I think the interesting question is, assuming this stuff is worth keeping, is it going to last?  Are all the statuses we post on facebook, and all the tweets, photos, and blog posts still going to be around in 10 or 20 years time? Are the websites we post on going to survive? Are the files we save to our computers going to be readible if we want to have a dig through our past? There won’t be a physical copy of this stuff to fall back on, no bundles of letters hidden away in the attic. Emails increasingly aren’t even stored on computers, but rather in some server farm in the United States. I should mention that it isn’t all doom and gloom though, there seems to be a bit of a movement to allow data freedom and downloadability from websites recently. You can even download your facebook! (Go to account settings, then click ‘download your information’.)

I don’t envy the historians who will try to write things about the 21st century in the future. They’re going to have to wade through mountains of information and sort the memes,  pictures of cats, and inane blog posts like this one from the stuff actually worth anything. Unless you’re doing some kind of sociological study of internet pop culture, most of the stuff people post on the internet is going to be junk. I wonder what they’ll think of us reading back through our tweets in the future – maybe they’ll be bemused by our weird fascination with Justin Beiber and vampires and vapid songs about how Saturday comes after Friday. Maybe they’ll wonder why so many young people in developed countries, wrapped up safely in privilege, didn’t care more about what was happening in the world. Perhaps they’ll wonder why everyone thought they had something valuble to say, and they’ll place more value on quality rather than quantity.

In all likelyhood, though, they’ll probably be living in a more extreme version of the present day with one million per cent more of everything. We’ll probably be notified within seconds anytime a celebrity gets caught smoking drugs on video, or messily breaks up with their boyfriend/girlfriend. Who knows?

There’s going to be a ‘poverty of riches’ all right, and that’s assuming they can even access our file formats that will have become obselete. I just hope they don’t judge us too harshly.

I think there’s an interesting parallel between illegal file sharing and climate change. We know file sharing is wrong, and probably harmful to the creators of the movies, TV shows and music we enjoy. Yet we keep on doing it with abandon. We know it’s wrong, but continue to do nothing to change our behaviour. It’s just too hard.

My generation and young people generally, have the most to lose from a continuation of the status quo – yet we continue to act like nothing is wrong. In our lifetimes, the world will get warmer, the seas will rise, millions of people will be displaced, the poor will be forced further into poverty. I realise that there are a number of extremely concerned, energetic and active youth activists who are working tirelessly to raise awareness about climate change, but why don’t the rest of us really care? Why aren’t we doing anything about it?

I’m not sure if it’s because people don’t understand the gravity of the situation, or we are just in a state of denial. Maybe the doubt that well-financed campaigns of climate change denial have made the possibility of climate change uncertain in our minds. Or maybe we are in a situation of double think – simultaneously thinking climate change is a serious problem, and thinking we don’t need to do anything about it. The truth is just too inconvenient, the necessary changes too big. I struggle with the implications of climate change myself – it’s all very well to be as ethical as possible, but to actually take the next step and ‘do without’ is difficult. The disconnect between concrete sacrifices now and uncertain benefits far into the future makes it all the harder. Are we just innately wired to think no more than a few years into the future? Do we just not care about our survival?

I think what we need to keep in mind is that our generation, children of the baby-boomers and younger, has had it really good. Things we take for granted need to be reassessed. International air travel was almost impossibly expensive for ordinary people just a couple of generations ago, yet the idea of a world where it isn’t possible to travel overseas for trivial reasons is hard to imagine. To our consumerist ears a world where companies don’t churn out an endless array of gadgets year after year, sounds like a world where progress has ground to a halt. But we’re going to have to go back to these unfamiliar situations. We are going to have to just accept that things aren’t going to be the same, and if we don’t do something soon, they’re going to be a lot worse.

It would see each little happiness and triumph and each moment of anguish amid a huge sea of human experience. But it wouldn’t be cynical, or angry, or ashamed, it would be eternally patient and understanding.

Imagine you’re the ruler of a country and you must decide on a random distribution of money to give to each third of society. You are presented with these four options:

—-               A          B           C
option 1 -   300     300       300
option 2 -   400     400       400
option 3 -   500     1000    1000
option 4 -   300     1500    2000

Which of these distributions is fair? What do you think? In our class we had disagreement between the egalitarians who thought option 2 was the best, even though everyone was  worse off than in option 3. Some said that as long as the person at the bottom had the most (option 3) then it didn’t matter if the other people had a bit more. And those that favoured the fourth option pointed out the combined wealth of everyone in society was biggest. The fourth option can be thought of as kind of unrestrained capitalism, involving a huge capacity to generate wealth but inevitably the wealth is spread very unequally. Rawls thinks that a just distribution of goods is one where the position of the worst off in society is maximised, and any deviation from equality must benefit those at the bottom. Therefore he would think that option 3 is the fairest, because the worst off are in the best position.

