Black sheep Frank. Tele2 marketing campaign

Animal rights

Our pets get love and attention but most animals in industrial farming live in poor conditions, at least if living in their natural habitat is their prerogative. Thinking about animal rights is sometimes seen as a luxury for leftists who have nothing else to worry about. Industrial farming can’t be ended so easily as humans don’t like to change their diet. But farm animals can feel pain and have social needs like us. Animal rights activists have a serious case here.

People like to eat meat and they want it to be cheap. The plight of animals will not make them change their minds so easily. The same applies to the contribution of meat consumption to climate change. Still, the end of the mass suffering of farm animals could be near. Artificial meat and meat replacements may soon be more widely available, be cheaper and taste as good, even though many people won’t believe that now.

Whether or not animals have a good life in their natural habitat is a matter of debate. Faced with predators, food shortages, and humans, life in nature can be hard. And in most areas nature isn’t what it used to be as humans have completely altered the ecology. With humans came the animals that profit from them like mice, rats, seagulls, magpies, foxes and cockroaches. Other species can suffer as a consequence.

In populated areas there is little left of nature so the remaining wildlife may need management. For example, magpies eat chicks of songbirds. As magpies profit from humans by eating their leftovers in the winter, more of them survive and more chicks will be eaten. So is it better to shoot magpies so that songbirds may survive? And if there isn’t enough food for all deer, is it better to shoot the weak? Animal rights activists have trouble accepting this.

Featured image: Black sheep Frank from a Tele2 marketing campaign

Happiness

The point of technological development and social change

Whether this universe emerged by accident or has been created intentionally doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t exist to please us. The universe either exists to please no-one or it exists to please our creators. The same is true for technological advancements and social changes. These things don’t happen to make us happier. For instance, humans switched to agriculture, not because it made them happier but agriculture could feed more people so that farmers soon outnumbered hunter-gatherers, even though farmers were more miserable.1

So what’s the point of technological development and social change? What’s the point of agriculture, cities, writing, money, empires, science, industry, human rights and democracy if these things don’t make us happier? Making people happier is often not the reason why things happen. For instance, private property, individual rights and independent courts emerged because countries that had these things did better economically and came to dominate the planet.

Technological advances happen because investors expect to profit from new technologies or because governments see some use of it. And so scientists fetch budgets for their research and get busy. Efficiency considerations do the rest. More efficient designs win out. This is for instance the reason why Natural Money may be the money of the future. Making people happier may be a side-effect of Natural Money but economic efficiency is the reason why it may become the money of the future.

Social reforms may make people happier, but it is a lot harder than you might think. For example, equal rights for women and minorities, and many other social justice issues have a long history, and are yet to be fully resolved. It is difficult to alter views and attitudes from the majority as well as the minorities as cultural differences are an underlying cause of these issues. Trying to resolve them can lead to social conflict.

Social reforms don’t necessarily make people happier. If there is a social norm, for example of the man being the head of the family, then women may be happy with this arrangement. Introducing feminist ideas can produce tensions and women may not always become happier as a consequence, let alone men. Perhaps propaganda can help. If people are taught that women and men should have equal rights, people can be happier with such an arrangement.

So what makes people happy? It is an important question. There are several issues that seem to have an effect on our sense of happiness:

  • chemical processes in the body
  • human needs
  • money
  • expectations
  • desires
  • having a sense of purpose
  • social and political environment

Chemical processes in the body

Some people are always happy despite adversity and poor living conditions. Some people are always angry even when they prosper and have no serious problems. That has something to do with chemical processes in the body. But if happiness is about chemical processes in the body then making people happy is about inventing the right pills and distributing them. Indeed pills can help to end a depression. Many people believe that pills give a false sense of happiness, but more and more people take pills to feel better.

maslovpiramid
Maslov’s hierarchy of human needs

Hierarchy of human needs

Abraham Maslow came up with a hierarchy of human needs. He thought that basic needs such as food and shelter are paramount. If these needs are fulfilled then people become interested in security. Maslow thought that if you don’t have food, security becomes of secondary importance, and if you have food and security, love and attention become more important. And if you have all that, it becomes more important to be respected and have a sense of purpose in your life. And even though the hierarchy is contested, the needs Maslow identified aren’t questioned.

