Support
Ask your question
Search
Visual Collection
Popular Questions
- Is organized religion the root of all ... latest post by Subzero | 200 responses
- Why don't schools teach us to form our... latest post by rwt | 20 responses
- When will someone ask STUDENTS what th... latest post by rwt | 10 responses
- Who Protects Us From Them? latest post by Subzero | 5 responses
- Will human beings really ever understa... latest post by Subzero | 47 responses
Popular Topics
Most active users
- Thai sean 1272 posts | member since Nov 11, 2007
- treeless 17 posts | member since Dec 9, 2011
- cyberworldukltd 16 posts | member since Feb 7, 2012
- thedoc 1381 posts | member since Sep 10, 2006
- GDiFonzo 10 posts | member since Nov 9, 2011
Profile of Simon Retallack
True. I think also we lead through love, [...]
Simon Retallack: True. I think also we lead through love, forgiveness, compassion, tolerance, understanding, dialogue, discussion. Of course, you can use violence to stop violence; but my worry is that when you do that, you justify violence ultimately. I think if you respond to violence, anger, and hatred through violence, anger, and hatred, you might end up with more violence, anger, and hatred; and in the end you would have to show a better way. If you’re going to change the world, you have to lead by example and you have to show people how they can behave differently. You can resolve conflicts peacefully by forgiving the past, by tolerating difference, by loving your neighbor in the end. Of course, when your life is threatened immediately in front of you, you're going to have to take direct action and in those circumstances, of course, you need to protect yourself; but in the long run I think we need to inculcate different values and that means accepting that we're going to be in it for the long haul. And I think there are also economic changes that need to take place, of course, to insure that people don't feel marginalized, that they have economic opportunities, are not facing penury and poverty, that don't face unjust systems of governments, that are given power over their lives by profoundly democratic systems being adopted. So, of course, there are lots of, there are lots of changes that need to happen; but in the end again it's one of these problems that we each hold some level of responsibility for.
I don't think we do. It's controversial [...]
Simon Retallack: I don't think we do. It's controversial maybe, but I really don't think we do have the right to consider human beings as more valuable than other life forms. We may have the know how to affect the lives of all other life forms in a way that suits us, and we may think of ourselves as being the supreme species on the planet because we are so intelligent, in a conventional sense, actually. But with all the technology that we've made -- we can go to the moon and the rest of it -- but it doesn't make us more valuable than other life forms. I think every species has the right to exist. It's absolutely not up to us to decide which species should and shouldn't exist. We share this planet with a huge array of other life both plant life and animal life; and we benefit enormously from it, and it's in our interest to continue to preserve it. It's one of the huge tragedies of our era in the 20th century that we are overseeing the greatest mass extinction of species that has ever happened in the history of man on the planet. It's up there with the mass extinctions of -- that happened in geological eras when the dinosaurs were obliterated and in the Permian era when 90 percent of the species were obliterated because of sudden changes in climate likely due to asteroid impacts, we think. This time it's us that's doing it, humans; and I think it's unforgivable and we'll come to regret it. I think already we're destroying the species of fish, of mammals -- the tiger, for example, the charismatic species that…[audio ends]
Who knows? I think capitalism is probably [...]
Simon Retallack: Who knows? I think capitalism is probably going to be here for awhile. I think that there’s mounting pressure to reform the current prevailing capitalist economic system in a way that provides far greater respect to people's human needs, and to the environment, too. And there are ways of doing that that are compatible with free markets and capitalism. The question, I think, is whether those changes can be made in time. I think, clearly, a move towards strengthening of local economies is an evolution of the capitalist system that I think would be welcome; that strengthens communities, that provides jobs, that respects the environment and provides meaningful livelihoods to people. But there are big threats coming our way and huge global threats that could cause big, big, major problems to the capitalist system. I'm thinking of big environmental crises -- climate change if the world's major cities are underwater, the capitalist system clearly won’t be able to function. If we don't pay attention to the problem of energy security, particularly the depletion of finite reserves of oil and gas, I think we could have major shocks to the capitalist system that could cause huge problems, not just to the system, but, of course, to people around the world. I’m thinking particularly at the moment when supplies of oil are outstripped by demand for oil. And I can put a date on when that’s happened, but I think people in the oil industry accept it’s going to happen it’s just a question of time. We need to be prepared for that for all sorts of reasons but if we aren't sufficiently prepared and there are no signs that we are at the moment, then I think the current system is in for a huge shock.
Economic globalization doesn't necessarily [...]
