F is for Faith

Intro

Writing about faith is a little bit of a strange decision for me: in many ways and for a lot of things, I don't have any.  May be a fatalistic resignation to one concept over another but actual faith?  I'm not so sure.

F is for Faith

Usually when I use one of my alphabetic designations like this, the word the relevant letter stands for is a problem.  And so it is here.

Faith is a problem.

There, I said it.  Yes I'm being deliberately inflammatory, and it's not even exactly true, but it's close - much like saying 'money is the root of all evil' when the full, correct quote is 'the love of money is the root of all evil'.  But then, the whole point it is misquoted is that the human condition all but dictates that the former is just as true as the latter.

For example, the Israelis believe that the creation of a Palestinian state would represent an unacceptable threat to their very existence.  The Palestinians believe that without creating a Palestinian state, they are doomed.

Both viewpoints are actually articles of faith, and both are fundamentally flawed.

F is for Fundamentals

It's usually the fundamentalists of a particular belief that are singled out as living proof that faith is at best a problem, at worst a plague.

Let us examine the fundamentals behind my example.

Why do the Israelis so deeply fear the creation of a Palestinian state?  I believe it is primarily because there is a massive historical precedent for conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, far older than the creation of the modern state of Israel.  In one form or another, the Israelis and the Palestinians have been in conflict for thousands of years.  So to the Israeli mind, the creation of a Palestinian state wouldn't be about doing justice to the Palestinians, but about setting up their arch enemies as their neighbours, where they would be a threat to their security, their economy and their increasing dominance on the world stage through their exportation of technology and private security.

In other words, Israelis believe that the creation of a Palestinian state is tantamount to taking away the land they have been given - by God, from a Jewish point of view; Britain and the US from the political.

Strangely, it is actually the Palestinian fundamental that is more interesting.  Why are they so keen on the creation of a Palestinian state?

F is for Frontier

There was a time when there were no frontiers in the strict geographical sense that we understand by the word 'borders' today.  A frontier was a fluid thing that moved by the day.  Many people were hunter-gatherers of a nomadic nature, never settling in one place for long.

In my reading of "Rhodesia: The Last Outpost of the British Empire" by Peter Baxter, so far, Baxter seems to share my view that the imposition of borders in Africa accounts for a great deal of bloodshed (to put the idea very, very roughly).  Where before tribes could move at will, skirmish as necessary and relocate accordingly, with the arrival of the Europeans these tribal peoples frequently found themselves pinned between one border and another; borders that were violently defended by Europeans insisting that the land and resources beyond 'belonged' to them.

In today's capitalist world, a piece of earth to call your own means stability, safety and the protection of international law.  What's stable and safe about it?  Well you can stamp your seal of ownership on something (whether it actually belongs to you or not) and charge people twice as much as it's worth (minimum) so that you can earn a living.  So far so good, even I admit that.

The problem is, human beings aren't content with having enough - enough is NEVER enough.  Having enough means having a base to operate from so that you can get more.

Being successful in our society means having more than the next guy.

F is for Finance

So, while the developing world is evolving towards capitalism, the world's foremost financial minds are meeting at the luxury resort of Davos Switzerland to discuss the future of the European Union.  And what is likely to feature as it has done before: why doesn't capitalism work?

And why do I object to this?  Well, let's consider it.

Let's think of a previous cycle: the production of energy on an industrial scale.  First, 'western' civilisation had energy produced by burning fossil fuels.  By the time today's emerging powers caught up with that idea, fossil fuels were being superceded by the cleaner, more efficient - and by the way more dangerous - nuclear power.

On the one hand you could say that 'encouraging' (aka forcing) the developing world to adopt nuclear power was a concern for the environment.  But of course that's not the real reason.  The real reason is money, as always.  Nuclear power was something western civilisation developed so we could export it, sell it, mass produce it - simultaneously earning ourselves a fortune, and forestalling the inevitable changes on the leader board.

And here we go again.  Just as Brazil, India and China are starting to be major players in a globally capitalistic society, the traditional economic superpowers are busy discussing what to replace it with.

F is for Futile

There's a reason that philosophy, politics, economics and a variety of other academic subjects do not meet humanity's needs when they are practically applied.

It's a very simple reason.  Are you reading closely?

All these areas of academic reasoning are concerned with working within the system.

The most fundamental thing human beings will agree on if asked is that this system isn't working.  That's why we complain about it all the time.

But all these methods are about improving the system.  We think that if we work hard enough, everything will be perfect: if we have enough, we'll be happy; if we pour enough money into it, the system will work: everyone will have not only what they want, but what they need.

The system is flawed.  Adam Smith, the father of modern economics basically said that the best result will come with everyone doing what's best for himself.

The trouble is, that even when we started working with modern economics, even back at the dawn of time, there was no level playing field.  Communism tried to create one and it didn't work.

Capitalism is the individual looking out for himself.  Communism is the state looking out for everyone.  Those are basically the two outlooks we're stuck with.

And everyone's so busy trying to perfect one or the other, that it never occurs to them to try something different.

America could stop trying to run the world at the cost of everyone else's freedom.

Israel could work through the challenges of allowing the creation of a Palestinian state.

The Palestinians could move somewhere new.

But it's easier to fight about the way things are.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is co-operation." (Bertrand Russell)

BUT

"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.  And I'm still not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein)