Archives for category: Thinking as one world

Yesterday I had the privilege of watching a Webinar of a meeting of a group of Australian Aboriginal people, hearing the views of young and old, male and female. All of them are achievers, all of them have suffered as Aboriginal people who are treated as second class citizens in their country. Importantly the whole event was convened by Aboriginal people. It did strike me as a sharp contrast to the conferences I attend on ageing, which are organised by younger people, the speakers are largely younger people, as are the attendees. One day hopefully all groups who are treated as second class people will have their voices heard at a national level, although I suspect it will not happen in my lifetime.

Yesterday’s Webinar happened not long after a respected TV show had exposed the unintelligent, and cruel, treatment of Aboriginal youngsters in a state-run detention facility. The cruelty of those involved, from ministers responsible for overseeing it, to administers responsible for running it, to staff involved in handling the inmates, was unbelievable. Australia was shocked. Many years ago an investigation had been undertaken into the fact that Aboriginals end up in prison far more frequently than their non-Aboriginal counterparts. Since then the situation has worsened. I think, and hope, last week’s report is more likely to be effective because it had visual footage of the situation and therefore reached more people.

What struck me about yesterday’s Webinar was the lack of the ‘blame game’. The speakers were all being positive about what needs to be done, looking forward, not backward. They had very intelligent suggestions about the future, without blame or finger-pointing. These were the views of highly intelligent people, keen to look forward, not backwards.

If only those running this country, and I suspect the same applies in most other countries, would listen to such groups. The current situation leads to a lack of respect for parliamentarians, and one has only to look at current and past members of Parliament to realise the low standard required to be elected, for an answer to the current situation to be obvious. The behaviour of those , including those involved in positions of authority, particularly in places such as the juvenile detention centres, is often inexcusable. One way to overcome this is to expect and demand a high level of behaviour of all those whose salaries are paid by governments.

Meanwhile the Aboriginals I had the privilege of listening to yesterday, struggle to have their voices heard. We need to create an environment in which those who struggle to create a better world for all are given the respect they deserve and their voices are heard, particularly when they speak on behalf of those groups whose talents are frequently overlooked, from young to old. Think of the rich, in all meanings of that word, world it would create.

May those who are speaking up continue their fight until we have the better world they are fighting for. One day it will happen, I hope.

Earlier this week Playschool, an Australian children’s TV programme, celebrated 50 years of providing entertainment and learning to Australia’s youngest people. The programme has been, and hopefully always will be, under the guidance of experts in early education. A brilliant idea that children should have the best right from the beginning. If you mention the word ‘Playschool’ to millions of Australians the opening tune pops up in their heads. Not only did the program teach that it’s OK to be different but included such differences through the presenters themselves and the participating children. Music, dancing and singing, which I believe are essential to all human beings, were, and are, a major part of each episode. To those Australians trying to deny their connections to this programme I only have to mention Big Ted and Jemima to bring back memories.

On the actual birthday ABC TV aired their Q and A programme featuring the leader of a political party based on highlighting political and religious differences, and fostering a lack of understanding between them, a group which has recently re-entered our parliament. France has just suffered yet another mass murder based once again on religious differences. And in the US a money addict has been anointed head of one of their major parties and will stand for President later in the year. Not a happy and prosperous world.

If only all these people had started their early lives, and education, by learning that people are different and that these differences should be respected. We all have the right to live together working towards a common good. We all have the right to be different and pull together, through understanding each other, to create a prosperous and safe world for us all. These were the messages that Playschool taught millions of young Australians through love and understanding. I wonder if that is why we live in such a relatively peaceful country today? Thanks Playschool for what you have done for us individually, for our families and for what you contributed to Australia for over 50 years.

 

 

 

 

 

So many changes are happening in the world that affects me, yet change can lead in different directions, not always based on the common good.

We’ve just had elections here in Australia which could take us either way, either to improve we way we live or worsen it. The British have had an even more traumatic vote on whether to leave the European Union or not and in the background the Americans are preparing to elect a new President. These are all happening in particularly prominent countries, whereas most of what is happening in the rest of the world tends to fit into the ‘more of the same’ basket, with decisions largely only affecting those living in that country.

The Australian election is important to me as it obviously affects me but whether we are affected locally or internationally, we are still dependant on a relatively small handful of people for decision-making guidance. The British vote was a frightening example of this. Two men with parallel backgrounds coming through the cream of the British education system came to opposite positions on whether to stay in the European Union or not.

How could this happen?  Surely with all the access they had to knowledge and information they should have come to similar conclusions, whether staying or exiting would be better for the countries involved, particularly given that their education and training should have enabled the leaders of the two sides to sort the available knowledge accurately and intelligently? Given that the decision taken will have a huge impact on the people involved it places the population in a very vulnerable position.

