December 11, 2024 06:42 EDT
Print
SHARE
|
||
|
||
|
||
~~~~ REMINDER ~~~~
We are one of the few independent nonprofit organizations in the world news space. We publish nearly 3,000 authors from over 90 countries. Everyone can access all our content for free. Nothing hides behind a paywall thanks to you. So, sign up for as little as $11 per year (less than $1 per month) and help us reach 1,001 recurring donors this year. ~~~~ Dear FO° Reader, Remember last century when we had time to read? When screens weren’t taking up all our attention? An entire generation has lost the habit of reading, whether for pleasure or instruction. How many young people have even had the experience of reading a whole book from cover to cover? That means they never had the experience of feeling grief for the fate of characters they’ve spent hours with after turning the last page. Literature, novels and nonfiction offer us a way out of our small world between the walls of our house or community. More than any other genre, science fiction and novels give us the gift of thought experiments and the opportunity to explore emotional relationships, moral queries and more. What if…? To imagine new possibilities, we need mental space, bandwidth and some affective and emotional ease. Books provide a safe environment in which to explore risk. We need to feel safe. Instead, in recent decades — at least since the arrival of television — we are constantly stimulated and distracted. Imagined threats delivered by a diversity of media have replaced real ones, but our reptilian brains continue to react with a heightened stress response. Social media and the “attention economy” are robbing us of that safe space, allowing for trolls, nasty comments and hyperreality.  A world inside an aquarium. Author’s image.
The fish in the aquarium So let’s try a special thought experiment. We are in a biosphere, the equivalent of an aquarium world. The fish have no concept of the vast ocean, or a mountain lake, or the Amazon River, or any alternative to their enclosed environment. In this biosphere, shaped by a social visionary’s peculiar and extreme worldview, only those who struggle competitively to earn their food, clean air, clothing and shelter can access them. Homelessness becomes a default state for those who fail in the struggle. Sharing with others makes no sense because you would risk your own survival. Everyone assumes resources are extremely scarce. Altruism is either a sin or a sign of weakness. “Freedom (n.): To ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing.”
― Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead Even according to evolutionary theory, this wouldn’t produce a healthy society. How would children be nourished and nurtured? How would societies educate the young and transfer their culture to successive generations if crayons and classrooms are luxuries one must earn individually? This aquarium logic collapses every time it’s put into practice, as does its foundational myth — that merit is the sole pathway to success. After all, as Thomas Piketty reminds us, a majority of those exercising power today inherited their wealth, status and even their belief in their destiny from their surroundings, or at the very least some connections with the right people. Exceptions exist, but they are anomalies commonly cited to validate an unsustainable system. Social mobility has in fact decreased since the age of Reaganomics, and the systematic imposition of Margaret Thatcher’s austerity policies.  Do you know anyone who would expect to thrive — or even want to live — in such an inhuman aquarium? This kind of thought experiment — extrapolating ideas and pushing them to their extreme — was a staple of the kind of philosophical inquiry practiced in the seminars I attended in Bologna, Italy, in the 1990s. Similarly, fiction employs its imaginative scope to explore and examine human relationships, emotions and moral dilemmas within imagined constraints. In such an aquarium world there would be no place for Christmas, even less the core values of what Christmas was meant to celebrate, without the commercial veneer. Despite describing myself as, at best, agnostic, I do admire the historical figure of Jesus, especially the message of love, tolerance and forgiveness he embodied. So how about our reality, our world? “What if” provides half the title of a hopeful and inspiring book (From What Is, to What If by Rob Hopkins). Some will reflexively shrug and push it aside: “The world is what it is! Life is hard.” From the Stoics to Ayn Rand, there’s no utility in imagining an alternative reality. Austerity is the only way. Today, wars are raging in Europe and in the Middle East, providing the required evidence that reality must be harsh. “Everybody has guns and nukes.” There seems to be no way to avoid pain, suffering and tragedy. (On a side note, I do admire some of the work of