One part of John Rawls’ theory of justice called the veil of ignorance. His theory imagines a hypothetical situation where a whole group of people are getting together to determine the future set up of the society they’re going to live in. He argues that the most just way to allocate resources to people is for everyone to not know which person and allocation they’re going to end up with once the veil is lifted. Because everyone behind the veil of ignorance doesn’t know their future position in society, they’re probably all going to decide on a situation where everyone is relatively equal – because if it was unequal they might end up being one of the people in a bad position. Those behind the veil would probably choose option 3 out of these choices, because it is relatively equal and the position of those at the bottom is maximised. These people behind the veil would look at New Zealand or American society and decide that it was profoundly unjust and unfair because some people are in such a better position than others for reasons that are unclear.

It’s a way of thinking about justice that I think is quite enlightening, for instance, when thinking about welfare benefits or progressive taxation. An extremely rich person in society, looking after solely their own self interest, might argue against welfare and high taxes on the wealthy because they are in a position to be disadvantaged by such a policy. But if they were to think, ‘I could be anyone in this society, and if I were poor I might be really struggling to survive, and these policies would help me’, they might be much more willing to agree to taxes, recognizing that they could have easily been born someone different. I recognise that this is highly unlikely to ever happen, but it is interesting to think about the changes that would come about if everyone was to think like this.

It’s a way of putting self interest to the side and considering the position and welfare of everyone in society rather than just yourself, and it reflects badly on people who believe in neoliberal policies like reducing the size of the state and reducing taxation. It highlights the fact that when conservative governments reduce taxes on the rich and cut back benefits (like they’re doing in New Zealand right now) they are further cementing the position of the rich while failing to recognise the luck and often arbitrary reasons they’re in that position in the first place.

“…an important thing to understand about any institution or social system, whether it is a nation or a city, a corporation or a federal agency: it doesn’t move unless you give it a solid push. Not a mild push – a solid jolt. If the push is not administered by vigorous and purposeful leaders, it will be administered eventually by an aroused citizenry or by a crisis. Systematic inertia is characteristic of every human institution, but overwhelmingly true of this nation as a whole. Our system of checks and balances dilutes the thrust of positive action. The competition of interests inherent in our pluralism acts as a break on concerted action. The system grinds to a halt between crises…”

- John W. Gardner speaking to the National Press Club, December 9 1969.

I’ve been doing a history project recently on the environmental movement, and the lead up to the first Earth Day in the U.S. on April 22nd, 1970.  I thought this was a really interesting quote about institutional inertia in dealing with serious problems. He’s talking in the context of the environmental crisis back then, but his words could just as easily apply to environmental problems and the failure of politicians and leaders to tackle them today.

Today the American political system is seemingly incapable of combating climate change, despite the best efforts of the Obama administration. Back in the late sixties I think activists and ordinary people felt the same kind of frustration at the elite in Washington, unwilling or unable to do something about the pollution of the environment that those that care about climate change and a whole host of other issues feel today.

The lesson we can learn from the 1960s and 70s is that activism works. Back then they had no internet to easily disseminate information and yet they still managed to organise an effective, countrywide campaign that raised awareness and showed political leaders in Washington and business leaders around the country that people did care and they were demanding action. At least superficially it is not in the interests of business to do anything about climate change, because cutting emissions costs money, therefore until it becomes clear that people care there is no incentive to do anything responsible.

A lack of criticism is taken as implicit approval.  That’s why it is vitally important that ordinary people be proactive and make it abundantly clear to politicians and business people that they do care about climate change through whatever means. We need more mass protests like the 350 event last year to show leaders everywhere that there is a grassroots movement demanding action or they’ll fail to do anything early enough, safe in the knowledge that nobody minds anyway.