Money

Does money make you happier? A lot of research has gone into this question. The results aren’t surprising. If you are poor then more money will probably make you happier. Poor people often worry about making ends meet. As soon as you can buy the things you need and have no financial worries, the picture becomes confusing. In that case more money can make you happier, but only if you spend it right. What is right is a personal consideration. So if you have the money, you should go on that vacation or go to that concert, but only if that is what you really want to do.

Expectations

Expectations can be important. If you expect to get a small car, and you get a medium sized car instead, your expectations are exceeded. That can make you happy for a while. But if you expected to get a big car, and you get the same medium sized car, your expectations are not met. And that can make you sad for a while. In both cases it is the same car. If you expected less, you are happy with the car, but if you expected more, the same car makes you feel bad. People tend to adapt to a new situation so after a while the happiness or the sadness from missed expectations is gone.

Similarly, if you are better off than others, it can give you satisfaction. Alternatively, if you are worse off than your peers, it can displease you. Happiness can depend on the people you compare yourself to. The attention given to celebrities, their riches, and their beautiful husbands and wives can give you the unpleasant feeling that you have to keep up with them. This can make you go to the gym or the plastic surgeon and buy things you can’t afford and turn down potential spouses that don’t look so great. The advertisement industry aims to make us unhappy so that we will buy more stuff. It can also explain why people in more equal societies are happier on average.

buddha
Rock cut seated Buddha statue, Andhra Pradesh, India

Craving

Gautama Buddha also weighed in on the issue. He was the founder of Buddhism. You may have seen a statue or a picture of him because he has become quite popular in recent decades. Buddha taught that people are always craving for temporary feelings and things. This craving causes a permanent state of dissatisfaction. As soon as you have achieved a desired feeling, for example love, or acquired a desired object, for example a car, you will start to crave for something else. That probably sounds very familiar.

Buddha also taught that this craving will tie us up in this world so that our souls will continue to reincarnate and suffer from craving. Only when we stop craving for temporary feelings and things and disengage ourselves from this world, we can disappear into nothingness, which is a state of eternal peace. This is the ultimate goal of Buddhism.  This type of happiness is a tranquillity caused by detachment from mundane affairs that may come close to not caring.

Meaning

Last but not least, if you think that your life has meaning, that can make you happy. Religious people may be happier than atheists because they may believe that they play a role in the great cosmic scheme of God while atheists may believe that their life has no purpose. The psychologist Daniel Kahneman came up with a similar conclusion. He researched a group of women and interviewed them about their daily activities, and which activities gave them pleasure. He also asked the women what made them happy.

It turned out that caring for their children were amongst the activities that gave them the least pleasure. But when he asked these women what made them the most happy they answered that their children made them the most happy. Perhaps the children gave meaning to their lives. Perhaps these women were just deluding themselves like religious people. Similarly, if you think that your job is important, that may give meaning to your life, but that can be a delusion too. If you didn’t do your job, someone else probably would. Delusions can make us happy so it may not be irrational to have them.

Social and political reforms can be worthwhile

If we contemplate social reforms we might need to ask ourselves: “Will they make us happier?” Perhaps we shouldn’t expect too much from political and social institutions in this respect. That doesn’t mean improvements aren’t worthwhile. If they aren’t then it doesn’t matter where you live. So why do so many immigrants come to Europe or to the United States? Most immigrants try to escape poverty or flee for oppressive regimes.

Perhaps people in Africa and South America learn about the life in Europe or the United States and become dissatisfied because they are worse off. Whatever their motives might be, it appears that prosperity and social institutions do matter. And that is why it can be a good idea to engage in social and political reforms, and to aim for the highest standards everywhere around the globe.

