Veiled Rage

Too many lotteries still determine our success or otherwise. “The Veil of Ignorance” is the idea that the rules should be determined before these dice are thrown, when you theoretically know nothing of your natural abilities or your place in society. I have never been good at “knowing my place”. Never good at the struggle between accepting things the way they are, because that is the pragmatic approach, and raging when they are not as “they should be”. One of the cornerstones of my worldview is growing up in Apartheid. An ugly philosophy founded on a seemingly positive idea of “self-determination”. Meritocracy is a similarly seemingly positive idea. The problem is the magic of compounding. The “same merit” applied to different resources results in a different outcome. It is impossible to see squiggles and not words once you learn to read. We remember names we have heard before. We recognise skills we possess. We acknowledge knowledge we know. We are human. We are ignorant. We are connected. Sometimes to move forward, you have to unlearn. To put aside what you think you see. And see.

Behind the Veil

Easily Rattled

Morality and ethics remain even when you have different religious beliefs. Even if you don’t have a higher power. They are the agreements we have with each other that allow us to cooperate and exist in the same physical space. None of us opted in. We were born without our consent. We were born with different lottery tickets. Our effort, skills and knowledge (merit?) determine much of our success, but most of that is determined by the lottery of geography, genetics, prejudice, and social networks. I am no longer religious, but I still have deeply held beliefs about right and wrong. I try hold them loosely where they don’t impact others. But fury still bubbles at injustice. I am easily rattled. Fury isn’t that helpful, but there are lots of big shared problems (Climate Change, War, Poverty, Pandemic, Financial Meltdown) where we have to have the horrible conversations we would rather not. We have to figure out how to have a shared conversation despite different world views.

Noise or Music

Start Building

I live close to the excavated ruins of a Roman Villa. The building took place over the course of three centuries. Each generation adding something. The end product, before the fall of the Empire led to its ruin sounds absolutely amazing to me. A life full of eating, bathing, sauna, massage, talking, walking, and pondering. Throw in some modern Japanese toilets and I would be sold. They didn't just wave a wand. Neither Rome nor Roman Villas were built in a day.

Chedworth Roman Villa

The idea of "Pensions" and supporting people when they can't work any more feels like a Roman Villa to me. An idea we now accept, even though most people don't end up having the support they require (yet). The big question is always how to pay for it. Something being a "Human Right" doesn't solve the problem of scarcity.

As the idea of Social Security spread, "Defined Benefits" was a way businesses and countries promised to look after people. The amount of the payment being linked to the number of years of service, and their ending salary.  These promises obviously cost money. Many older airlines are now nicknamed "Pension Funds with Wings" because of their responsibilities to old employees.

One way to pay for this, before you can afford it, is for people who are working to support those who have retired. "Pay As You Go" means the people putting into the fund pay money to those they are supporting. This is a merry-go-round, with the problem that if you gradually get more people living longer, those who are working are suddenly having to support more and more people.

This meant many providers have shifted to a "Defined Contribution" approach. This means you know what you put in, and what you get out is independent of your salary or service. It is simply based on how big an Engine you built.

There are lots of lessons to be learned from the various ways we have approached Pensions around the world. Australia is one of the countries leading the way with its Superannuation Funds. In 1992, Australians were required to commit 3% of their earnings to these funds. This has gradually increased and in 2025 will reach 12%. Collectively, in 2018, Australians held about $2.7 trillion in Pension Fund Assets (4th largest in the world).

I believe in a Universal Basic Income. That everyone, not just those who have retired, could receive a basic amount that ensures there is no financial poverty. Something like the forests and rivers that would have been around to live off when the first Romans arrived. A starting point. Waving a wand, this could be like the Norway Oil Fund. Unfortunately, we don't have wands... so we need to look for shovels. And build.

A fully funded Community Wealth Fund could pay 150 people a UBI of $2 a day, if it earned a real (above inflation) sustainable return of 3% on a fund of $3.65 million.

Obligation

Human Rights are part legal, and part moral. Both are made up. These Rights have attached obligations. There is the stuff you have to do, and the stuff you should do. The first part is the remit of Judges and Courts of Law. The second is the remit of Priest, Imams, Rabbis, Swamis and in the Secular world... gossip. We live in a world where the majority of our success is determined by the random lottery of birth - Geography, Genetics, Hereditary Privilege, Societal Prejudice. We don't all start with the same tools. Even then, the random hand of fate throws out an infinite number of paths.

