So this is Christmas

So this is Christmas

And what have you done?

Another year over

And a new one just begun

Happy Christmas (War is Over) is a song written by John Lennon and Yoko Ono, released in 1977 as a single by John & Yoko/Plastic Ono Band with the Harlem Community Choir.  It was originally a protest song about the Vietnam war.

Thirty six years later, there is still armed conflict all over the world and anti-war protests continue but to no avail.  The problem as I see it, and I'm certainly no expert, is that efforts to prevent war or bring wars to an end, seem to focus on the symptoms (i.e. unnecessary bloodshed) rather than the underlying causes.  But that is probably due to the fact that it is usually extremely difficult to understand the underlying causes.  In my opinion, the big question is why are human beings intent on destroying themselves?  Is it all in the genes?  Is it learned behaviour?  Or is it a combination of those and other factors?

There are many psychoanalytical views on the causes of war, too many to review in this post.  But one theory held by E. F. M. Durban and John Bowlby is that human beings are inherently violent and their natural aggression is sustained by for ever wanting to convert their grievances into bias and hatred against other races, religions, nations or ideologies.  If this is true then there surely can't be any hope for sustained world peace in the future.  Indeed it does appear that when conflicts are supposedly resolved, later, more horrific consequences raise their ugly heads.  I suppose the adage: Today's problems come from yesterday's 'solutions', holds true.  Conflict resolution will inevitably be based on short-term 'solutions', because extrapolating the long-term effects of resolutions is usually impossible.  There are just too many unknowns.  It's easier to look back and suggest what should have been done, than to look forward and establish what has to be done.  It's called being wise with the benefit of hindsight.

So is the future really so gloomy?  Maybe, but perhaps we should see if there are any common threads within the hindsights of past conflicts.  One of the lessons that I think we can all learn from looking back at the life of Nelson Mandela, is that good leadership is a very important ingredient of peaceful solutions to conflicts.  Leaders, such as Hitler, can incite hatred and extreme forms of racism.  Conversely, leaders like Mandela inspired his followers to strive for peaceful and democratic roads to justice built on a vision of equality and not dwelling on the inequalities of the past.

The last verse of John and Yoko's song is poignant.

War is over

If you want it

War is over

Now

On that note, a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Peaceful New Year.

What really counts?

Two events in the news recently, inspired me to write this post.  Firstly, the report that the UK's economic growth rate was the highest for seven years.  Secondly, the fact that Ireland was exiting from its financial bailout.  These two items ought to be good news for the citizens of the UK and Ireland, but is that the case?  My guess is that the politicians will be rejoicing whereas the majority of the two country's populations will have noticed no change.  Both cases are examples of a classic political ruse, which is to pick a measure, or measures, for which there is no argument as to the absolute values and then construct a good news story.  One favourite measure of a nation's economic success or failure is Gross Domestic Product, GDP.  This is the monetary value of all the financial goods and services produced within a country's borders in a specific time period, though GDP is usually calculated on an annual basis.  It is calculated as follows:

GDP = C + G + I + NX

where:

C = consumer spending

G = government spending

I = business spending on capital

NX is the value of Exports - Imports

So what's wrong with that?  Well, I will summarise my concern with the old adage: "It's easier to count the bottles than describe the quality of the wine".

In other words some things are easy to measure (like numbers of bottles) but within the entities that are being counted are intangibles (like wine quality), which bear little or no relationship to the number of entities.  So given the UK's growth in GDP, which is actually very small but nevertheless greater than it has been for seven years, is the population feeling better off financially and generally happier?  I doubt it.  A 'healthy' GDP growth statistic is meaningless if you are a young person who hasn't found employment since leaving school or university, a family struggling to pay the rent and feed themselves whilst their income has decreased in real terms in recent years, or an elderly person who can't afford to keep warm through the long winter months because of rising fuel bills.  I know, you've heard it all before and it's always possible for any disadvantaged person or society to find less fortunate cases in other parts of the world.  But my point is that it is demeaning and patronising to celebrate success on statistics that bear little relationship to personal well-being and happiness.

OK, so I've got that off my chest but what's the solution?  Do we not measure anything?  Or do we try to measure the intangibles, like happiness?  Well, if you can measure some of the right things then it is possible to conclude whether things are really improving or not.  The UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, introduced a Happiness Index for the UK as an alternative to GDP and the first results, published in July 2012, showed the average adult rated 7.4 out of 10 for life satisfaction.  Oh and by the way, the first national survey concluded that those who have jobs and own their homes are most likely to be satisfied with their lives.  Well there's a surprise!  The Prime Minister described the survey as crucial to finding out what the government can do to "really improve lives", but the Labour opposition party described the outcome of the survey as a "statement of the bleeding obvious".

It's easy to rubbish any initiative but on the other hand subjective 'measurements' will always be open to interpretation and criticism.  Conversely, objective measurements, such as GDP, have their own shortcomings as I hope I have illustrated.  So what really counts?  In my opinion, honesty and transparency are essential.  The world is going through some difficult times with no short-term fixes.  So let's face the big challenges, like a growing population consuming too much of the world's finite resources and don't fool ourselves that the 'live today, pay later' policies of the past will work in the future.  As Gandhi put it so succinctly:

"There's enough for everyone's need [in the world], but not enough for everyone's greed."

