‘Circumstances give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing color and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind.’
If I declare that I am aware that discrimination is likely to happen, then it must follow that I am fully aware that my declaration will be subject to legal challenge. If I act in good faith, carefully instituting a cost/benefit analysis to bolster my decision, it makes no difference, if I am aware that discrimination is likely to happen. The circumstances of the day will always question if my carefully cost benefited analysis will be beneficial or noxious to mankind. Circumstances do not create the zero sum analysis. That rests on the decisions I make, decisions that should be based on a real understanding of the best available data, information that will ensure that I act in good faith, in all things, to ensure that I do not make the wrong decision.
What could be is no more abstract than what might be. If I hold in my hands the ability to threaten with what may be coming, I hold in my hands an equal ability to institute transformative change towards what should be. It makes no sense to govern through zero sum analyses. Anything and everything is possible, if we calculate carefully and start scribbling together on a new page.
Many years ago I spoke to a student on the not too far away eventuality that governments will create a charge for air. This was based on a simple and logical extrapolation from water to air. The air test boxes are installing in a city near you, testing for sulphates, nitrates and all the other nasties that exude through tyre burn. If there is a way of creating a new charge that is based on air quality, it will be found. Test emissions. Fine those outside guidelines. Get to work on imagining an inbuilt charge that will cover the cost of the boxes that we are installing in a city near you. It seems pointless to depend on fines. The air quality is obviously rubbish. What if we installed a filtration system that helped to deal with those nasties? We will call it the ’emissions’ charge? Or the ‘environment’ tax? Every human breathes air. It seems only fair that they should pay a charge for the lack of oxygenated air that the centuries of human existence has created. We could call it the ‘tree’ tax? A tax that will allow us to replant trees after the globally shared tree diseases finally kill our native elms, oaks and ash. Of course, it will also allow us to put up those boxes and filtration systems, in readiness for the next taxation push.
Globalisation allows us to import trees and tree diseases and it therefore follows that we should be able to charge for air quality. Dutch Elm disease, for goodness sake! This should be discussed at a European level. We are a little bit worried that the Eurozone has not yet set up adequate air-sulphate detector boxes in European cities. The UK Parliament should be totally sovereign on all UK air quality matters. Dispatch the Prime Minister. The UK has always taken a lead on this. It is absolutely essential that we hold a veto on this matter. QMV is not acceptable.
The truth lives above the UK preoccupation with ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ and above the Eurozone’s alleged preoccupation with ‘ever closer union.’ Globalisation always was a two sided coin. On the one side, capitalism, exploitation, supposed democratic values and a shrinking world to exploit. On the other side, destitution, desperation, whatever despot is the order of the day and a shrinking space to inhabit. As the world grew smaller and the communication channels opened ever wider, both sides understood each other and a dynamical shift occurred towards equity. Accidental and powerful enlightenment. The void between what exists and what could exist was crossed. We all breathe the same air. We are all intrinsically human. Globalisation allows life to move where life can live.
How we deal with this truth will define the next one hundred years.
The universe has been speaking to us for our whole lives.
We are all contorting across waves that pull us this way and that.
Waves in the middle. Waves at the start. Waves at the very end.
I think that the key message that Einstein and the universe has taught us.
It is important to make waves.
I am not talking about the similarly named Fahr’s syndrome, a rare, inherited neurological disorder characterised by abnormal deposits of calcium in areas of the brain that control movement. I am talking about Far’s syndrome; a rare, genetically dominant, inherited neurological disorder characterised by abnormal deposits of calcium in areas of the brain that control movement. There is a difference.
Far determined that there are several early warning signs that lead to indeterminism, diminished mobility and failure to take decisions. The first Far factor is the so near, but so far away symptom, also known as the perspective test. The calcification of the brain leads to an inability to move beyond the first step, demonstrated by slow movement, stumbles and occasional collapse and a diminished capacity to judge distance travelled. The second Far factor is the so far behind factor, also known as the generational shift test. The calcification of the brain leads to involuntary movements, foot shuffling and an inability to move beyond today. The third Far factor is known as the prediction test, also known as the, ‘how far can you see test.’ Some distinguished neurosurgeons call it the final ‘Zombification’ test. Worst case scenarios result in an inability to recognise one’s own feet. Understandably, in this case, distance is an irrelevance. Rapid calcification results in decay and rapid deterioration. Movement disappears. Concretisation is impossible. What was, is gone; what is, is lost, and what could be, is never fully explored.
Far always hoped that the necessary funding would be made available to ensure that the necessary research would, one day, result in a breakthrough.
The end of ‘Far’s Syndrome.’