Simon Retallack: Economic globalization doesn't necessarily consolidate dictatorship. On the other hand, I think, it certainly does not necessarily either promote democracy. I think the process of economic globalization, that is the process of dismantling barriers to trade, investment, the flow of capital around the world has accelerated the process of empowerment of actors that are not democratically elected; notably the world's largest corporations and the big holders of capital in the system. It's enabled corporations and financial investors to extend their reach in a way that simply wasn't possible before, certainly you know 200 years ago. That is given them a significant reach democratically elected governments. If corporations for example face restrictions or legislation in a country that they don't like on social/environmental policy for example, they can now turn around and say, 'Well that's fine. You can adopt that policy but we're leaving your country and we'll take all the jobs that we bring to your country with us. See if you like that and if you want to avoid us doing that, or prevent us doing that, you should think again about that piece of legislation that you'd actually quite like to pass to help people or the planet.' And I think that's inevitably a process that undermines democracy because if people elect a government to do certain things and they can't because there's restrictions on them because of the threat of dislocation or relocation, I should say, of corporations or finance then that isn't -- that is not necessarily compatible with a fully functioning democracy. And it's a problem that we need to address urgently, particularly when it comes to problems that we know we need to address in this century to do with climate change and global warming and everything that that entails, but also when it comes to issues of feeding the world. -- That's the end.
I think the answer to that question is [...]
Simon Retallack: I think the answer to that question is complex. There are a lot of causes of inner city violence and gang violence. I think part of the answer has to involve insuring that people, no matter what race they’re from, what color their skin, have equal access to employment opportunities, that means giving them every opportunity to enjoy the sort of education that others receive so they're not discriminated against when it comes to applying for jobs. It also means, I think, a redesign of urban centers so that ghettos are not created with terrible tower blocks which are not designed to forge the sense of community; but it also requires leadership from within those communities, I think, for the right sorts of role models to be given to young people, particularly for men. They need to be present for the upbringing of their children in a way that sometimes they're not -- who need to support their children as they move through education systems. And, I suppose, giving young people a chance to express themselves in ways that are nonviolent, to develop their talents, to articulate their “differenceness,” their “differentness” in peaceful and creative ways. And I also think there's an element here too of the need to reintegrate generations. I think a regrettable consequence of the industrial era has been the divorce of generations. I think in some Mediterranean countries in Europe at least there’s a greater tradition still of intergenerational activity, but in too many urban centers and in some northern countries in Europe that isn't the case. And that may provide a break to some of the, sort of, youth “ghettoism” that exists. But it's a very difficult, it’s a very difficult challenge, very difficult challenge.
Well, I can only assume that ethnic [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, I can only assume that ethnic minorities that are either persecuted or treated as second class citizens in developed countries may still feel a degree of patriotism towards their country because they are proud of their country and because they have a deep sense of forgiveness, I think. They must do. It’s hard for me to say. I haven’t experienced that but if – I mean if I was in the shoes of a black American who was treated with suspicion on a systematic basis by the police, who knew people that tried to vote in presidential elections and who weren’t able to because of the color of their skin, who were not given the same job opportunities because of the color of their skin, I would be pretty cross, and I would feel disempowered and angry, I think, with my fellow countrymen. And I don’t know whether that would make me feel less – feel less supportive of my country. It would make me want to change my country, I think; and there are plenty of examples in the states of black leaders who have sought to do so in a fantastic way. Of course, you think of Martin Luther King as the greatest example of, I think, of a black American who wanted to change his country but sets the world alight, I think, when it came to civil rights. And there’s a lot we can still learn from his example, I think. He loved his country so I think it is…[audio ends]
Good question again. There are lots of [...]
Simon Retallack: Good question again. There are lots of much better uses I think that governments could be putting the money they currently invest in their vast military arsenals, ranging from investing in the sorts of support mechanisms that mean that when people are not in jobs or can’t find employment, they are, nonetheless, not facing penury; that mean when people need the health care they deserve when they’re ill they can get it; that mean that their children have the education they need with smaller class sizes with support throughout their childhood and beyond. It would involve spending money on preventable diseases in developing countries that we know we have the drugs to cure. It’s simply a question of providing the investment. I think governments should also be encouraged to use the money they would otherwise invest in their vast arsenals to deploy technologies that don’t destroy the environment. I think it’s clear to me that billions of dollars will be required to insure that developing countries are able to build low carbon energy technologies, low carbon energy economies in the future using highly efficient energy technologies, but also technologies that produce energy in a renewable way using the power of the wind, of the sun, the tides, and of the waves. And that costs money right now and we should be investing far more in the deployment of those technologies; and once we do that, of course, the price of those technologies will be reduced. The economies of scale will be achieved. That would be a far better use of resources as would the building of sustainable communities. Far too often we live in soulless cities that need a complete overhaul to make them livable with green spaces, with social space too; and that, too, requires money and we should be investing in our communities in that way too, I think.
Because there’s still too much hatred [...]