In ‘advanced’ countries the roles of the state and the market economy have increased at the expense of the family and the community. This may cause alienation and stress as humans have evolved to live in smaller groups, not in the anonymity of the state and the market. Reducing the role of governments and markets may require enlarging the role of communities and families. Life in communities and families wasn’t ideal either so people may not become happier if that is going to happen.

Pictures:
– Rock cut seated Buddha statue, Andhra Pradesh, India CC BY-SA 3.0. Adityamadhav83. Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22764139

German and Dutch police cooperating

Development aid for every nation

The use for development aid may be greatly underestimated. No country is so great that it can’t learn from others. For many issues some countries have found better solutions than others. And so development aid may be extended to every nation in the world, including the countries that consider themselves to be developed. This aid can be about anything, for instance improving democracy, health care, the police force, urban planning or dealing with drug addicts. It is already happening, but it can be done far more often. That isn’t always easy because the aid can fail on cultural issues.

Technological innovations spread much easier than social innovations. For instance, nearly everyone who can afford it owns a smartphone. That took only ten years. History and culture play a huge role in how countries came to handle social issues. Development aid can only be successful when those who receive it are capable and willing to work with new ways of thinking. So if a certain country is planning to copy an idea from another country, it may be good to think of how the solution fits within existing customs and beliefs within the country itself, or how those customs and beliefs can be altered.

Developed countries like the Netherlands may also benefit from development aid. For instance, the Dutch police have difficulties solving crime for decades. In 2002 the University of Nijmegen compared the police performance of the Netherlands and Nordrhein-Westfalen, a German state that is comparable to the Netherlands with regard to the number of inhabitants and the number of crimes committed. The research showed that the Dutch police only solved around 20% of the reported crime while the German police solved around 50%.1 In 2016 this issue still persists.2

As of 2007 registered crime rates in the Netherlands went down. Dutch prisons are underutilised while Belgium and Norway were renting excess Dutch prison space. Government bureaucrats are eager to frame this positively but the question remains why so much crime remains unsolved. Police officers believe that incentives to under-report crime are built into the system so that the statistics aren’t reliable.3 As a consequence many citizens don’t bother to report small crimes as they feel that the police won’t take action. This makes the statistics appear even better.

Perhaps it is time for a different approach. Why not let the Germans help to improve crime detection? That may be easier said than done. It affects politics, police organisation as well as police culture. The German police have more crime detectives than the Dutch. Political choices determine police force priorities and these differ in the Netherlands and Germany. Still, it may well be that the Dutch police and politicians can learn a lot from Germany. After all, solving crime is one of the most important tasks of the police, and society may be safer when criminals are in prison rather than on the streets.

Featured image: German and Dutch police cooperating. NOS Dutch public broadcasting society.

1. Duitsland-Nederland en de afdoening van strafzaken. WODC.nl (2002).
2. Rapport geeft onthutsend beeld recherche: ‘Probleem zit heel diep’. RTL (2016).
3. Politie manipuleert misdaadcijfers, zeggen agenten zelf. Jolanda van de Beld, Aldert Bergstra, Eline Huisman, Anouk Kootstra en Linda van der Pol (2019). De Groene Amsterdammer. [link]

The last day

The limits to growth

Imagine there is a lake in a distant forest. On the surface of the lake a plant is growing. It suffocates all life below. The plant has already been there for a 1,000 days and it grows at a rate of 100% each day. If the lake is already covered half by the plant then how many days are left to save the remaining life in the lake? The correct answer is one day.

The plant doubles in size in one day. As the lake is already half covered, it will be fully covered the next day. It doesn’t matter that the plant was there already for 1,000 days. This is exponential growth. And it ends suddenly. As soon as the lake is fully covered, there is no more room for growth. For every leaf the plant adds, another has to die.

