Can we feed a future population of 10 billion people a healthy diet within planetary boundaries? The EAT-Lancet Commission recently brought together more than 30 world-leading scientists from across the globe to address this question and reach a scientific consensus that defines a healthy and sustainable diet. Their conclusions suggest that all of us should be drastically reducing our meat and dairy consumption if we care for the health of our fellow humans and the long-term health of our planet.
The philosophy of Humanism holds many promises of a better world. A world based on reason, compassion, human potential, and self-actualisation. How do you turn that philosophy into action in order to address a problem which is likely to destroy the very world Humanists are trying to create? There are many things we as Humanists can do, either individually, through our organisations or in a global alliance with like-minded organisations. Whether we can succeed depends on how much insight we have into our own motivations and how much willingness we have to change.
Reason, evidence, the opinion of experts, reports of the United Nations and other respected bodies cannot solve the problem of global warming. In fact, the most important factor that will determine whether we achieve the necessary goal of preventing global warming rising above 1.5C in the next 12 years is human nature. It is human nature that stymied the efforts made in the 1980s to get global warming under control before it got out of hand. Many people are pessimistic that it will be human nature that will stop us acting with enough commitment and vigour to do what is necessary in the next decade to stop global warming being a catastrophe. The latest United Nations report on global warming states that we need transformative action to change our economy and society if we are to deal effectively with the problem and that voluntary efforts will not be enough. Humanism has a strong philosophy on how we as humans should be behaviour, can it help?
This article is about the dilemma that global warming poses to us all. Do we vigorously deny that it is happening thereby ensuring that we can continue to nourish our self-interests, prejudices and ideologies? Do we ignore it, or put it to the back of our minds and get on with our lives? Do we accept it is happening and try to do what we can whilst hoping that it won’t be as bad as suggested, or science will find a way around it, or there is still time to tackle the issue? The scientific consensus is clear, by 2030 we must transform our global economies and societies to reduce our CO2 emissions and prevent the increase in global warming rising above 1.5C. Do we embrace the facts or rationalise our way out of making the necessary sacrifices? What about Humanism? It values reason, a rational and evidence-based approach to decision-making so shouldn’t it be leading the charge?
We were warned years ago, and with increasing urgency lately, that global warming was happening and that the consequences, if it was not addressed, would be severe. However, most of us have done very little that will really make a significant impact to stopping the catastrophic heating of our planet. Plenty of us have tried our best in all sorts of ways but it is not enough. Do we need throw ourselves into campaigning to reduce its impact? Or do we become stoics knowing that we have gone too far for rescue to be a realistic option? Do we go quietly into the night? What will you do and is Humanist philosophy any help?
ACT Humanist Society Meetup April 24 2018
Topic – Looking after our ageing population
How can we make sure that people are able to live the best life they can in their declining years?
Can younger people support the growing number of elderly people in society?
At the ripe old age of 66 this is a topic dear to my heart. In some ways I think I am declining, in some ways I think I am improving and in some ways I feel I am the same person I have always been but with a more wrinkly skin. You know, as long as you don’t look in the mirror you can still feel young. It is a question of attitude. I feel I am the fittest I have been for years. Giving up a stressful job and no longer having to juggle all the tasks involved in going to work has done wonders for my health. Of course, there is no denying that I am wearing out and that I am on the downhill slope towards death. However, I feel my fantastically healthy diet, the five exercise classes I do each week at my retirement village, the long walks both outside and on the treadmill and the weekly vigorous dose of Scottish Country Dancing will keep me going full steam ahead for a while. Eighty is the old sixty after all. Mind you, like all my peers, I am madly doing cryptic crosswords, sudoku and any puzzles I can lay my hands on to try and stave off dementia.