Simon Retallack: Because there’s still too much hatred between different nations, between the Arab states towards Israel and from Israeli state towards the Arab ones; and because the only global superpower left in the world, the United States, has been at best neglectful and at worst extremely unhelpful in the policy it’s adopted towards the Middle East. The Bush administration came to power in 2000 seeking to deliberately let Israel do what it wanted when it came to the peace process. They paid no attention; they took their eye off the ball, and Israel ever since has been given the green light to do as it pleases, more or less, in terms of the Middle East peace process. And that has seen a series of steps ever since Likoed came back to power and Sharon; that unfortunately has led to more conflict in the Middle East than we’ve seen up until now. And it is a great tragedy. The idea that the Middle East conflict can be resolved through further violence is nonsensical. It won’t be. The only way in the end peace will arrive in the Middle East is through negotiated settlement, through talking; and for that to happen the United States, Europe, and other developed countries have to put far more pressure on both parties to come back to the table, put an end to the violence, to the systematic oppression of the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip and in parts of the West Bank, and an end from the Arab states of that vicious anti-Israel propaganda, and an acceptance all around that both Israel has a right to exist and the Palestinian people have a right to their own state and should be left in peace to govern themselves.
We have to try everything in our power to [...]
Simon Retallack: We have to try everything in our power to try to stop governments going to war: to demonstrate on the streets, to campaign, to use our power as voters to insure that politicians that seek to take us to war are not voted for, to insure that warmongers are not returned to office. But it’s true to say that it’s a very difficult task. People demonstrated on a scale that we’ve never seen in Britain against the war in Iraq. The majority of the population was against it and still the government took us into that war. It’s very, very difficult to stop a government going to war. I think it’s up to governments, too, to pay far greater attention to, first of all, their citizens and also their parliaments, I think. I know in Britain there’s controversy over the right of parliament to vote before troops are ever sent into battle again. At the moment, there’s absolutely no obligation on the government to hold a vote; and when a vote is held, it’s often whipped so that members of a political party are forced by the governing party to vote in favor of whatever the government decides. Whereas, I’m sure if there were more votes that enabled members of parliament on a purely open, free basis to express their opinion, you’d see more opposition. But in the end, I suppose, it is up to all of us to do what we can to try to stop our governments from going to war and to stop, in different countries where civil wars exist, feeding the hatred, the conflict, and the suspicion that fuels conflict, that fuels war. And in the end it means that there’s a responsibility that falls on all of us. And we all need to do our bit .
Well, their human dignities include the need [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, their human dignities include the need for food, for water, for a roof over their heads, clothing, respect, power over their lives. I think it includes a right for self-expression, a basic level of freedom. And it’s true that many people do go without those basic dignities. And it is a source of disbelief, I think, that so many of us that do have these benefits, that are accorded these basic dignities aren’t more outraged by the vast numbers of people that live without them, that have absolutely no support, that live without enough water, without enough food, that live without the health care that they need, that die in vast numbers from preventable diseases, that have no control over their lives because they live in dictatorships that far too often our governments have supported. And I can only think that we turn our eyes away from those that don’t have these basic dignities because we prefer to immunize ourselves from it. We prefer to live in denial. It’s far easier for us not to see. The pain would be too great if we were truly to internalize the suffering that exists, I think, on a permanent basis. And, so, we avert our gaze.
It’s true that we produce, as a community [...]
Simon Retallack: It’s true that we produce, as a community across the globe, enough food to feed everyone. We don’t feed everyone, however, because the sort of food that is produced is not often what -- in many instances -- isn’t directed at people. A lot of food is produced to feed animals, to supply the huge appetite, particularly people in the West with wealth have, for meat so a lot of grain goes to feed cattle and a lot of arable land is used to produce export crops for Western markets so coffee and all sorts of different other export crops that may come to us in developed countries to feed our lifestyle and our taste but do not end up on the plates of developing countries’ populations, particularly the poorest members of those countries. And that’s why you can have situations in which countries that face famine particularly in the east of Africa, for example, are actually producing food but they’re exporting it. And this is a terrible indictment of the current food system. And it results in -- its cause in part increasingly the world’s food system is controlled and dominated by a very small number of large agrichemical companies who have a very specific interest in maximizing their profits, and they don’t have any obligation, whatsoever, to ensure that people around the world are fed. It’s just not part of their [emit], and some people would say in the system in which we live it shouldn’t be part of their [emit]; but it is up to governments to make sure that people are fed and they need to be far tougher to organizations and in negotiations internationally, for example, at the International Trade level with the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and others to say our number one priority is to feed our people. If you want to give us loans and you give us financial support, don’t expect us to do that at the expense of feeding our people. Don’t hook us on a system that requires us to export all our food or use our best land to export all our food because that road, ultimately, will lead to famine.
I think you need a form of global government [...]