Other decision-making situations could have equally devastating results, particularly the US elections. Decisions taken there tend to affect far more than merely the people under that jurisdiction.

The general population needs more information and guidance and we need it from intelligent, well-educated people who are not driven by their own particular dreams and aspirations.

Change is inevitable as the world in its entirety changes. How we manage that change depends on the information given to us about particular situations and who gives it to us in terms of their own particular aspirations.

Is the problem the fact that our access to knowledge is changing and we are not yet trained to know how to deal with it? Meanwhile what are our decisions based on, and what should they be based on, particularly in the collective field of voting?

This week, in a country to Australia’s north, students set off, unarmed they claim, to march to their Prime Minister’s office to protest against his alleged rorts, believing he is setting aside, inappropriately, money for his own personal use. The result was police firing on the students, with at least one in hospital and others too frightened to seek treatment. There are no reports of any police being hurt, certainly not shot. The political reaction has been just as bad with parliament suspended for many weeks, presumably so that no awkward questions can be asked, not only about what happened with the students but also about their allegations. Is this democracy and if not, why not?

The situation in the USA is equally inexplicable. How can a man whose only claim to achievement seems to be the ability to collect money off other people have the distinct possibility of becoming the next President? It seems that in the USA the present incumbent of the position is the only non-rich person who has made it to that office. The other current alternative candidate herself fits the rich bill.

In Australia the incumbent prime Minister has the same qualification, that of being able to collect money off others and thus become rich. He had a lot of ability when younger but hasn’t found it necessary to formally upgrade his knowledge base for nearly 40 years, in spite of the massive increase in knowledge in the world.

New technology, and other new knowledge, is rapidly changing our world but our leaders seem to feel it unnecessary to keep themselves up to date and we as electors seem to feel that the only criteria for leadership is the ability to collect money from others. If we look at the messy world around us it seems to be true that people get what they deserve when they vote yet there are so many others striving to create a better world in an infinite number of fields.

There is at least one movement in Australia trying to choose our representatives in a way that more accurately reflects what ordinary voters, and hence the majority of people want. I suspect that means a fair go for all and settling disputes through conversation, not useless violence followed by conversation. After all, it is ordinary people who suffer the violence and aftermath of it. The current refugees are testament to this.

Meanwhile the pot of gold at the end of this story continues to be overlooked. The enormous wealth of knowledge, information, experience and ideas locked up in older people continues to be dismissed as a burden, with older people regarded as second class, dependent citizens. I only hope that those who come after the present generation of leaders will have learned more from their education and recognise the knowledge, expertise and value, not burden, of older people. Then we can have the sort of world ordinary citizens, including older people, really want.

 

The other evening I watched a discussion on television amongst prominent Australians who are pushing for more equality in society. The panel included a former chief of the army who highlighted the fight against discrimination against women in the army, a sex discrimination officer, a barrister who is campaigning against capital punishment and a young man who has set up a van with a washing machine in it and drives around offering to wash the clothes of the homeless. The level of conversation and caring was extremely high and it was a good representation of how we should be caring for the voiceless. It also reminded viewers that discussion is often also at a mundane level, such as whether using the term ‘guys’ for a group of people is sexist.

I’m raising this because although the discussion was largely about discrimination there was no mention of ageism and its accompanying discrimination against older people. We are still invisible.

This happened at a time when the International Federation for Gerontology and Geriatrics is organising a conference next year in San Francisco on ageing. They only have two registration prices, one for general participants and a discount price for students, no discount for retirees. I wrote to suggest that this means that they will be having a conference on ageing without the ageing, which would make it less accurate, but got no response. When will we wake up to the fact that older people can be valuable members of the community and our voices should be welcome, including at conferences on ageing (the real experts on this particular topic). When that happens the organisers of  this conference will look somewhat silly, and professionally inept and inaccurate.

I suppose my frustration parallels that of the suffragettes who also had to campaign for many decades for recognition of women’s rights and capabilities. You would think we would have learned from that fight but apparently not. The trouble is that ignoring all that older people have to offer is a costly error both for the country, the world and for older people as well.

I hope that there is an after life otherwise I suspect I will miss the opportunity to look down on television discussions and conferences in which older people take an equal place amongst other groups in society. I’m giving up hope of it happening in my lifetime!

The last couple of decades in particular have seen us make huge advances in communication and other areas of technology which seem to have affected the lives of many people in the world. The ones who have missed out are those who seem to miss out on everything- food, clothing, shelter and medical expertise. And we don’t seem to care.

Does humanity have to be like this? Is there one country in the world which is going against the trend and reducing the gap between the top rich 1% and the bottom poor 1%? If there is such a country I would guess that its leaders are not rich, as are currently the leaders, and potential leaders, in the most influential countries in the world.