Why break the habit of a lifetime?

Why break the habit of a lifetime?  I picked up this definition of the idiom: "Something that you say which means that you do not believe that someone will stop doing something bad that they have done all their lives".  Interesting that this particular definition refers to "something bad".  So for example, "Uncle Tom always gets pissed out of his mind at Christmas, so he's unlikely to break the habit of a lifetime".  If the definition is valid, then the inference in this example is that Uncle Tom's behaviour at Christmas is viewed as a bad habit.  But is habitual drinking bad?  Well it's certainly not bad for the drinks industry that employs many workers.  Nor is it bad for the state coffers from the taxes that are collected.  So if Uncle Tom breaks his habit of a lifetime, it might be good for his health and he might not be a pain in the arse for those who have to tolerate his company, but breaking his habit could contribute to a negative impact on the economy.

Now here's a definition of 'habit': "A recurrent, often subconscious pattern of behaviour that is acquired through frequent repetition".  We all have those and they are not always bad.  For example, good driving habits should reduce accidents and good or bad driving becomes habitual.  Most of the time we don't have to think about how we drive, the subconscious will take over.  So when the traffic light is red, a good driver will automatically stop.  It's interesting to consider habits in the context of business organisations.  Why am I using the example of businesses?  Well, they've featured prominently throughout my life, so why break the habit of a lifetime?!  It doesn't matter whether you are one of six people working in an office or an employee of a corporation employing 60,000, you will have experienced organisational CULTURE - "that's not the way we do things around here".  Culture is the cultivation of individual habits and collective traditions to create a unique working environment.  A business leader who tries to change culture by producing vision statements, mission statements and business plans, no matter how well communicated, will fail.  How do I know?  Because I've been there, done that and got the tee shirt!  Where there is a match between the organisational culture and the individual's habits, the two will co-exist comfortably.  Where there is a mismatch, the individual will be the loser.  So a risk-taking entrepreneur will not survive in a risk-averse, conservative organisation.  But we are all creatures of habit.  Most of the time we do what we do most of the time!  So how do individuals and organisations, which are collections of individuals, set about changing direction?  That's a big question and I don't profess to know the answer.  But I do know what has worked for me when I have attempted to change my attitudes and behaviours.

I find it useful on occasions to assess my habits, of which I have plenty.  If I can spot a really bad habit, I like to analyse it and see if I can change it.  I've had some successes but many failures because "old habits die hard"!  But if it was easy to change individual behaviours, the world would probably not have all the problems we have today.  Returning to the title of this post, why break the habit of a lifetime?  Because if you wish to change the world, start with yourself.

Liquid Sunshine

It's raining today.  Fortunately, on Turkey's Mediterranean coast weather like today's is the exception rather than the rule, but I still hate it!  I like to think I have a rational mind and of course, rain is essential for all living organisms.  Without it, I wouldn't be here to complain about it.  I suppose after many years of living in the UK, my weather tastes have been influenced by an unpredictable climate where long spells of sunshine were definitely an exception.  The 1976 UK heat wave is still a topic for discussion, 37 years later!  I guess this year's hotter than usual summer in the UK will likewise be remembered for many years to come.

In hotter countries, rain in moderation is welcomed and some use the term 'liquid sunshine' - not to be confused, of course, with a brand of tanning lotion!  I think liquid sunshine is an excellent term.  Think about it.  Something that brings the happiness of sunshine in a liquid form.  Rain brings fresh water to the earth, provides the energy source for hydroelectric power, water for crop irrigation as well as, of course, providing suitable conditions for the ecosystem - wonderful!  So I guess my hatred of rain is very selfish.  I am viewing it from the perspective of what it is preventing me from doing.  I have enjoyed a few weeks of physical activity, including chopping down and pruning trees, mowing, strimming, etc and to be stopped from continuing my outdoor pursuits comes as a shock to the system.  Even though, if the forecast is correct, we could be back to 'normal' tomorrow!  If I had grown up in the part of the world where I now live, I might not have the same obsession with the weather.  And a danger of obsession is that it can lead to superstition, even for apparently rational-thinking individuals.

Superstition about the weather is hardly surprising, given some of the horrendous events that we have witnessed in recent times.  Superstition is, after all, rooted in fear and provides a means of linking unwanted climatic conditions with controllable human behaviour.  It's only a few centuries ago that superstion over the climate led to witch hunts and executions for witchcraft.  Now, as I have stated in previous blog posts, I am no longer skeptical on the issue of global warming.  I do believe there is a causal link between the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and climate change.  I do not believe, however, that global warming should become the scapegoat for all weather extremes.  Apparently, a check of weather records for the 1930s or the 1950s, when the CO2 level was much higher than it is today, shows that extreme weather events are nothing new.

What I am witnessing today is steady heavy rainfall but hardly a weather extreme.  It's doing lots of good things to the agricultural environment around me and I should be thankful for it.  But I can assure you, if the sun shines tomorrow, I will be out enjoying the real thing and as for liquid sunshine, you can stick it up your arse!