The lake represents Earth. The plant represents humanity. The leafs are people like you and me. No more room for growth may mean that for every child that is born, someone else has to die. It is estimated that as of 1971 humans use more of the Earth’s resources than nature can replenish. Currently we use one-and-a-half times as much as nature can replace. By 2050 three Earths may be needed to sustain humanity.1 Make no mistake, this is the ‘last day’.

The end may come suddenly. Most people don’t see it coming. Others believe that it can’t be avoided. They are preparing for the worst. In 1972 a group of scientists called the Club Of Rome predicted ‘the end’ when natural resources would run out. They claimed it would happen shortly after the year 2000.2 It didn’t happen until now, but that doesn’t mean that the current path of humanity can continue for much longer.

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend
The end

– The Doors, The End

The depletion of natural resources and the degradation of our planet are amongst the most serious challenges humanity is facing. If these challenges are not addressed, billions of people may die of hunger, pollution, resource wars and ecological disasters. Poverty may spread because of the depletion of natural resources.

Perhaps new technologies will become available in the future that can deal with these issues but we don’t know whether that will happen and when. Even if these new technologies become available, we may need to bridge a gap in time and adapt our lifestyles until then. That might require buying less stuff for those who can afford it.

Climate change

The average temperature on Earth is expected to rise by three degrees Celsius by the year 2100. It has already risen by one degree Celsius since the year 1900. Such a rise in temperature can alter the weather globally and cause massive harvests fails. Polar ice may melt so that the sea level will rise and low-lying territory where more than 500 million people currently live, may be lost. The main cause of the temperature rise is our use of fossil fuels. There is little doubt about that.

There is a lot of uncertainty about the accuracy of the estimates regarding the consequences of climate change as was the case with the predictions made by the Club Of Rome. The exact impact of rising carbon dioxide levels on the weather is hard to predict. The estimates of the climate scientists are the best we currently have as were the estimates made by the Club Of Rome in 1972. Probably they are right about the direction but not accurate in time.

Ignoring climate change is like playing Russian roulette with the future of humanity without knowing exactly how many bullets are in the revolver, but sensing that it is two to five out of six. Taking action may result in wasting an unprecedented amount of effort and resources on combating climate change if these predictions are wrong, but you need to pull the trigger to know that.

It is hard to imagine how bad it will get and it is even harder to imagine that it may be happening soon. Drastic actions like ending frivolous uses of fossil fuels and investing massively in clean sources of energy appear necessary. Several scientists believe that nuclear energy is an alternative. There may be accidents and dangerous waste, but they believe that nuclear energy will cause fewer deaths than fossil fuels.

Going nuclear?

In 1994 I met my wife Ingrid. The next year we spent our first holidays together in the Dutch province of Zeeland. During one of our trips we came across a village named Kwadendamme. The English translation of this name is Evildam. Ingrid was driving. Suddenly she hit the brakes. “Antiques,” she cried. By the side of the road was a shabby shed with a sign ‘King’s Antiques’ on it. Inside were piles of stuff. An elderly couple entered via a back door. They may have been in their seventies or eighties. And perhaps they were the only antiques there.

Ingrid was browsing the shelves and soon she found a doll. 185 guilders (85 euros) was the price tag. Ingrid kept on staring in bewilderment. “This doll isn’t very old but the price reflects that,” the old lady said. Later Ingrid told me that she had seen this doll in a store chain a few years earlier. Back then the price was 9 guilders (4 euros). We were about to leave. Then the old man said: “Don’t go yet, there’s another hall.” He pointed at the back door. Behind the shed was a small place and another shed. It may have been a henhouse previously. I could hardly stand upright in there. It was filled with more stuff.

Just after we left Kwadendamme we found ourselves on route N666 (National Route 666) to Borssele. Back then I already found this to be a bit peculiar, not only because of the route N666 passing Kwadendamme (Evildam), but even more so because it was the route to Borssele, which is the site of the only remaining Dutch nuclear power plant. The N666 ends near Borssele next to a village named ‘s Heerenhoek, which can be translated into The Lord’s Corner. With the benefit of hindsight, this probably isn’t a coincidence.