Citizens in the USA seem to be heading in the direction of having to choose between two rich citizens for their next leader even though I am sure that there are many, many, people who would make better leaders because they have more knowledge and ability and are not tainted by being money addicts.

So many countries in the world have this problem of admiring the rich, presumably because they wish they were in that position themselves. In Australia the media is listing the top people on our rich list presumably lauding them for having this particular trait, which in the field of medicine would be labelled an addiction. In the past so many rich people have used their wealth to honour their names and families by putting their money into charitable trusts or noteworthy buildings, both of which honoured their memories for generations to come. Today’s rich seem more intent on spending as much of their wealth on themselves and leaving their offspring in the same situation rather than leaving a lasting memory. Is this because the Christian church, which encouraged the former behaviour, is no longer as influential as it was?

Is there no one today with the power and influence to encourage a fairer sharing of resources? Could I be right in feeling that if we did have fewer rich people and fewer poor people the world would be a much better place? We can’t just assume that those at the bottom leg of the ladder are brainless and untalented. Many of those who have reached the top today have done so because they got a leg up and opportunities from their rich families, rarely just from their own abilities.

Could we measure the degree of success of today’s world by the extent to which the basic necessities are available to all, and all have access to a good education and the opportunity to make use of it to the best of their ability? If we could make such a measurement I suspect today’s world  would end up with a big ‘FAIL’.

This isn’t good enough. In the past the plague affected everyone, rich and poor, and today’s superbugs are threatening to do the same. We need to pull together to make this world a happier successful place which we all share. Technology and other modern advances can’t do this on their own- it needs a caring human race to facilitate it.

This is a strange time to be one of the elders of the world.  In developed countries in particular we haven’t yet come to terms with our ageing populations. We are adopting a ‘more of the same’ approach from the past which isn’t working  either for us older people or the communities we live in. I am under the impression that developing countries are starting to encounter the same problems.

Personally, in Australia which prides itself on being a multicultural society, I find myself facing very different situations. Twice recently I have found myself dealing with two people from very different non-Australian backgrounds. One decided that as a little old lady I could be bullied and she tried this approach. Needless to say it didn’t work- she had underestimated me! The other person, from a very different background, seemed to think that as an older person I might have an interesting story. We had a great conversation as we shared ideas. This second approach is the way to go and has more positive consequences. Our strength is in sharing intergenerational ideas, no matter what our background is.

Meanwhile those in power seem blinded by the idea that we older people are merely a cost and therefore a burden. All they can see is a generation which is adding to costs and will continue to do so as our numbers grow. I wonder how long it will be before our leaders see the older generation as an asset, with ideas based on historical development, not the here and now approach currently in play. We also need to realise that not all ideas are costly and need loads of resources. I will forever have in my mind the photo of the Indian mother and daughter who realised that if you slant the lines at the front of a zebra crossing it will look 3D and therefore slow traffic down. A simple, cheap idea which can save lives across the world. Why can’t all older people be encouraged to think differently and come up with such ideas, rather than merely being dismissed as an economic burden?

It’s not all bad news. Warrigal Care, which runs aged care facilities, from independent living to palliative care, on several sites in one Australian state is planning to celebrate ‘Go Grey in May’ and ‘the contributions older people make to our lives’ by having a photographic exhibition. I would like to think that this attitude is one everyone will have towards older people in the future.

 

The history of mankind is that we started out as hunter gatherers, then moved on to a more stable life as agriculturists. Industry was the main contributor to us creating towns and then cities. One of the common elements of each type of lifestyle is that we passed on knowledge to each other. The extent to which this happened depended on the size of the group we were part of, with education taking on a more formal approach as our numbers grew and we learned to communicate through writing as well as speech.

Today’s huge cities and the new ways of communicating not only makes knowledge more accessible but it is leading to an astronomical growth in the amount of that knowledge. As our groups increased in size only the elite had access to it and were educated, but gradually we are realising that we can all benefit from universal access. To enable this societies have set up schools, firstly primary, then secondary with universities as the third stage. The extent to which it is available to the whole community is a gradual evolution, with most country’s realising that the more educated the population is, the more prosperous the country is likely to be.

I feel that many countries now accept this and are enabling all education to be available to the whole population as they want it. This raises the question of ‘where to from here’? I suspect that we will come to a realisation that as we progress through the knowledge chain much of our early learning becomes out-dated. Does the information we learned at high school or university 20, 30 or more years ago still apply today and is it still relevant? What has happened to our brains in the meantime? Are they still operating at the high standard we forced them to reach when we reached the end of our formal education?

I often consider this when I hear our leaders, particularly our politicians, expressing their views on topics. Many of them seem to be relying on what they learned during the final years of education and their brains have had a nice sleep since! Not only do they appear out of date and foolish but as some of them are senior policy makers this can be quite dangerous. The statement made this week that the new rules to make it harder for ordinary citizens in Australia to stand for Parliament unless they are aligned to one of the major parties give us a more democratic society is nonsense. I believe that restricting candidates to 1 of 3 major parties is in itself undemocratic. It disallows other views, which can never be an intelligent move.