Simon Retallack: I think you need a form of global government to deal with global issues. They may have local or national causes but if they have global repercussions, I think you do need global agreements. Absolutely true with a problem like global warming; there’s no way that global warming or climate change can be addressed unless every country that is responsible for the problem that emits greenhouse gases is part of a global agreement, an agreement that binds them to reducing their contribution and that has sufficient teeth to insure that that agreement is enforced. Now, you can call that global government if you like, and there’s no doubt that it’s necessary. The problem at the moment, of course, is that we, particularly in the developed world, are focused on creating global economic infrastructure or structures that have not been matched by global political structures so we have no global mechanism in place to deal with the inequalities that arise from a global free market economy. At the European Union level, we have that to some extent but even there again we created a single currency before creating a deeper political union. Having said that, I think the way in which we forged, if we do carry on forging greater levels of international cooperation, even a global government in time, needs to be thought through extremely carefully. We must always try to create systems of governments that are democratic and, of course, the further any system of government is from the people, the more difficult it is to make sure politicians that operate in those systems are accountable to the people. So, we need to make sure that power always resides at a level that’s appropriate for the decisions that need to be taken. And I think it requires devolving power both upwards and downwards. I think there’s no reason why -- actually there are a lot of reasons why power can be devolved downwards to local government, I think, to deal with issues that are appropriate for local people and people that live at a local level to a far greater extent than we see today. But equally, as I said, there are global problems that will require far greater global cooperation than we’ve seen up until now; and I would hope that, particularly the countries that have so far resisted or are suspicious of any global form of government, the U.S. being at the top of the list, would begin to understand that it’s in their interest, too, to pull some of their sovereignty when it comes to solving some of these global problems; otherwise, they too will be affected. They can’t remain immune from these problems like global warming over the long run. They’re already impacting. You saw the impact that Katrina had on New Orleans last year. Devastating, absolutely devastating, and that’s just the beginning of the problem; and over time it will get worse. So, I hope that they will overcome their fear and their resistance of the idea of global cooperation.
Well, it’s certainly true that a lot of [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, it’s certainly true that a lot of economic activity that takes place in the global economy involves corruption. There are plenty of examples of companies that operate in a corrupt way, in partnership with corrupt governments across the world, whether it’s to win contracts to build infrastructure or whether it’s to extract natural resources in different countries; we know that in many instances it involves bribery, payoffs, backhanders, and sometimes huge transfers of funds into private bank accounts of the government ministers in different countries And, I think, there’s no one that can deny that this happens. People try to stop it and there are anti-corruption drives, but it is clearly a problem and it stems from corruption in the political system, not just in obvious failing states in the poorest parts of the world, but in the most developed states. I think the U.S.’s political system is, for all intensive purposes, corrupt. I think the way that politicians are dependent on corporate donations to run their election campaigns, for the Senate and for the U.S. Congress and for the White House, totally makes them indebted to vested interests that can’t possibly enable them to serve the interests of the people that actually elect them, which is the people; and it’s a very hard system to change because the holders of – or the people that have designed or benefit from this system have no interest in changing it. The only way to do it in the end is through public pressure, and relentless public pressure, through the media and civil society groups still have a huge task to play to build up that -- those coalitions of action and of public pressure so that governments and corporations that engage in corrupt activities cease from doing so.
Good question. Because the powerful -- the [...]
Simon Retallack: Good question. Because the powerful -- the powerful write the history books, and the powerful influence the world’s mass media, and it suits the powerful’s interest to describe opposition to its policies that may be unfair or unjust as terrorists. Now, of course, there is genuine terrorism in the world, indiscriminant violence against civilians. Of course, there’s al-Qaeda and there are plenty of other groups around the world that operate ruthlessly and without any scruple whatsoever, and those groups have to be prescribed. But there are also examples throughout history of groups that have defended themselves against invasion or attack from the armed forces of a given state that have been labeled terrorists but under other circumstances were defending themselves. And I think, you know, you can think of the example of South Africa where the South African state under the apartheid system used all the forces at its disposal, both the military and police and the networks of secret services, to wage war against groups of black Africans who sought to bring an end to the apartheid system and obviously led by the ANC, the African National Congress, and others, the Communist Party in those days, and those groups were labeled as terrorist groups and were formerly illegal. And, of course, there were instances where the ANC used bombs to blow up infrastructure; but in systems of systematic oppression, of injustice by one group over another, what is that other group supposed to do? Can we really say that it is never -- it is always out of the question for them to defend themselves and to seek change in ways that mean they have to fight force with force. I don’t know whether we can say that. I mean I would like to think that there are other ways of bringing about change, as I said before, but in the end it suits the powerful to label…[audio ends]
It shouldn’t be tolerated. There’s no [...]
Simon Retallack: It shouldn’t be tolerated. There’s no question. I think if it is tolerated it’s because the people that are responsible for war that it has brought about civilian deaths on such a huge scale are insufficiently accountable to people and do not sufficiently value life, including their own people’s lives. And they think that it’s a price worth paying to achieve the goals that they’ve had over the last hundred years. Civilians die; it’s casualties of war; that’s a fact of life; that’s what they say. They’ve forgotten or they seem to have downplayed or ignored the fact that they, too, have been fathers or brothers or mothers or sisters, daughters and sons and that life is sacred; and it’s a huge regret that civilian deaths from conflict are still so pervasive, even the conflict today in Iraq, supposedly a highly targeted war in which the Americans and the British use laser-guided and highly talented missiles against infrastructure and against the armed forces of Iraq. Nonetheless, has resulted in a very significant loss of civilian life in Iraq. Now, the governments that led that invasion say or imply those steps are worthwhile because they’ve got rid of the dictator; and actually we suspect there are plenty of other reasons why America wanted to invade Iraq linked probably to seeking to exert control over one of the last remaining major oil-producing countries in the world in an era when oil is likely to be in ever greater demand and they’ve thought that that was a – that was a price worth paying. I don’t think it was. I think our addiction to oil is going to have to come to an end; and the answer is not to seek to get our hands on ever more oil but to wean ourselves off it by developing alternatives. And that’s what we have to do.