The only other Dutch nuclear power plant was located in Dodewaard. It had been closed in 1997. Dodewaard can be translated into Death Holm, which is a bit spooky considering that Route 666 leads to Borssele. The Dodewaard area is 66.5 square kilometres, close enough to 66.6 to be a bit eerie. Nuclear fission energy is ‘a deal with the devil’. If we use it, accidents might happen and people might get killed. Only the number of people killed when using fossil fuels would probably be far greater.

Solar and wind appear to win the race in terms of cost but these energy sources are not reliable and storing electricity is cumbersome so that we may still need a stable baseline source of energy. If fossil fuels are so bad then we may need nuclear energy as long as better alternatives remain absent. To speed up the process we may need to replace the use of fossil fuels with electricity as soon even when sufficient renewable energy sources aren’t available yet use nuclear power.

Nuclear energy produces dangerous waste and accidents can’t be ruled out. Nuclear fusion can be a lot safer than nuclear fission, which is the type of nuclear energy that is currently used. If something goes wrong with nuclear fusion, the process dies out. It can’t go out of control like nuclear fission. The nuclear waste from fusion would be more manageable. Nuclear waste from fission could be dangerous for tens of thousands of years, while nuclear waste from fusion can be safe after one hundred years.

There may be energy from nuclear fusion within a few decades, but that’s still far from certain. It is extremely challenging to generate energy from nuclear fusion as it requires working with temperatures of 150 million degrees Celsius. Scientists have been working on nuclear fusion since the 1950s. They now estimate that this type of energy may be available by 2050, but only if several technical issues are solved.

Nuclear fusion might bring us unlimited energy at virtually no cost. In that case it would be possible to recycle much more than we currently do as the value of the recycled materials is now often lower than the cost of the energy needed to reclaim them. Even though developments in the field of nuclear fusion seem promising, it will take time and it is still far from certain that it will become available. And as long as it isn’t available, living within the limits of our planet may require considerable sacrifices.

Mass extinction

Climate change gets a lot of attention but there are several other environmental disasters happening at the same time. Many species of plants and animals have become extinct or are on the brink of extinction because humans destroy their habitat. On average, there was 60% decline in the size of populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians in the last 40 years.1 There is hardly any wildlife left.

To put it into perspective, one can compare the total weight of all humans and their domesticated animals with the remaining wildlife, which are all the wild animals except insects and microbes. The seven billion humans on this planet together weigh 300 million tonnes. All the domesticated animals, such as pigs, cows, horses and sheep, together weigh 700 million tonnes. By comparison, all the remaining large wildlife on planet Earth, such as lions, elephants, whales, crocodiles and penguins, together weigh less than 100 million tonnes.3

And then there is pollution. The list with problems caused by the exponential growth of human activities is long. This is perhaps not a complete list:
– depletion of natural resources, especially fossil fuels;
– shortage of drinking water;
– air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination and noise;
– deforestation and loss of ecosystems that sustain global atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide balance;
– loss of arable land and a growth of deserts;
– increased chance of new epidemics;
– low life expectancy in countries with fastest growing populations;
– unhygienic living conditions for many because of water resource depletion and discharge of raw sewage and waste disposal;
– more crime rate as people revert to stealing in order to survive;
– conflict over scarce resources leading to wars;
– fewer personal freedoms and more restrictive laws.

Why produce garbage

Why produce garbage if it is thrown away?

Wealthy countries are throw-away societies. There is an excessive use of disposable items. Why should we recycle garbage when we can use more durable goods? Why are there so many packaging materials? For instance, liquids be transported in tanks and consumers could fill up their bottles at the supermarket. Why isn’t anybody dong this? It might be because marketeers believe that the packaging and not the content is what makes a product unique. The amount of packaging can be reduced significantly.