I suspect that the next move in society’s attitude to acquiring knowledge and learning will lead us to recognise the importance of, and necessity for, lifelong learning. No longer would a high school certificate or university degree be accepted as the end of an individual’s learning. Knowledge is expanding too rapidly, and becoming out-of-date to soon for that. We will need to insert a next step later in life. How we will do it, and who will pay for it, is a problem we aren’t even aware of yet.

For some time now I have been concerned at the way democracy seems to be rapidly disappearing from the political scene in Australia and in the USA. In the case of the latter country, I find it unbelievable that someone with a limited amount of adherence to acceptable standards could be seriously considered to be the next President, particularly given the powerful role the US has in the world. I understand that even if he is endorsed by the time of the election, his party may overrule this which is not only a relief but does question the democracy behind the procedure.

Meanwhile in Australia there is constant speculation about when the election will be held and whether it will only involve the lower house of parliament, or if both houses will be involved as punishment to the upper house for not passing all the government’s legislation. I find it hard to align either of these with a genuinely democratic government. In the latter case some members of minority party’s are likely to lose their jobs. There is the presumed message, either you pass our bills or you may lose your job. This is not democracy, it is bullying. As for the timing of the election, one gets the impression that the date will be decided by the current government to enhance their maximum re-election chances. None of this has anything to do with democracy or the best interests of Australia. This presents a good case for fixed elections which are beyond any tinkering by the government in power.

These are only two of the world’s countries but I wonder if other jurisdictions are going down the same path or if genuine democracy is being upheld in other places? Is it a world trend or just two wayward countries which are exceptions?

As people gathered into towns and cities for work, mainly originally manufacturing, the bigger numbers living in close proximity to each other found the need to form some sort of protection in the form of government for these people. As numbers grew, even bigger areas felt that they had a lot in common and needed protection and other rules and regulations were enacted to protect all of these citizens. Natural boundaries, such as coastlines and rivers, were used to define these areas, where available. Otherwise manmade boundaries were created, not always successfully.

Eventually these countries found it beneficial to work together and the league of nations was formed, later the United Nations. Not all countries recognise the benefits of working together: North Korea is a current example of this.

As for those countries which do see the value of cooperation and have democratic governments, I wonder if all are going through a continuously evolving process or if some have already plateaued. As the world continuously grows and becomes more knowledgeable, does democracy have to keep changing to match this and can we ever guarantee that this evolution will always be positive? The current situation in the USA and Australia suggests not.

The other day I listened to an interview with a scholar who has recognised the importance of this attribute in the world and at all levels of society. It was not something which had been brought to my attention before but the more I thought about it the more I realised that this may be the missing link in modern societies. The more we crowd together in cities the more it seems to become a survival of the fittest. We come to know fewer people around us and the rest are regarded as strangers about whom  we know little, if anything.

During the interview mention was made of an exhibition in Melbourne, Australia, on the topic. The exhibition was apparently made up of people who are more disadvantaged than the rest of us and who had recorded their stories and left a pair of their shoes. Visitors to the exhibition were asked to stand in a pair of these shoes and listen to the person’s story. This physical contact was very important and those who visited it came away saying that it had been a very emotional experience and had changed them. They had experienced life through the eyes (and feet) of somewhat more disadvantaged than themselves. It was based on the old suggestion that we walk a mile in the shoes of someone less privileged than ourselves to better understand them.

It is many decades since the last world scale war and the cessation of these could be a measure of our progress towards a more peaceful planet, but there are so many wars going on at any one time, creating millions of refugees and injured people, as well as those who lose their lives, are we really making progress? Does the problem lie with the sort of people we choose as , or who are able to become, our leaders, whether we have a western style democracy or a dictatorship? We don’t realise, or we fail to admit, the extent to which empathy should be part of any such selection process.

During the interview I was listening to, the comment was made that rich people tend to have a lower level of empathy than the rest of us, which fits in with the definition of them as money addicts. Certainly in Australia we would have a very different type of person in our Parliaments if the degree of empathy of potential candidates was able to be measured and was taken into account in the selection criteria. This would also seem to apply in the USA in the current Presidential election process.

Is the study of empathy, and ways of measuring it, our key to a more successful and prosperous (for all) planet? What a breakthrough that would be. No more competition to build the biggest and most effective weapons with their power to kill and maim the greatest number of people as a measure of a country’s success.

I hope that the exhibition mentioned above will be able to move to many more places and many more countries so that it can be experienced across the world and take on the importance it seems to deserve. Maybe the missing link in our search for a better world is the lack of recognition of the importance of empathy as a human trait.