I don’t think that it’s right to sacrifice [...]
Simon Retallack: I don’t think that it’s right to sacrifice our liberty in its entirety for security reasons. It’s notoriously difficult to draw a line and I think – again, I’m not an expert in this but I think that people who argue that Western governments have particularly in Britain, and actually in America too, have gone too far to respond to terrorist threats by expanding the power of security services, the police and others at the expense of our liberties, they’re right. I think that I have concerns that powers are being given to the forces of security that we may have great difficulty declaring back when the terrorist threat is no longer with us and that it may be used for other ends against legitimate expressions of difference or resistance. And it really does require a highly responsible leadership to exercise those powers fairly and justly. I think we mustn’t allow the threat of terrorism to destroy our way of life. I think that would actually be a victory for the terrorists and we shouldn’t give them that victory. I think it’s also true that we should think of security in a much, much wider and deeper sense. It’s not just about physical security from bombs; we should think about security in an ecological sense. We’re destroying our ecological security at the moment in order to promote a way of life -- a freedom or liberty if you like -- that has huge costs. That -- There, I think, there is room to, I think, to remind ourselves that our liberty comes at a great price, our liberty of movement based on a system of fossil fuel. The internal combustion engine causes greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, I think, which will have huge security threats to us in the future unless we act now. So thinking about security in that wider sense, I think, you get a different answer.
People that live in dictatorships, of [...]
Simon Retallack: People that live in dictatorships, of course, would benefit from democracy, but I can imagine that they would be suspicious of Western countries that said that they -- their interests lay in promoting democracy; but who, we suspect, actually have ulterior motives when they pursue foreign policy that benefits them, I think. When western governments talk about spreading “our way of life,” what they actually mean is spreading a system of economic development that benefits western companies, western countries, economies; and it’s well known that that’s how they’ve developed trade treaties and how they’ve encouraged international financial institutions to pursue policies at the global level. And I can understand that there would be some suspicion for that reason of the western world’s so-called desire to spread that way of life. I think there is also a history, too, of the West that other countries are familiar with as colonial countries that have sought in the past to occupy countries for their own ends. But, having said all that, I’d hope that some countries living in authoritarian states would overcome that mistrust and fear to understand that there are people that genuinely seek to spread democracy in their country and genuinely seek to encourage the development of strong civil society groups and movements within countries that don’t have democracy to push for change because again I think change only really happens if it is seeded from within countries; and that will take time, but I think it’s the only sustainable way in the long run.
Well, the devising of a new economic system [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, the devising of a new economic system is an enormous challenge. Economic systems, on the whole, evolve and it isn't possible simply to sit down and write a new one. However, that said, the process of devising any economic system -- however long it takes and however evolutionary it is -- should be done democratically and the moment -- far too often, in negotiations at the World Trade Organization or in discussions at the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank, the organizations of the global economy that essentially shape the economic system that we have today, the negotiations and the positions that are ultimately agreed do not derive from any strong sense of Democratic legitimacy. In fact, far too often they represent the interests of powerful -- the powerful vested interests who want an economic system that profits them. Now that has to change. If we're devising a new system, we must involve people far, far more than we have up to now: the public, the electorate, civil society groups, people that represent interests of other species other than our own. And that means, I think, taking the global capitalists’ free market system that we have and insuring that it internalizes the externalities, that we in all the products we trade across the world internalize the price of the pollution that those products are responsible for by the way they’re made, that we pay people fairly through the products that we buy and that we encourage respect both for social cohesion, communities, the family, fairness for workers and sustainability for the planet. And we can use tax systems to do that, but we should also reform the prescriptions that the international or financial institutions hand out to governments to insure that when they're in trouble financially they're not made to devise systems that are not in their or their peoples’ or their environments’ interests. And that can be done bit by bit. The world trade rules are written, they are devised, and they can be reformed.
If governments decide to make corporations [...]
Simon Retallack: If governments decide to make corporations behave in a socially or environmentally sustainable way, then corporations will have to behave in a socially and environmentally sustainable way. I think at the moment a lot of corporations give lip service to the corporate social responsibility agenda as it's called but actually it's superficial. It doesn't go very deep, and it’s a way of giving themselves good PR so that consumers' think it’s okay to carry on buying their products because they're actually quite nice; they're doing good things; but far too often corporations that engage in traditional corporate social responsible actions do so while pursuing their traditional core activity that has an enormously detrimental impact. For example, think of some of the oil companies who have green advertising campaigns that tell you how wonderfully green they are because they invest some money in renewable energies or research and development into new energy technologies while, at the same time, pumping vast volumes of oil from the ground and selling it to people to burn. Obviously, there's a conflict there. And that's why we shouldn't be counting on corporations to do the right thing. We should be putting pressure on governments to make sure that corporations do the right thing. And I think a part of that means requiring a change in the way that corporations and their CEO’s are responsible to deliver shareholder value on a quarterly basis that has only one criteria in mind, and that's financial return. I think they should be required to do more than deliver those profits. They should be required to do so in a way that respects people’s human social rights and their needs and the planet. That would be a truly socially responsible act. And governments are terrified of doing it because they think that corporations will resist, and they're probably right. And corporations and the media –- the big media companies and governments live in fear of being attacked by the media. So it isn’t something that's going to happen very easily, and I think the only way that it will happen is if there’s rising public awareness and public pressure on governments to make this happen.