There may be no other option than to curb polluting activities, the consumption of raw materials and carbon emissions. Frivolous consumption may need to be banned if it uses too many scarce resources. Harmful activities that are difficult to end may need to be taxed and the proceeds of these taxes may be used to reduce taxes on labour, so that labour can replace energy and materials consumption where possible. These changes can make it more attractive to recycle and to make products longer lasting. Tariffs may need to be put on products from countries that do not comply to these standards.

Population control

A mother in waiting once asked the biologist Midas Dekkers what she could do to raise her child as environmentally friendly as possible. Dekkers then said that nothing affects the environment more badly than having a child. For the environment it is better to cut down one hundred hectares of tropical rainforest than to have a child, he added. It may be a good idea to limit the number of children, for instance to one child per couple.

Population control becomes even more urgent as humans may soon live indefinitely. The people who live 1,000 years or longer probably already live today. And if no-one dies of age then it may be stupid to let people die of hunger simply because we couldn’t control our desire for having children.

Apart from people wanting to have children, poor people seek security. They worry about making ends meet. The depletion of natural resources is not on their minds. The only long-term plan of many poor people is having children who can care for them when they are old. Even though poor people do not use a lot of resources, they often have many children, and if we like them to prosper, that could be a problem.

If the rights of a couple to have a child can be sold, wealthy people may bid up the price of these rights, and poor people can have a pension out of selling them. There are some ethical issues with such a measure as it may result in poor people having fewer children and people from specific ethnicities opting for this more often than others. The limits of our planet are such a serious issue that these consequences may need to be accepted. And on the bright side, fewer children may be raised in poverty.

The food situation

In the face of climate change and the possibility of massive harvest failures it is wise to look at the food situation. Currently, the available food stocks can feed humanity for a few months. Famine may be just around the corner for billions of people. It therefore seems wise to heed the advice Joseph gave to the Pharaoh, which is to store massive amounts of food for bad times. Perhaps a Natural Money currency backed by stored food can be issued to pay for the storage.

The food situation requires another look at meat consumption. Animals used for consumption eat food humans could eat. It takes three to seven kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of meat. There are other disadvantages to meat. Eating meat causes animal suffering as many of these animals live in factory farms. It will be hard to change human diets unless good substitutes for meat become available, but reducing meat consumption may be needed to deal with potential food shortages.

Nothing but flowers

The challenge is so huge that it seems impossible but there is hope. The plan can succeed because that might be part of the script. When we believe this then we can make it happen. In the past no appropriate action has been taken, so drastic measures seem inevitable. It probably will not be easy to make you accept the proposed measures. They may require sacrifices you never imagined you would make like taking holidays near home rather than taking a long trip to the other side of the world.

Measures can have undesirable side-effects. For instance, China had a one-child-policy for decades. Many parents preferred a son so baby girls were often killed. Nowadays many men in China can’t find a wife. Another example is tropical rainforests making room for palm oil plantations to produce ‘renewable energy’. We need to deal with undesirable side-effects as soon as they emerge.

When everything ends well, you may not be satisfied with the outcome. The Garden Of Eden was a Paradise for Eve and Adam, but it may not be great for many of us. We can adapt. Just think of the children of the future. They won’t remember this era of excess from personal experience and they may be happy with their lives.

 

 

Here we stand
Like an Adam and an Eve
Waterfalls
The Garden of Eden
Two fools in love
So beautiful and strong
The birds in the trees
Are smiling upon them
From the age of the dinosaurs
Cars have run on gasoline
Where, where have they gone?

[…]

And as things fell apart
Nobody paid much attention
You got it, you got it
I dream of cherry pies,
Candy bars, and chocolate chip cookies
You got it, you got it
We used to microwave
Now we just eat nuts and berries
You got it, you got it
This was a discount store,
Now it’s turned into a cornfield
You’ve got it, you’ve got it
Don’t leave me stranded here
I can’t get used to this lifestyle

– Talking Heads, Nothing But Flowers

Featured image: Judgement Day. Royal Museum Of Fine Arts of Belgium. Rama (2008). Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

Other image: Why produce garbage when it is thrown away all the same. Loesje. Loesje.org.