I used to think to think that activism and protests, while often for good causes, were ineffectual and didn’t really make a difference. As I learn more about the environmental movement in the sixties, I’ve come to believe protest and vocal opposition to irresponsible policies is an effective way of keeping government and business in line. Politicians and business people had no choice but to engage with the huge up-swell of public concern in 1970. Congress was largely empty as politicians went back to their constituencies to make speeches and attempted to cultivate an image of engagement with the movement. Companies like Dow Jones Chemical Company sent representatives to Earth Day rallies to explain their side of the story. If the protest is big enough and visible enough, those in a position of power are forced to listen.

The challenges we collectively  face today are more serious than those of the 60s and 70s, and yet there is not the same public outcry as there was back then. Climate change is a long-term, complex, and global problem – characteristics that mean we are seemingly incapable of taking sensible action to mitigate its effects. However we are now equipped with a whole host of technologies that make the act of organising dissent easier than ever before. One only has to look at organisations like Avaaz that quickly mobilise to organise petitions that get hundreds of thousands of signatures in hours to appreciate the power of the internet in enabling protest. We have the tools we need. What needs to be done now is to increase public awareness of the impending dangers, in the face of well funded climate sceptics spreading misinformation,  and get people motivated everywhere to get out and do something to show they care. We need to show political and business leaders that we want something serious and meaningful done before we commit ourselves to runaway climate change and metres of sea level rise in the centuries to come.

I wrote recently about the Notorious XX album by wait what, which has supposedly “garnered critical acclaim” (you can never trust press releases though!) and received one million downloads. The 24 year old New Yorker just released a new full length album a few hours ago called this is real life and it sounds pretty awesome. It’s a pay-what-you-want release with all proceeds going to promote youth writing for 6-18 year olds. The thing I love about mashups is that they bring together different artists, who I’ve quite often never heard, into something interesting and new. Not only are they great pieces of music in themselves, but they introduce you to a whole heap of choice bands. And the Notorious XX has already shown me that Wait What is a master of the mashup album.

I love that this can be released literally six hours ago and I can already be listening to it and sharing it with you! The wonder of the internet! Give it a listen and tell me what you think

Sorry for posting so much music recently!

I read this awesome design blog called Kitsune Noir, and every week they have a different artist/designer contribute a spiffy wallpaper. The result is the Desktop Wallpaper Project – an endless supply of beautiful wallpapers. I like starting up my computer and being greeted with fantastic art, and I bet you do too, so go and check it out. Pictured is my favourite wallpaper so far by Cody Hoyt – delicious.

This is an amazing collection of remixes by Remix Artist Collective (RAC).  I haven’t listened to them all but they seem generally fantastic!

My favourites so far are the remixes of Zero by the YYYs, Use Somebody by Kings of Leon, Back In Your Head and Alligator by Tegan and Sara, Sleeping Lessons by the Shins, and Home by Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros.

I was reading this interesting article called ‘The Gospel of Consumption‘ by Jeffrey Kaplan and it raised a number of interesting points. In developed countries over the twentieth century, productivity and real wages have grown a huge amount. People’s work creates more value per hour, and hence they are usually paid more. Kaplan writes that in the United States, 2005 per capita household income was twelve times what it had been in 1929. If we were to go back to the standard of living that people in 1948 enjoyed, we would only have to work 2.7 hours per day.

The article raises the interesting question of whether we wouldn’t all be better off if we didn’t work so hard and enjoyed more leisure time. Instead of chasing after the next generation of TV or a fancier car or a new cellphone one could relax and read a book or spend some time with your family or something. Kaplan talks about an interesting and hugely popular pilot scheme that Kellogg (the cereal guy) ran in his factories where all his workers shifted to six hour days (30 hour weeks). It meant less pay for workers, but substituted the “mental income” of more leisure time instead. There was also the added bonus of more employment to go around. The workers loved it- it meant more time to spend with their family or gardening or playing ping pong. Imagine if as a society we decided to work less – we would certainly have to endure a drop in income, but would we be any less happy? I know for a lot of people who are struggling in poverty cutting back on hours is impractical, but for the majority of rich westerners it’s an interesting question.

Most of us equate happiness with the number of material possessions we have – we’ve got into this cycle of consumerism where we can never have enough. After a certain point, we just need to recognise that we’ve got enough material stuff, work less hours, enjoy more leisure time and ultimately be happier.

Image credit: mark sebastian (under CC license)

This album by wait what is really really good. It’s a mashup between The XX and the Notorious B.I.G. Yeah anyway just listen to it and hopefully you’ll be impressed/addicted as well.

I love that people do this stuff, it’s just a bit of a bummer the copyright holders don’t recognise the value in having their works remixed and issue take down notices..