Unmet Expectation is a huge source of unhappiness. My friend Stuart and I have been Roger Federer fans for a long time. His approach to this support is to expect the worst. He assumes he will lose, as a way to offset his disappointment. I am still owed one beer a month for the rest of my life for the match where arch-nemesis Nadal lost in the second round of Wimbledon. Even when Rafa was down and out, Stu still thought he would come back just to stick it to Roger later. Rafa lost, and Stu was delighted. If Rafa had won, Stu would have been delighted - he would have had a free beer every month for the rest of his life.

If you Expect nothing, you can't be disappointed. If you gain comfort with the downside, anything positive that happens is a bonus. This is the philosophy of the Stoics. Boethius wrote the book 'Consolations of Philosophy' on fate and death in the year running up to his unfair execution in 524. Accounts vary of how it was done - clubbing, beheading or hanging.

'Consolations of Philosophy' - Boethius

The Calvinistic Philosophy of Protestantism is very much influenced by this 'expect nothing' thinking. Even in countries like England where people are increasingly not religious, there is a sense of not using the word should. No one owes you anything. Sort yourself out. This doesn't mean people aren't generous. There is just a deep soaked trigger in the word 'should'. A friend of mine says he really doesn't like people shoulding all over the place.

As a personal philosophy, this is incredibly powerful and empowering. If you expect nothing from anybody... you don't have to wait for anything. You take responsibility for living life rather than life living you.

Having said all that, it triggers me that there is so little conversation about Colonialism and the darker side of British History here in Britain. As a Soutie (one foot in England, one foot in South Africa), I don't escape that conversation. A possible cornerstone of my identity is Apartheid. I was in High School as South Africa transitioned from White Minority Rule to Democracy in 1994. I grew up in an English speaking bubble known as 'The Last Outpost'.

The Last Outpost - Natal

On the other side of a few hills from where I grew up is the township of Umlazi. With a population of about 400,000 people, it was 'out of sight'. I only went there for the first time when I was 17. I grew up aware of Apartheid, but I remember that visit as a fairly pivotal 'this is not okay' experience. We SHOULD do something about this. 

Now whether you live on the other side of a hill, or the other side of the world, I don't think it is that relevant. The bubble I lived in could easily have been in England. The world is interconnected. The food we eat, clothes we wear, the copper and steel in houses we live in, and technology we use comes from all over. The fact that our rights are determined by the country we live, doesn't mean our obligations are purely local.

Taking a should on a problem doesn't help. I agree. People don't like being the enemy, and I think we have natural defence mechanism if someone tells us what we should do. That doesn't mean it isn't valid. I have no problem with some gossip, and some discomfort.

I am however a Deep Pragmatist. The reality is, it is far easier to preach the philosophy of not shoulding to people who have won the lottery of life. When someone is down and out, it comes across really badly to say, 'Pick yourself up!'. The reality is that a cornerstone of society is Property Rights and The Rule of Law. The stuff that allows all those privileges to accumulate - borders, prejudice, hereditary wealth. If you want people to respect that... if you think they should, then there has to be some sort of acknowledgement of history. It is easy when faced with your 'Killmonger Moment' to put down arms if 'moving on' doesn't entail letting people who benefit from rights, claim amnesty from shoulds.

Killmonger Moment

Turkey

Centre of the Old World

When Alexander built the Greek empire, he didn't head left. He went right. Inspired by leaders such as Cyrus the Great, of Persia. Cyrus became known for respecting the customs of the lands he conquered, even as he built centralised administration - his cylinder is believed to be the first human right's charter. Romans conquered Greece in 146BC. Rome then fell to the left (476 CE), and to the right (1453 CE). An irony of what we consider Europe is that its surviving capital for almost 1000 years longer than Rome was Constantinople... which became Istanbul. The conquering Sultan declared himself 'Kaysar-i Rûm' and made the city the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey is the modern country that followed the fall of that empire. The Mongol Empire had extended the overlaps all the way to China. Alexander wanted his capital in Babylon. Genghis' grandson Kublai founded the Yuan Dynasty of China. The story of modern Turkey pulls on the history highlights its central geographic position in the old world of Afroeurasia - full of flavour.

Turkish Language Group

Alexander's Empire

Mongol Empire

Cyrus Cylinder

Get Stuff Done

Before we looked to Government to provide basic human rights as part of the social contract, we had to do it ourselves. Although for most of humanity, we have lived in material poverty struggling for basic survival, many of us have a natural instinct to support each other. Voluntary Associations (clubs, religious groups, charities) sprung up where need existed. One of the things that hold us back now is the sense that everyone, particularly those wealthier than us, should pay for this support. If they don't, we don't. We can't be so scared of free loaders or scrooges that we don't just get on with it. A downside of the welfare state has been that we think we have to vote for change. We think that if we lose a vote, the change we want won't happen. In liberal democracies, we are largely able to get stuff done if we are willing to find people who voluntarily want to help. Don't vote for change. Change.