It’s absolutely true to say that our [...]
Simon Retallack: It’s absolutely true to say that our societies cannot be in balance if women are not given the chance to have an equal role in decision making, whether it’s in politics or actually in the commercial or civil society world. I think, I mean -- I think I said this earlier, too. There are an increasing number of women that are breaking through to positions of leadership and influence but far too few. Look at the number of women who do run countries; who are prime ministers or presidents. There aren’t enough of them and look at the number of women in parliaments; there are more than there were before but there still aren’t enough. And I’m not sure that human society benefits from this status quo. I think it’s often said that if there were more women in positions of power and influence there would be fewer wars. Women, I think, maybe it’s a cliché and a simplistic conclusion to draw but maybe it’s -- there’s some truth in this. Women’s roles as mothers, nurturers of life may make them think harder before committing troops to war if they’re in positions of leadership. I don’t know. I suspect that there may be some truth in that. Of course, it’s not always true. I know in Britain Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister who sent our troops off to fight in the Falklands and supported military interventions elsewhere, too. So, it’s complex but generally speaking we collectively need to do far more to insure that there are more women in positions of power and influence, and that feminine values have a greater place in the ethos of organizations whether it is companies, nonprofits, the media. I think an exclusive focus on traditionally male values; aggressive macho-male values isn’t necessarily… [audio ends]
Well, there are multiple reasons that it may [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, there are multiple reasons that it may be that African states are less developed in the conventional sense than the Western states. I think it's true that -- I think probably the climate has an impact on forms of development, and by development I mean industrial western style development. I think they live in countries, in some African countries are harsh climatically, very, very hot arid climates that make it difficult to grow food sufficiently and make conditions, work conditions, difficult. But I think beyond that there are deep political, historical, economic reasons for the state of Africa today. And you have to go back to colonial times to see the source, I think, of some of the problems that Africa faces today. Of course, it's well known that the Western powers, particularly Britain and France and other European nations, ripped apart African countries over the course of the last two, three centuries; created artificial states, drew dividing lines between nations that were a prescription for conflict in the future. We also know that they destroyed the traditional way of life of many African peoples and nations, constricting them to work for their factories, their mines, their plantations; taking them away from their own communities and livelihoods and destroying a whole pattern of existence that actually wasquite rich, evidence suggests in the past. And that the era of colonials, unfortunately, continues in a different way today in terms of the economic system that we face. Far too often, western companies operating in Africa do not operate in the best interests of African people. And, unfortunately, neither do the international institutions that provide financial support to African governments; and they, I think, exacerbate the problem, many of the problems, Africa faces in many ways and that again has to change.
That’s difficult. I think people now have [...]
Simon Retallack: That’s difficult. I think people now have access to communications with each other across the globe in a way that they never had before. We are in an unprecedented age in that sense. We can support each other in our collective struggles and we should build alliances across nations; and we do, whether it’s against indebtedness, whether it’s against torture, abuse of human rights, injustice, environmental degradation. We can support each other both morally and in a practical sense by showing best practice, by teaching ourselves how to bring about change even when the leadership of our country doesn’t want to know. I think we’ve seen some examples of that in the U.S. where the Bush administration has refused to take any federal action on climate change or commit itself to any international action to address climate change. Nonetheless, there’s been public pressure, there’s been organizing -- constituency building at local and state level that has resulted in some progress. You now have northeast states in the U.S. that seek to cap carbon emissions and move towards a low carbon economy. And in California recently, the governor of California acting together with the state legislature of California agreeing – an unprecedented for the U.S. – step towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the twelfth largest economy on the planet. So, I think there are things that people can do even when the leadership of their countries doesn’t want to know. Of course, ultimately if you’re talking about stopping governments from taking military action--we’ve already had a question on this--I think it’s very difficult for people to stop them, to lie in front of a tank. People have done that; and, of course, during Vietnam there was considerable resistance which, ultimately, I think, probably brought the thing to an end. But it took time and it requires an awareness and a commitment to communicate with our fellow men and women, but today it can be done. I think that’s the great advance using this new technology that we have available to us. And an example is right here, now, of that happening; so it’s got to be welcomed.
I think within countries, of course, we [...]
