April 2nd, 2008 by Maja

For a long time I was looking for solutions to problems we have in our society within the established ideologies and political parties. But even though this political activism taught me a lot about current issues, and gave me various groups to “belong” to, I was always frustrated over how much energy had to be expended on playing the political game. In a way we had to be more concerned about who solved the problem, than solving it. But if we didn’t play this game, we wouldn’t get the political power to do anything.

These were and still are the rules of politics – play it, or do your own thing on the side, in silence.

Of course campaigning is very important in terms of raising awareness and give the public a choice as to what method, from what party, they would prefer. To give the public this choice is one of the fundamental functions in a democracy. But when this campaigning is not about finding the best method for the greatest number of people, by honestly and openly presenting a solution to the public, but about scoring political points through word-twisting, how can the public make a well informed choice? The public can’t be experts in everything and if they don’t know what they are actually choosing, how is this a democracy?

I feel ashamed for politicians when they are trying to belittle each other, and frustrated when they actively and obviously distract from their opponents’ points. Still, I understand how they have become dependent on this to stay on the political scene and achieve anything at all.

Now I’m not looking to any political party to offer “the solution” anymore. The icebergs wont hold back for the next election, and this political game is not working fast or well enough these days.

I know I’m not the only one who feels this way, and I’m sometimes scared I belong to a generation that is about to give up. That we are once and for all resigned to capitalism and egoism because we don’t think we have any real choice. While progress is increasingly measured in minutes on screen, and the feeling of freedom and meaning can be attained chemically, are we distracting ourselves from any existential crisis this development perhaps should infuse, or any real resistance it could inspire?

I’m also scared that the political power has been moved so far away from people’s everyday realities and grown so large, that most political activists will be pushed to challenge it with violence. I’m scared of how this violence is used as an excuse for the authorities to refuse listening to opposing views, making them even more desperate and violent.

Is this a time when we can’t actually change the workings of our society, or is it an era when we don’t feel as though we can? Did the “modernists”, the generation that is now disappearing, have a way to process the world that we “post-modernists” could learn something from? Further, is there perhaps a new language of resistance that is not seen through the normal political channels but on platforms not immediately apparent to most of us?

What’s our relationship to our future? Does the concept of a better future still exist?

mb

April 1st, 2008 by admin

Finding a way to marry our current economic system with humanistic and environmental concerns seems to be the challenge of our time, but is this perhaps an inherent contradiction?

In human history “the survival of the fittest” has been a matter of competing over available resources. In modern times this competition has been structured into a regulated global economic system, an attempt to create a more “civilized” world. Today our economy still reflects this competition.

With modern technology we have the ability to produce in abundance. According to both Amnesty International and the UN we are already producing more food than is needed to feed the world. We also have the scientific knowledge to maintain this level of production using new methods and materials that wouldn’t damage the eco-system or rely on depleting resources. Still, millions of people are starving and we keep over-exploiting un-renewables such as oil, gas and coal at a much faster rate than the planet can sustain. Somehow, this unequal distribution of goods and unsustainable management of scarce resources, constitutes a “thriving economy”.

Our system is dependent on constant growth, which has led to over-production and dwindling resources. At the same time we need to waste the surplus in order to sustain value, to balance supply and demand in order to keep our economy – not our environment – “healthy”.

People are beginning to ask the question whether our basic model of “competition” and perpetual growth is still valid and necessary. What was once “modern” suddenly doesn’t seem so “civilized” anymore.

Through the intelligent application of new technologies we have a possibility to re-structure our economic system more equitably, in alignment with what the planet can actually supply. It has become a matter of choice; collaboration or competition. We could choose to feed everyone. It could be a seismic cultural shift.

But instead it is argued that our culture and our technological advancements are motivated by the economic competition. There is a big fear that we would not have the incentive to work and invent if we didn’t have the need to earn money. But the competition for profit also creates the incentive for crime and corruption and there are many people already working for no profit, usually people who passionately love their jobs or can afford to do what they want. Have we become dependent on someone else motivating us to get out of bed?

What would happen to a culture where everyone actually had a free choice over how to live their lives?

March 21st, 2008 by admin

I sometimes hear I belong to a ‘lost generation’, which no longer cares about anything but themselves. But how can we trust our political system when we feel disenfranchised and unable to make a difference; what’s the point in caring for something that no longer belongs to us?

Even though economists recognize the influence of money lobbyists on the political system, and are aware that “the market” cannot in itself take action against global warming and pollution, there is no prevalent search for alternatives or debate about the fundamental workings of our monetary-based economy. The public debate is between the left and right of the same model; how much a government should intervene into “free trade”, a debate that many of my generation have stopped participating in, rejecting it as false democracy.

With the possibilities of modern technology at hand and the wisdom from civilizations that have risen and fallen before our own, is this really the best we can do? Why is there no real debate about alternative ways of managing our resources, where are the ideas for a new economic system?

I think it is time to focus on what solutions we have available since we are already despondently aware of the problems – and that is what Future for Sale is all about, and what I hope we will be discussing in this blog.

mb