Homo Deus

There are a few books I have read that stand out as having challenged a deeply held belief of mine. Books that made me pause sufficiently long to change path. I have long considered myself liberal. A Word I associate with tolerance, and willingness to listen and learn. Homo Deus looks at the roots of liberalism in the enlightenment and humanism. The raising of the rights of the individual over the state. Human Rights. The book, along with Illiberal Reformers has made me far less comfortable with the idea of the individual as the basic unit of who we are. Less comfortable with the idea of Progress, especially when imposed on others in civilising missions. 

As we move to a connected world, where Artificial Intelligence can listen to the internally competing ideas and signals of our emotions, relationships and experiences - the day may soon come where others understand us better than we understand ourselves. Ideas of self, free-will, autonomy, trust and decision making will be turned on their head. This is an important book.

Equality (Tim)

All of us are equal

(Human Rights Part 3; Part 2 - Life, Liberty, & Security; Part 1 - Free Speech) 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1 states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” And then article 2 goes on to make reference to specific criteria for discrimination such as gender and race.

Which brings me to the burning question of our age. Why is there still so much racism in this world?  Why are ‘racial’ categories so hard-coded into our thinking, and why is it so hard for people to accept that race is really just a construct. It’s a man-made category without a firm biological basis. Sceptical? Think you can define racial characteristics? Try this thought experiment. Line up everyone in the whole world and order them from the darkest skin tone to the lightest. Now show me the point where one race ends and another begins.

Of course this is an extreme example, and most people would remind me of the common sense reality that everyone can tell who’s black and who’s white in their real lived experience. Can you, though? During the dark days of Apartheid, every South African had to be classified as black, white, coloured or Asian. Unfortunately for the racist architects of Apartheid, biology isn’t that simple, and it was not uncommon for so-called coloured people to be reclassified as white, or vice-versa based on an arbitrary standard like the infamous pencil test. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil_test_(South_Africa)

Ukuguqula lbatyi (the pencil test) 

by Kemang Wa Lehulere

Stories of racial confusion abound. Consider how a person who self-identifies as coloured in South Africa might be called black in America, and vice-versa. How would a Fijian be identified in America? How would an Inuit have been classified under Apartheid? To me the most ridiculous racial category of all is ‘Asian’. That means Russians, Turks, Kazakhs, Mongolians, Japanese, Afghans, Indians and Taiwanese Aborigines are all the same ‘race’.

Clearly, this is absurd, and so the argument in favour of racism is that you would need more fine-grained distinctions. But how much more fine-grained? From an outsider’s perspective, Indian people might look like a unified race, clearly distinct from other Asian peoples like the Chinese. But, from a closer perspective, it could be argued that North Indians (who mostly speak Indo-European languages) are racially distinct from South Indians (who mostly speak Dravidian languages). And so on, ad nauseam.

Finally, there is the argument from genetics. Genetics can prove the reality of race, even when we can’t see it, right? Well, yes and no. One of the most persistent and pernicious racial divisions in the world today is the distinction that is drawn between the black ‘race’ and the white ‘race’. The crux of this binary distinction is that all whites are of European descent and all blacks are of African descent. Unfortunately for the racists, genetics explodes the idea that there is a simple binary distinction between two homogeneous groups. There is no simple binary because there is more genetic diversity within Africa than in the rest of the world combined.

Racism isn’t just lazy thinking that splits humanity into false and superficial categories; it’s also lazy thinking that lumps genetically disparate groups of people into categories which confirm pre-existing biases. And that goes a long way to answering the riddle. Why does racism persist? Ultimately it’s just lazy thinking. And if we want to challenge racism, we all have to give up any kind of lazy stereotyping. We have to treat every individual as an individual and always resist the temptation to split or to lump, because humanity is far too complex, wonderful and beautiful to allow such lazy categorisation.

--- Other posts by Tim Casteling ---

Life, Liberty and Security (Tim)

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person

(Human Rights Series Part 2; Part 1 - Free Speech) 

This is article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think we can all agree that the world is failing at quite spectacularly at this one. According to the ICRC, Syria now has 6.3 million people internally displaced, 5 million living in besieged cities and 4.8 million refugees who have fled the country. As of April the UN estimated the death toll to be at least 400,000.  God knows how many more have died since the Syrian and Russian bombing campaigns accelerated, and the siege of Aleppo started.

