informage

The Milky Way From A Cave In Utah

Sean — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:18:58 +0100

Feels like a good time for some beauty, some perspective...

Pyramid Scheme

Sean — Thu, 31 May 2007 18:25:23 +0100

We are so conditioned (rightly) to shun pyramid schemes, that it's easy to forget we're all part of the biggest pyramid of all:

Leaving on a Jet Plane...

Sean — Mon, 21 May 2007 18:08:21 +0100

This week I fly from Cape Town back to the UK. As always, nothing is permanent, but it's a one-way ticket... next time I'm here I'll be visiting. I've been needing to snap myself out of a funk for sometime now, and a transcontinental shift might just do the trick. (I know, I know, it's really about me not where I am but it's worth a try and anyway it'll be great to spend unbounded time with family and old friends again).

It's appropriate in the week I leave this nation that has been my adopted home for the last five and a half years to point to a couple of good S'African blogs. Firstly Ian's Neverness has been subscribed in my newsreader for a while. He's a cool Capetonian who I unfortunately never engineered to meet, but I've enjoyed reading his writing on politics, free and open source software, Africanism and green stuff.

Ian posted a link to a blog called Red Star Coven, written by Walton - a S'African in Scotland. His latest post "I hate Afro-optimism" strikes a chord with me, partly because I myself have at times fallen into the trap of blind Afro-optimism in reaction to the obnoxious and racist voice of whiney pessimism that emanates from privileged whites here.

Ian's response is intelligent and impassioned, musing on the parallax of perception* between positivity and negativity, pessimism and optimism, that Walton's critique can be inverted into a positive appraisal by simple fact reversal. I spend a lot of time thinking in just this way. Great post Ian, thanks.

Having said that, I find myself tending towards Walton's perspective. I'm extremely impressed with what I've read of his blog thus far and will be reading it regularly.

* I've evidently been reading too much Zizek but to my credit I used to be in a band called Parallax, and we chose that name because like Zizek we regarded it as word with a significant and underused denotation - that where you stand shapes your point of view.

Offset Onset

Sean — Thu, 03 May 2007 21:05:00 +0100

This superb cartoon says everything I've been wanting to say about this particular trend:

Look First (Part Two)

Sean — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:28:23 +0000

In case any of us Brits though it was an American idea:

"We reserve the right to bomb niggers."

(David Lloyd George, British Prime Minister 1916-1922, from his 1932 diary as cited in V. G. Kiernan's "European Empires from Conquest to Collapse", Fontana 1982)

I thought myself beyond surprise at the more forthright utterances of our forebears, but this one floored me. Of course his use of the n-word would have elicited less disapproval at the time of writing than it does now—and referred to anyone with darker skin—but even putting the word itself aside this is a shocking declaration of the defining character of Western foreign policy towards the East and Africa, a character that continues to this day.

Balanced Perspective

Sean — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:34:58 +0000

"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. "The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. ... The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."

(from seattlepi.com, 11th Jan 2007)

Endgame?

Sean — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 07:48:00 +0100

I've been reading Derrick Jensen's remarkable book 'Endgame'. His basic premise is that civilisation is inherently unsustainable and if allowed to continue will destroy most life on our planet. I've also recently watched Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' that brought home to me the very immediate threat that we'll do this with carbon dioxide. Jensen argues that our only sane collective response to this destructiveness is to begin the task, through whatever means necessary, of dismantling our civilisation immediately. This is an extreme position, and as such the book perhaps isn't for everyone.

Bluntly put: Endgame isn't for those who believe that because environmental scientists have been wrong before in their models and predictions, they surely must also be wrong this time. It isn't for those who pick holes in the overwhelming scientific consensus wherever they see even the smallest opportunity because it challenges their faith in civilisation (climate change deniers seem more and more like creationists in their rhetoric to me every day!)