One of the first points I would like to make is that young people do not have to look after the ageing population all on their own. Very young people are looked after by their parents and many young people live at home well after they have left school and are helped by their parents. This dependency lasts longer now than in the past as young people undertaker further education and often don’t find permanent work for a while after graduating. Middle aged people contribute more in terms of taxes to support older people because of their greater earning capacity. In late middle age people may find themselves doing a lot to support to their parents because their parents are living into their eighties and beyond. And of course, many older people look after themselves; they have planned for their retirement, they have superannuation and they live in their own homes. Fundamentally, older people value their independence and most don’t willingly want to be a burden on anyone.
Secondly, the present cohort of elderly people worked and paid taxes when younger which helped to support past generations of older people. So, it is nothing new that the younger generation supports the older generation. What is different is that the proportion of younger people to older people has changed due to older people living longer, the ageing of the baby boomers, and a lower birth rate. These are not bad things in themselves but they may be problematic for the younger generation, perhaps.
Of course, if you think of older people as dependent and declining you are likely to see them as a burden but in fact, many older people contribute a lot to society. Older people make an economic contribution to society by paying taxes on their earnings, spending their disposable income and passing on wealth to the younger generation. Older people often save their families considerable amounts of money by acting as child carers. This seems to be a full-time job for many of them. Furthermore, older people are great volunteers, helping out a diverse range of organisations and people. They have the time to give back to society.
Just because we are old doesn’t mean we are brain dead, uninterested in politics or couch potatoes. Many older people take courses in the University of the Third Age, have a wide circle of friends and interests, some even attend demonstrations and become vexatious letter writers. The assistance given to older people, their own knowledge of what they need to do to stay healthy and with it, means that a lot of people are really enjoying their old age. And of course, older people have a life time of experience which younger people can mine if they are so inclined.
It can’t be denied that there is an economic cost in providing services to old people. For example, health care costs are high for very old people, but they are also high for treating people with cancer, or providing organ transplants, treating accidents and sporting injuries and saving very premature babies. Society has to decide how much it should spend on the health budget and how it should be allocated. Old age pensions do cost the tax payer money as do other social benefits such as youth allowance and disability allowances. I can’t see how any of these costs can be cut because people who rely solely on a pension are living on the verge of poverty as it is. Beyond taking the Soylent Green option (although I am happy to see voluntary euthanasia legalised – much better than having to leap off my balcony when I discover that I have some nasty incurable disease) what can be done?
One option is to reduce the costs to the public purse of providing services and support for older people. Already the age that older people can access the old age pension has been raised. For some people, compulsory retirement was unwelcome as they felt they had many productive years ahead of them. There is no doubt that retirement for some people means the end of a useful life and boredom and emptiness. For others retirement is welcome, a rest from decades of toil and a time to take up pursuits that were not possible before. In fact, many older people are so busy they wonder how they had the time to work. But along with raising the retirement age it is important to make sure that there are real and meaningful work options available to older people and that there is also a change in attitude towards the capabilities of older people. You are not past your use by date simply because you reach retirement age.
Many more people have superannuation now so that should reduce the number of people on the old age pension. However, for many ordinary people managing superannuation is not easy, especially as people can have many jobs in a lifetime. Furthermore, superannuation can be whittled away by high fees and risky investments. A government superannuation scheme where the sole aim of the scheme is to make sure that people have a good income to support them when they retire could address this issue. People could always opt for a private scheme if they wished.
Programs that help prevent or at least delay the sort of ailments that result in older people needing a high level of care will pay for themselves in the long run and greatly increase the quality of life for older people. Aerobic exercise classes, weights and resistance classes, yoga, Tai Chi, balance exercises, advice on healthy eating, participation in games of all sorts, the provision of social activities, all help to keep people active. The provision of support services in the home also reduce the number of people who need intensive care in hostels, nursing homes and hospitals. Retirement villages provide all these sorts of services but need to be well regulated and affordable. Comprehensive and affordable health insurance is also a necessity.
