned and what they may mean for the future, I recommend checking out the following for starters. If you’re convinced that everything is just going to carry on as it always has done and that these economic and environmental issues are nothing to be concerned about, then I really really recommend taking a look at the following:

 

Video version of the ‘Crash Course’: http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse

 

Money as Debt video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8

 

Jared Diamond’s TED talk on the collapse of civilizations: http://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse.html

Older Entries