Simon Retallack: I think within countries, of course, we should have the right to choose where we live; there’s no question. Between countries is a more complicated question. I think in an ideal world, yes, people should have the freedom to choose where they live; but it has consequences, as we know. With significant movement of peoples from some part of the world to others, disruptions ensue, tensions ensue and it has to be managed very carefully. I think it’s right that western governments, to some extent, some have struck the balance better than others, have introduced policies on immigration that limit the inward flow of populations of people. There’s always going to be a different balance – a difficult balance to strike between personal freedom, on the one hand, to do what we want and the wider interests of society. And if a society chooses to protect its interests in a way that means it preserves its communities, its cultures, it has the right to do so. I don’t think that the two are necessarily compatible. I think there are many examples in the modern world of different nationalities, different religions, different races living in harmony together; and a new sense of community is created, a global community is created, in a sense, that furthers understanding, that deepens cooperation and is beneficial. But, of course, it can go to another extreme. I think for that reason that it’s right that we should have very carefully considered policies of -- on immigration. Of course, even internally you see the consequences of internal movements of people has led to the end of traditional society as we knew it. In Britain the rural economy came to an end when the industrial system started as people migrated to the cities to work in the factories and find jobs, and small communities were destroyed at that point. The family life at that point changed dramatically too. Whereas people used to in the past work very much together in terms of family life -- fathers, mothers, daughters and sons --hat came to an end. Of course, there are advantages to the new system, but everything has a consequence so I think it’s a complex question, and one that I hope I’ve given some sort of an answer to.
That's a very good question; and it's a [...]
Simon Retallack: That's a very good question; and it's a question that is at the heart of the current economic system. The capitalist system is obviously built on the accumulation of wealth. The problem with it is that without very tough interventionist policies by governments, it can lead to vast and inequitable distribution of wealth in society. And in that sense, it's a form of hoarding. Yes, it's true. It is grotesque today to see billionaires' that literally own fortunes worth tens of billions when far, far more than -- sometimes than dozens of countries in the developing world. What on earth do they need all that money for? They can't possibly use it all themselves. It's obvious, and I think it is grotesque. In some cases, those billionaires feel so guilty about the amount of wealth they have that they give some of it away. But I'm afraid it is the result of the system in which we operate in. And I wish it were less socially acceptable, and that young people didn't aspire to that -- that huge sort of mega wealth that some people have today for themselves, that form of hoarding, particularly when we know there are people around the world -- there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people around the world that live in poverty. And, particularly, when we know that some of the ways in which that wealth is created or is built up is or has adverse impacts for people and the planet. You just have to think of the huge oil fortunes that are still being created for very few numbers of oil companies, some oil families, and some very big financial investment firms and their shareholders at the expense of the planet. We know what burning fossil fuels is doing to the environment, and it’s causing climate change which will wreak havoc, and it ought to be far less socially acceptable than it is today.
It’s hard to say. I don’t have a crystal [...]
Simon Retallack: It’s hard to say. I don’t have a crystal ball to look into. However, an educated guess, I suppose, would lead me to conclude that both Africa and America would be very different places. You could imagine that the Americas and the colonializing powers of Britain and Spain and Portugal would be far less, in that point in history, would have been far less wealthy. A lot of the fortunes of the empire were based on slavery. The vast imperial cities that were built in Britain and elsewhere were built on plantations that required slavery or the destruction of natural resources that were based on slavery. And there’s no doubt, I think, that we would have seen a different pattern of development, both economic and political, actually, I think, without slavery. And, of course, Africa, I think, I’m not an expert, but I imagine that communities in Africa were decimated by the slave trade; that they were ripped apart, that cultures and traditions that may enrich our world today don’t do so because of slavery. And I think it’s left a legacy too of pain and mistrust between people of different color that we would be better off without. There’s no doubt about it. And, I think, we have to give a lot of credit to the people that fought valiantly against the slave trade through boycotts of sugar in Britain and other places, for example, that eventually brought an end to it. At a time the same sort of arguments were used against those people then as are used now against, for example, weaning ourselves off carbon. They said economies would collapse if slavery came to an end. Of course, they didn’t. It was quite right that it did, of course; absolutely no doubt.
Well, I wouldn’t -- I wouldn’t necessarily [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, I wouldn’t -- I wouldn’t necessarily recommend that people do break the law but, of course, if you look back at history, change sometimes has only happened when people of courage and conviction have decided that the only way change could take place is if they broke the law. If you think about the resistance that Mahatma Gandhi led to the British occupation of India, he was convinced that the British would only leave if the Indians in significant numbers disobeyed, broke the law, and resisted; didn’t go to work, didn’t stay in their homes, and he got locked up for it. However, there’s a key point in that example I think that’s worth bearing in mind when it comes to breaking the law. I don’t think there’s justification to use violence in breaking the law. I think passive resistance is an entirely different and worthwhile phenomenon in conditions that necessitate it. Now, for some people, leaders, resistance leaders, have been called terrorists; and I know Nelson Mandela in Africa, in South Africa, has been in the past. But, again, in conditions of oppression and anyone that knows the history of the 20th-century knows that people with values that you might think would otherwise not have led them to support violence concluded the only way to shake off the Nazi threat was to fight and in those circumstances they did so. But when it comes to breaking the law, the question of breaking the law, I think, when we’re faced with situations in which a tiny number of vested interests have disproportionate influence over policy in a way that negatively affects a large number of people on the planet then it’s our duty to protest peacefully.