1. Living Planet Report. World Wildlife Fund (2018). [link]
2. The Limits to Growth. Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, William W. Behrens III (1972). Potomac Associates – Universe Books.
3. Sapiens: A Brief History Of Humankind. Yuval Noah Harari (2014). Harvil Secker.

What’s the use of politics?

Politics is worthless many people agree. For that reason, the use of politicians may need some clarification. Humans became the dominant animal species because they cooperate in large numbers in a flexible way. This makes us unique in the animal world. Some animals such as ants and bees can cooperate in large numbers, but they are not flexible in the ways they do that. Their cooperation is based on their genetic code. Social animals like chimpanzees, elephants, wolves and dolphins can cooperate more flexibly, but not in very large numbers. Cooperation in a chimpanzee band, an elephant band or a wolf pack is based on intimate familiarity of the band members.1

Language is the tool for human cooperation. Animals have languages too. Animals can communicate about the whereabouts of food or enemies. Only, human language is used for many more things. Most notably, humans gossip and talk about what other people are doing and thinking. This gives them better information about other people in the group so that they can develop more sophisticated ways of cooperating. Apes like chimpanzees, baboons and gorillas all show interest in social information, but they have trouble gossiping because their languages don’t allow for that.1

The truly unique feature of human language is not gossip, but its ability to transmit information about imaginary things. All forms of large-scale human cooperation, such as nation states, churches, cities and corporations, are rooted in fictions that exist only in the collective imagination of human beings. Myths, like the existence of gods, laws, corporations and nation states, gave humans the unprecedented ability to cooperate flexibly in very large numbers. For example, churches are based on common religious beliefs. Religious beliefs make it possible that Christians who never met before can do things together like going on a crusade or building a hospital.1

Religions and ideologies have a lot in common. You could call them myths or models of reality. Religions as well as ideologies maintain there is a superhuman order of universal laws that govern the world, which should guide human actions. For example, Buddhists believe that the law of nature was discovered by Siddhartha Gautama. Communists believe that the laws of nature were discovered by Karl Marx. Like other religions, Communism had its holy scriptures and prophetic books such as Das Kapital, which prophesied that history would soon end with the inevitable victory of the proletariat over the capitalist system.1

So what does this have to do with politics? In democracies people can decide about what needs to be done and determine who should do what. Politics involves discussing collective imaginations such as laws, nation states, religions and ideologies to determine what course of action should be taken as well as gossip to determine who should do what, for instance who is going to be the leader of a political party or a nation. Many people nowadays believe that democracy is the best political system, even though democracy has disadvantages too.

Politicians may not do what they promised their voters to do. There might be intense political struggle. And politics might result in poor decisions when voters don’t like the measures that need to be taken. In times of upheaval people might opt for someone who promises to take drastic action, for instance when the economy has collapsed or when insurgents and criminals wreak havoc. The most notorious example in history was the rise of Adolf Hitler. The suffering of the Germans during the Great Depression and the inability of politicians to relieving their plight helped Hitler to grab power.

Even in stable and established democracies citizens may have little faith in politicians. The politicians in parliament do not represent the makeup of the population at large. People who like to talk, like lawyers and teachers tend to be overrepresented. Engineers who know how systems work tend to be underrepresented, which may explain why laws often fail to meet the intended objectives. The same applies to poor people and people with little education, which may explain why their interests are often neglected. Perhaps giving citizens more responsibility via direct democracy can help to solve these issues.

Featured image: House Of Commons in the United Kingdom. Parliament.uk. [link]

1. A Brief History Of Humankind. Yuval Noah Harari (2014). Harvil Secker.