When the genocide happened in Rwanda, we all vowed that the world would never let such a thing happen again, and yet we’re watching it right now in Syria. So what went wrong? It’s pretty obvious that the world’s global policeman, in the shape of America, has blown all his goodwill, lost his authority and just flat-out spread himself too thin. Not only that, but by so transparently seeking self-interest in Iraq and other conflicts, Uncle Sam has set a dangerous precedent. Enter Russia and Iran as the self-interested saviours of the Syrian regime, and agents of genocide.

In ‘The Better Angels of Our Nature’, Steven Pinker revived Thomas Hobbes’ idea of keeping the peace by means of a ‘monopoly on the legitimate use of force’.  The Wild West illustrates the principle perfectly. The American West was a great deal more violent and dangerous 100 years ago than it is now because everyone was armed, and everyone had the right to defend himself, which set the scene for vigilantism and unbreakable cycles of revenge killing. Nowadays, the police generally reserve a monopoly on violence, and so the average citizen is much safer.

Thomas Hobbes and Better Angels

To me there is a clear analogy between this and one of the core principles of the United Nations – that no single nation has the right to take unilateral action against any other. Clearly, the UN isn’t keeping the peace as well as it could, and the veto power of the Security Council member states is one of the main reasons why. And yet, in cases where the member states can agree, the UN has had a good deal of success. There have been 71 UN Peacekeeping missions since 1948, with 16 currently in progress. Perhaps the most successful United Nations military intervention thus far was protecting South Korea from invasion by the North in 1953. I wouldn’t be sitting so comfortably in Seoul right now if that hadn’t happened.

So, to draw these threads together, my wish is that individual states would have less power and that the UN would have more power to intervene in conflict situations. To me, giving a disinterested body like the UN a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is only way of ensuring that peacekeeping is exactly that, and not politically motivated like the American action in Iraq, or the Russian involvement in Syria. 

--- Other posts by Tim Casteling ---

Free Speech (Tim)

The Debatable Right to Free Speech

(Human Rights Series Part 1) 

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to… receive and impart information and ideas through any media.” Sounds completely reasonable, until you realise that the first item returned on a Google search ‘Did the holocaust happen?’ is ‘Top 10 reasons why the holocaust didn’t happen’ published on the anti-Semitic, hate speech website Stormfront.org. Is that an opinion which has a right to dissemination through any media and regardless of frontiers?

I find holocaust denial a very compelling case because it’s not just an aberrant opinion; it’s an opinion that makes very specific claims about historical reality. That the Nazis killed six million Jews is an undeniable fact, and to deny it is to make specific claims about reality. If even the most basic research shows that holocaust denial is demonstrably false, why bother to proscribe it? My argument is that even easily falsifiable facts may be more harmful that mere opinions. If you post an article about why you personally hate Jews, it’s obvious to any reader that it’s just your opinion. However, opinions become something a lot more dangerous when they distort facts to try and win converts. It’s facts rather than opinions that need protection sometimes.

Donald Trump told a great many lies in his presidential campaign. Not strongly worded opinions, or political doublespeak, but out and out lies. The most notorious of these lies was the promise to build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it. If he merely expresses the opinion that the US government should make more effort to seal the border with Mexico, that’s his right. The problem is that he made appeal to actual real-world facts. He made a promise to do something which cannot actually be done. You can’t actually force another country to pay for your public works. But the lie is told, the seed is planted in people’s heads and the harm is done. The same might be said about the claims which were pushed by the Leave campaign in Britain.

Fact-Checking the Donald

I don’t really mean to get political, but these events do highlight the fact that increasing numbers of people are being duped by claims that could easily have been falsified.  Fake news is the hot topic of the day, but it’s really just the extreme version of various forms of counterfactual and spurious claims which float freely around the internet. See the anti-vaccination movement for another example. My question is; what should be done about it?  Should these sorts of falsehoods be allowed to survive?

I don’t have an answer. I just want to start the discussion. Maybe governments should start by banning fake news. Maybe politicians should be censured for making claims that are demonstrably false. Does the internet need some kind of watchdog? Or is it simply up to us to educate future generations so that they are less susceptible to BS? Let’s just hope it’s not too late by then.  

--- Other posts by Tim Casteling ---

Identity

At the heart of Humanism is identity. It emphasises the value and agency of individuals, and groups of people. It is empowering. It supports the idea of progress, and our ability to improve our lives. Who are you? How can you get better? The world is complicated, uncertain, and ambiguous. We need simplification tools. Nations simplify us and them. Money simplifies exchange so you can compare completely different, incomparable, things. Identity simplifies us so that we can focus on an area to improve. A story we can understand. A story we can tweak. Our value and agency doesn't lie in these stories that separate us. In our uniqueness. Value and agency lies in how we connect.