Another option is to change the tax system. We could abolish income tax altogether and largely rely on a goods and services tax to raise revenue. In this way, those who consume a lot pay the most tax. We could pay every adult a benefit – enough to live on, albeit frugally. Sounds an outrageous idea but it could have some very major benefits. For example, the administrative savings would be huge; there would be no stigma associated with receiving social security benefits; it would provide so many options for people – they could use the benefit to pay for childcare, take time off to study, use it to help establish a business, start a new career, spend time volunteering, to support creative endeavours and to provide a basic income after retirement. What a flourishing society such an approach would produce. It would require a big change of attitude, work would have to be seen as a privilege and the taxes paid by working people as their contribution to social capital.
A third option is to just pay higher taxes and make sure everyone, including corporations, pay their fair share. These taxes could be used to ensure that everybody is able to have the best possible life including access to excellent education, healthcare, accommodation and social security. If happiness is the goal of our society then we could learn a lot from the Scandinavian countries which consistently rank highly in the happiness stakes but pay fairly high tax. We may have to tighten our belts a bit to afford to pay higher taxes, maybe have more modest houses, fewer possessions, waste less, consume less. Over the past 60 years Australian homes have more than doubled in size, going from 100 square metres in 1950 to about over 240 square metres 2013. By comparison, Denmark, frequently the happiest country in the world, had houses sizes of 137 square metres. We are second only to America in terms of house sizes. Of course, fewer people are living in these bigger houses than in the past. Reducing our insatiable consumerism would make it easier to help those in need as well as helping the environment and producing a fairer society. If higher taxes, wisely spent, mean that people don’t have to beg in the streets, live under bridges, live in poverty or go without medical treatment, then I am happy to pay them.
Recently I went off to see the Spielberg movie Ready Player One. Some time in the future, not so long from now, humans are condemned to a harsh, ugly world where they eke out an uncertain and unsatisfying existence. With little to inspire them in the real world many escape to the virtual reality gaming world of Oasis. It is wondrous to behold and the special effects of the movie are fantastic. You can go anywhere, be anyone and do anything in this alternative universe. I enjoyed the first hour of the movie but the second hour dragged on a bit. Were the heroes ever going to find the three keys and the golden egg and reap their reward? The compulsory battle scenes seemed to go for ages. But the movie did make me think about virtual reality and the good life. For many people the good life means having enough money to live a comfortable life and enjoy a few treats such as travel or other indulgences.
It is very hard to escape the consumerist treadmill on which our economy seems to be based and so most of us accumulate a lot of possessions over a lifetime. We also tend to throw away a lot of our possessions and replace them with bigger and better things. When we travel or follow other pursuits we often use a lot of resources and have a negative impact on the environment. The impact on the Nepalese environment and culture of hundreds of determined souls slogging up the slopes of Mount Everest springs to mind. Not to mention being so obsessed with getting to the top of the world’s highest mountain that you are prepared to ignore people dying on the side of the track.
There is a danger that our seemingly unlimited need to be the best, own the best, have the best life possible might be at the expense of other people and the environment, for example, the sweatshops in Asia where many workers are paid a pittance to provide us with beautiful but cheap clothes and shoes. But maybe we could live much more modestly than most of us do now and share wealth more fairly around the world but still live the good life through the use of superb virtual reality places like Oasis.
Every time we felt like a treat instead of buying it, or travelling to it, we could experience it in alternative world. We could travel to wherever we wished, climb whatever mountains we desired, enjoy beautiful houses, gardens, cars and clothes to our hearts content whilst firmly anchored in our modest real abode. We could watch concerts, walk in the bush, visit imaginary universes, without adding to the enormous burden that our rampant consumerism is placing on the environment. All in moderation of course, because the greatest danger of such virtual reality is that we might never want to leave it.
Introductory remarks made to the Canberra Humanist Meetup on Tuesday 2/2/2016 in the Castle Room of King O’Malley’s Hotel at 18.30 pm.