It isn't for those who think that pumping far, far more CO2 into the atmosphere than 650,000 years' ice record shows as a maximum isn't a problem, that melting glaciers all over the world aren't a problem, that already rising sea levels aren't really a problem, that falling levels of certain pollutants revealing that for fifty years we've been cooling the earth as well as warming it and now we seem to just be doing the latter isn't worth worrying about (of course we can't predict the effects of this stuff with certainty, we can't even predict the weather accurately any more than about a week out, for me that's not the point)

Moreover, the book isn't for those who think that civilisation's relentless and brutal murder of all life that stands in its path, sentient or not, is either in any way ethical or in any way not insane.

In short: Endgame won't help you become sane if you aren't some of the way there already; it's directed at those who already think that there's some extremely serious problems around, more serious than anything humanity has ever encountered, and that we need to understand why and what needs to be done to rescue the planet and its lifeforms from likely, if not certain, extinction.

If you think differently: if you are clinging resolutely to the faith that all is basically well with the world, bar some tweaks and minor adjustments, then the book will probably come across as fringe lunacy and will be of little value. As Jensen himself dryly remarks: if you don't see the problem "good luck with your career in politics or business".

On Capitalism

Sean — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:37:31 +0100

Once again I’m moved by a thoughtful critique of my posts to offer a follow-up, and once again I’m grateful for the generous time given in reading and responding to my writing - this time to Marcus. I’m going to try and address some of his points, this time just offering opinions in response. There’s a whole wealth of material out there discussing these things in more detail and with more in the way of hard evidence (see my politics links for some pointers).

shouldnt you be criticising the S African government, who from what i understand have denied HIV causes AIDS, totally failed to adress the issue, failed to buy and dsirtibute retroviral drugs, and generally swept it under the carpet? thats nothing to do with british govt.

I do indeed have deep criticisms of the ill-advised stance taken by the South African government and their abject neglect of the problem. I believe one of the underlying causes of the crazy positions they’ve taken is that the kind of state spending required to address the problem (with education, alleviation of poverty, and where necessary drugs) would be looked upon extremely poorly by the likes of the IMF and the World Bank.

My biggest criticism of the current South African government is they’ve decided to try and play the game of global capitalism and in doing so have tied their own hands in repairing the damage of colonialism and apartheid. Responsibility for this must lie both within South Africa and with the institutions of global capitalism that have effectively coerced our government with threats of withdrawn investment, even harsher loan repayment terms and reductions in aid.

You believe that global capitalism can be tweaked and improved to address the world’s problems. I do not.

What would you suggest replace capitalism?

In the sentence you quoted I specifically pointed at ‘global capitalism’ which I see as a specific recent form of capitalism that is moving (to a certain extent) away from class separation within Western nations, and towards a class separation that spans nations. If you look at those fulfilling the roles classically fulfilled by the “working class” in the UK, many of them are now either fufilled by recent immigrants, or in the further, somewhat hidden, reaches of the nation (call centres in Wales etc) or even more commonly just elsewhere in the world (the “third world sweat shop” phenomenon).

This also goes towards answering the question “who are the british oppressing now?”. It may not be as explicit as under colonialism, but the wealth of the UK is largely predicated on the favourable, and I would argue exploitative, trade relationships that were developed with the ex-colonies. That much of Africa suffers under both the legacy of colonial damage (both infrastructural and psychological), and the continuing harmful intervention of global capitalism, goes a long way towards explaining the ravages of HIV/AIDS in that continent compared with its comparatively mild impact in the West.

(Of course the UK is also complicit in the murder of tens of thousands in the middle east, although that is a somewhat different - though fundamentally linked - discussion: it is partly because economic exploitation is backed by the threat of force that the exploited nations generally accede to the demands of the West).

Is Capitalism fair? Of course not. But it works - and we all know it does.

I understand that being unfair is not in itself an indictment of capitalism. If your assertion is correct - that capitalism is the only system that works - then fairness is somewhat academic. However, I do not know this, and in fact I take serious issue with both elements of your assertion.