the Stoics, but I can’t stand Ayn Rand for one second. I even read the entirety of Atlas Shrugged in the late 1980s and suffered martyrdom on every page; it’s a sinister novel depicting everything I want to avoid for myself and my loved ones!) Do we even agree as to what the reality of our world actually is? I see two elements in tension. On one side, Rand’s philosophy of “objectivism” (which posits the existence of pure objectivity) defines itself as an extreme form of realism. Realists can team up with the forces of conservation, represented sometimes by traditionalists. On the other side, we have the “what if,” the forces of innovation that seek to make space for the possible alongside the real. The traditionalists will condescendingly refer to the hopeful as naive and lazy tree-huggers, proponents of “peace and love,” who cannot face up to reality. On my side, along with the pacifists, we see the traditionalist and self-defined realists as trapped in a negative aquarium. Even if they manage to make more money, I have the impression that, more often than not, they are not enjoying life, appearing tensed up to face the fashionable threat of the moment. So is the threat real? What can it be? Will the fact of imagined threats create a terrain that breeds more violence? I strongly believe so. There’s an old Latin saying, “Si vis pacem, para bellum,” which means “If you want peace, prepare for war.” These kinds of assertions make me shiver; they reflect a desire for destruction, death or even annihilation. Necropolitics: politics involving state-sponsored killing and the legal categorization of certain groups as disposable or superfluous. ― Achille Mbembe Right, nurturing feelings are the exact opposite of those other feelings that see guns and nukes as a necessity. They are real enough, but we as a civilization have the power to dismantle and scrap them. Yes, we can! Really, it’s not naive at all. I simply refuse to give in to what an African philosopher calls necropolitics. According to Professor Achille Mbembe, we need to acknowledge the violence that lies at the base of modern liberal democracies. Think of stolen land and the work of enslaved people. And, if we are honest, we can recognize these forms of spatial violence in our present day. That’s what keeps causing wars.  Depiction of Spanish atrocities in the New World, illustrations by Joos van Winghe.
In my aquarium, if you want peace, clean air, good food and happy children playing in the courtyard or even in the streets, let’s amplify education and simplify everything else. Who needs avocados from South Africa or kiwis from New Zealand at Christmas in the Alps? We have cheese. And honey-cream cookies can easily trump chocolate. Or, even a little less chocolate would do. Do you want an example? Finland managed to solve the problem of homelessness! It’s a great start. Homeless drug addicts do not have to “get clean” before they earn the right to a home. They get a home so they can feel safe enough to get clean. The Campaign for Female Education (CAMFED) in countries like Ghana, Zambia and Malawi focuses on educating young women and training them in sustainable agricultural practices. This initiative empowers rural communities to tackle food insecurity while promoting climate resilience. In Taiwan, the “Sunflower Movement” mobilized students and activists to advocate for government accountability. The movement catalyzed reforms in trade agreements and increased transparency in decision-making processes. Countries like Denmark, Norway and Sweden have successfully combined free-market capitalism with strong welfare states, offering universal healthcare, education and social security. Their governance emphasizes trust, transparency and citizen involvement, leading to high levels of happiness and equality. You can read as much as you want about them. What’s your “What if?” question? Let us know at newsletter@fairobserver.com. Wishing you a happy and warm holiday season from Geneva! Roberta Campani Communications and Outreach |
||
|
We are an independent nonprofit organization. We do not have a paywall or ads. We believe news
must
be free for everyone from Detroit to Dakar. Yet servers, images, newsletters, web developers and
editors cost money.
So, please become a recurring donor to keep Fair Observer free, fair and independent. 
|
||
|
||
| About Publish with FO FAQ Privacy Policy Terms of Use Contact |
Support Fair Observer
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.
In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.
We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs
on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This
doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost
money.
Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a
sustaining member.
Will you support FO’s journalism?
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
Comment