Human Rights

Rights are a story. Good people can disagree on what they should be, and there is no objective way of showing one to be correct. The only basis for creating a set of stories, and an underlying common story we can all share is to start by listening. Ideological arguments are fairly pointless if there isn't a set of shared facts and shared assumptions. The more global you get, the less agreement there will be. The more local, you get the more agreement there can be. We know from personal relationships, and breakups, that even at the ultra local level it is brutally difficult. Pillow politics is perhaps the hardest. Family tensions are something that unites almost everyone I know. The starting point for consensus has to be finding what we have in common. What it is we are fighting for together.

Becoming We

We are here. That much we know, and we are trying to figure things out. We have things we want to protect, and things we want to change. The world is complex, ambiguous and uncertain and our biology and experience prevents us from ever understanding. We see depending on what we have seen. We learn depending on the path we take.

I approach this quagmire by trying to deconstruct my identity. I don't like the part of building tribes that separates me from other people. I want to learn more about how to build communities. Part of that requires investing less in 'finding yourself' and more in listening to the stories of others. In order to understand those stories, we have to find some sort of common ground. A path from each other's world views. A shared language. Listening is finding yourself in others.

I see the value in wanting to protect. In holy. We invest a lot in our stories. I have always invested deeply in relationships and groups. My school, my city, my church, my country, my continent, my second country, my university, my residence and each of the companies that I have worked at. When I meet with colleagues I used to work with, I still talk about 'We'. I don't leave relationships. I replay stepping on every pebble on my path in my head. In my heart. My story is a deeply connected web of the people I have loved. Each of those individual relationships comes about from having been part of a community that was exclusive in some way. Each one of those relationships is part of my privilege.

 

Westville, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal

Having landed up here we have been slowly trying to figure out how to experience this beautiful, difficult, scary, bewildering place together. The best way to do that as being a combination of Human Rights, Constitutions and Institutions - Social Contracts. Sets of agreements forged through experience. Through lessons learnt from our shared history. Agreements based on an increased consciousness. Agreements built through chipping away at our ignorance. Chipping away at our prejudice.

South Africa, the University of Cape Town, The United Kingdom

I love being able to lean deeply into a shared story. Something where we feel special, exclusive, different, unique - together. We need to forge a world where that is okay, but doesn't stop others from being able to do that. That doesn't stop us and others being on the same team in other groups. 

The heart of Social Contracts is the 'Veil of Ignorance'. If you don't know which role you are to play, what is the bare minimum that is acceptable for any player? What would allow every player to participate fully? That is Human Rights. The core fundamentals that as a group we decide everyone should have. Then we can build on top of that as many groups with different rules as we like. 

A variety of meals from our common ingredients.

Rocket Science

I have always taken myself a little bit too seriously. This included my studies. I can remember clearly one of my first panic related study events. My two older brothers trying to calm me down about a Geography test I had the next day. I must have been about 11 or 12 years old, and didn't understand why the information wasn't sticking in my head. I didn't like that panic, and so was a diligent student to keep those wolves well fed. Starting early enough meant I would feel okay. 

Most Industrial Style education seems to be about the panic. By the time I got to university, it felt like the point was to give students too much information to get through, so that they always felt like they were drowning. The Professors didn't speak to each other, and always prioritised their subject over the others. Starting early didn't keep the wolves full.

When the panic of not understanding started, the only thing I was able to tell myself was that I was studying Rocket Science. I wasn't pushing the boundaries of human thought. What I was doing had been done before. There was a well mapped out path from one thought to another, and I just had to do the work. Just put one foot, one thought, in front of the other and keep on plodding.

One of the benefits of being human is we don't need to learn lessons ourselves. We can learn from the paths others have tried if we are prepared to listen. We can learn from the wars between Catholics and Protestants. There have been lots of Civil Wars. Lots of Civil Wars have ended. The 'same-same' groups we now belong to are mostly made up of the most entrenched conflicts of the past. The Aztecs and the Maori didn't have beef. The English and the Irish did. Pakistan and India do. China and Japan do. The warring tribes of the Arabian peninsula did, before Muhammad came up with the world's first constitution. 

We can learn about Human Rights from a long history since Cyrus the Great of Persia and some of the first steps he laid in the first known 'Bill of Rights' - the Cyrus Cylinder. We can read Hobbes thoughts are whether or not it is worth taking up arms against a Government.

The Cyrus Cylinder

Panic doesn't help much. We can chip away at the big problems by learning from each other. Playing nicely isn't Rocket Science. People have done it before.