On the one hand, for me capitalism simply does not ‘work’. It may work for now for a privileged minority (which possibly includes a much larger proportion of the British population than in the past, but I’m thinking globally here). It is in many ways an admirable system, given that it allows essentially ‘dumb’ actors (dumb in the sense of having a worldview that extends little further than their immediate interests) to en masse enact a system of production and distribution that is at least basically functional.

However capitalism requires continual expansion and overproduction (what’s called ‘economic growth’). The rise of consumer credit is an adaptive mechanism so that growth can continue whilst the owners of capital continue to siphon large chunks of created value into profit. This is not something that can continue indefinitely. Either some catastrophe like climate change will kill us all, or we will deplete our natural resources to the point where our civilisation cannot continue in the same form. We can now in this era see very clear and scientific evidence for this assertion, more so than ever before in human history.

The oppressed masses of the world (remembering that the ‘richest and most powerful nations’ comprise a minority of the world’s population) will not suffer quietly forever. What’s called terrorism in the West is an early warning sign of the backlash that will only grow and continue unless this oppression ceases. Recognition of this is taboo for us; instead we are told “they want to destroy our way of life, it’s irrational hatred, any other opinion gives succour to the terrorists”. This is a taboo we maintain at our own peril.

Secondly capitalism is not the only system that works. Capitalism has a relatively brief role in the history of humankind; a few hundred years against hundreds of thousands of years of human existence. Every non-civilised society that we have encountered, we have destroyed. They did not destroy themselves by exceeding the carrying capacity of their surrounds, a fate we seem to be blindly speeding towards. To believe that our own system is not only the best, but the only workable system, is an amazing piece of arrogance and observer bias. It’s simply not scientific. (This isn’t meant personally by the way Marcus, you are by no means alone!)

None of this goes to fully answer the question “what would you suggest replace capitalism?”. It is far easier to defend an existing system than argue for a speculative non-existent system. I would point to countries like Venezuela and Brazil as undertaking brave experiments in alternate systems.

In truth I am suspicious of those who say they know with certainty of another system that works, is socially just and does not deplete and destroy the planet, just as I am suspicious of Marcus’s claim about capitalism.

New structures for society are created in action, through the living experimentation of open-minded and passionately motivated collectives of humans.

At the same time we must begin the task of dismantling this brutal, destructive and ultimately suicidal system that permits no competitors and tramples all alternatives. Marcus quite rightly states that “it is no coincidence that the world's richest and most powerful nations are capitalist”. On that we agree, on the conclusion drawn we differ.

Missing the Point

Sean — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 10:02:46 +0100

David Cameron will today unveil radical plans to harness the power of the internet by reaching out to a blogging generation that is disaffected and disconnected from mainstream politics.

At the heart of the initiative, which is designed to make the Tories one of the most technologically progressive parties in Europe, is "webcameron" - a website for video blogs by their leader. Mr Cameron will provide regular clips with him speaking direct to camera, as well as written blogs and podcasts.

Tories unveil their secret weapon: 'webcameron', The Guardian, September 2006

The villagers have spent the last six decades dressing up in home-made US army uniforms, drilling with bamboo rifles and parading beneath the Stars and Stripes in the hope of enticing a delivery of cargo once again.

They have even hacked air strips out of the jungle and built crude wooden aircraft to tempt the speedy return of American generosity.

Culture clash in the South Seas, BBC News, May 2004

(format of juxtaposed quotes as commentary shamelessly lifted from Billmon)

Buy More, Feel Less

Sean — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:39:00 +0100

Thanks to all who have commented thus far on my previous post, Blood Money. I deeply appreciate being read and responded to. I’d like to address in particular the points that a guy called Russ raises (thanks for taking the time Russ, and though we strongly disagree I’m happy to have got you thinking, and happy that you got me thinking further).

I’ve decided to write a follow-up post, as he raises issues that I didn’t really address. His underlying question - “what are you proposing as an alternative?” - is something that I intend to write about in more depth in the near future, although not specifically in relation to the African AIDS epidemic. Here I’ll address some of his other criticisms and questions and offer a couple more alternatives that we can all be campaigning for.

Why don’t they donate the money they are spending on promoting this card (they spend $550 million annually on marketing)?
The answer is that that would be illegal. Companies exist to make profits for their shareholders, and directors are bound to act in their best interests. They go to jail otherwise.

You won’t be surprised that I find that particular law to be a very serious problem, and particularly so for our planet’s health. A Guardian blogger called Tony Juniper has written a good post about this. (Also, I’ll add that corporate donations to charitable causes are common, and can be justified as profitable by virtue of being good PR. I’m not necessarily endorsing that, but it is an alternative).

And actually, the 1% of the card that people donate would go to their pockets anyway, so are you suggesting that they keep that and they’ll still get your custom?

They certainly don’t get my custom, but if they want to give 1% of credit card spending to charitable causes I don’t have a big problem with that. What I do particularly have a problem with is their profiteering and objectionable ad campaign, especially when they’ve yet to give anything more than what is small change for a corporation that makes several billions of dollars in annual profits.

Surely the product red campaign does 2 things. It raises awareness by creating a product that advertises the issue…

Raised awareness cuts both ways. There is already reasonably high awareness of the African AIDS epidemic in the West. This campaign serves to suggest that the problem is being solved when it is clearly not, and to create the false notion that more capitalism is the answer when I believe that precisely the opposite is the case. Take Gisele’s recent interview in the Sunday Times for a striking example: “We can all start shopping more, and feel good about it. No more guilt!”.

…and it creates a precedent for ethical consumers to force big corporations to create products with an ethical spin. In effect this creates a tax on the very profits (which as I pointed out earlier they are obliged to create) which you find so abhorent.

You believe that global capitalism can be tweaked and improved to address the world’s problems. I do not. You believe that consumerism can be part of the solution, I believe it is a fundamental part of the problem.

I’m sure you’d like all multinationals to curl up and die. It won’t happen, swallow the pill, pay your money and make your choice.

As a South African I am deeply offended and upset that American Express and their directors seek to profit so crassly from the misery of HIV/AIDS in my country. The problem is huge. It is no solution to have British consumers believe that by purchasing some extra stuff with their credit card they can rest their consciences, whilst the West continues to extort debt repayments and impose neoliberal policies, both of which restrict the scope for wealth redistribution that might start to really address underlying causes. If British people want to make a difference to AIDS in Africa then they must address the legacy of colonialism and stop oppressing other countries. Then, maybe, they can start to feel “no more guilt”.

As a caring denizen of this planet I do not believe that seeking to increase consumer spending, particularly in the UK - one of the richest and most profligate consumer cultures in the world - is a solution to any of our immense problems. What is bought is often produced in sweat shops in the Majority World and transported between continents by a fuel that is fast running out; the burning of which is changing our climate and killing our fellow earth-dwellers. In the UK there are 67 million credit cards in circulation for a population of 59 million, creating misery for individuals, and enabling the overproduction that is a hallmark of civilisation and that is literally destroying our planet.

(Disclaimers: I’ve phrased these posts as though I am a South African and not British. In truth I am both, and I was actually born and raised in the UK. I now live in South Africa, hold South African citizenship, and have a father who spent decades of his life in exile from South Africa fighting to free it from oppression. It was the South African in me who reacted to the AmEx ad so vehemently, and so it feels authentic - and somewhat simpler - for that part of me to write these posts.

I am also a participant in this civilisation: I do use banks and credit cards, I do work for capitalist corporations, I do behave in environmentally destructive ways. I am in many ways a hypocrite. This will not stop me from saying what I see. I regularly reevaluate my choices and my life, and there are no easy answers or obvious paths. Right now writing this stuff is something that I can do, and I participate in various ways in trying to change this world. Is it enough? Never, but not doing enough won’t stop me doing what I can).