I think there isn’t always a conflict [...]
Simon Retallack: I think there isn’t always a conflict between traditional religious values and respect for human rights. I think it’s easy to paint traditional values as being very retrograde with regards to modern interpretations of human rights, barbaric even. But, in many ways, I think traditional communities in the past have shown a great deal more respect for people’s human needs than our current system -- capitalist system does if you look at it from a global perspective. Of course, I don’t think there has been a perfect ideal point in history or society. No system’s perfect. But I think, you know, if you look at some of the dominant religions today they’re not, they aren’t in necessary conflict with human rights. Think of Christianity. I think it’s obviously -- it’s overriding -- one of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity is to love your neighbor, to forgive, to show compassion and there’s absolutely no conflict whatsoever. In fact, it’s quite the opposite with human rights. Where there is conflict, between religions and [coaches] and respect for universal human rights, particularly rights of women, rights for self- expression, I think --it can’t – I think it’s very difficult for change to be imposed from outside. It has to come from within countries. It has to come from civil society, and that requires a change in awareness, a sense of confidence, inner confidence, that their own beliefs and values will not be undermined by respect… [audio ends]
I think that democracy is the best thing we [...]
Simon Retallack: I think that democracy is the best thing we have. I think there are different forms of democracy that we should think about. I think that we need to develop much more sophisticated systems of participatory democracy so that people have a greater say over policy decisions than they currently do. I think the forms of representative democracy that we have today are limited in that they delegate too much power to politicians in a way that enables them to take action that isn’t always in the best interest of the people themselves. And it’s inevitable in a system where politicians only get elected once every four years, that the public have to vote for a whole package of measures. They can’t pick and choose, and in between countless decisions get taken that politicians haven’t told them how they would react to when they asked for their vote; and, of course, it’s better than nothing and it works to some extent. But I think that democracies would benefit from deepening themselves, from going out engaging the public in a much more participatory way in decision making; and there are many inventive ways of doing that. We can consult the public through deliberative workshops across our countries on the important decisions. We can hold referendums. We can devolve power downwards to local and regional governments so that decisions are taken at the most appropriate level, and not always taken at a central level where the people that are affected by a particular problem are not necessarily the ones making the decision. So, I hope that we move towards better forms of democracy and to do that, I think, requires reforming the current systems of media ownership because you can’t have a functioning democracy in which information is controlled by a very small number of entities and distorted, I think. I’d like to see democratization of the media. To some extent that is happening through the Internet and that’s very welcome, but it hasn’t happened with newspapers or with television and I think that’s a problem. But I think, yes, and through education too - then we can all be wise; we can look to ideal systems of the leadership by the wise but I don’t think anyone would nominate that today. I don’t know how many wise leaders there are yet. I think we should all be wise and, in that sense, democracy is the best we’ve got.
Another good question. Of course, there [...]
Simon Retallack: Another good question. Of course, there are differences. I think that the age of religious crusades are well known in historical terms, whether it was to spread Christianity or whether it was to spread Islam. It was always, fundamentally, about spreading a world view that held no other world views’ religions were acceptable. It was about the dominance of one over another; and holy wars, of course, some people say continue to this day as some people like to paint the conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere as between the Islamic world and the Western Christian world. I don’t think it is as simple as that. On the other hand, what is a just war? Developed countries like to think, particularly now, that their interventions in Iraq and in the former republic of Yugoslavia were just wars. We intervene for humanitarian reasons today. And, perhaps, we could say that that was justified and we should have had a just war in Rwanda to stop the massacre that happened there, but it’s very hard to say that the invasion of Iraq was a just war given the consequences, I think. Of course, Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator and anything that got rid of him had to be welcome, but the aftermath was not considered and chaos has ensued and civil war and the result certainly isn’t just for the people of Iraq, I don’t think. It’s a tragedy what’s happened there. And whatever you call it, war in the end is war and we’re always better off trying to avoid it.
I think power can relinquish power. There [...]
Simon Retallack: I think power can relinquish power. There have been examples of it happening. Of course, in the end the colonial powers had to relinquish their control over developing countries. In recent times the apartheid system came to an end when the white government relinquished power. It was faced with both internal rebellion and international boycott; and internal, external pressure meant that it had to hand power over to the black majority, and that happened, thank God, relatively peacefully. And in India, too, the movement that -- I’ve said this already, the Mahatma Gandhi led peaceful resistance against the British occupation of India was successful largely peacefully. There were incidences of violence, but in the end passive resistance succeeded in pushing the English out, the British out of India. On the whole, of course it’s difficult. No one’s saying that it’s easy. I think vested interests will always do everything they can to maintain their stake in the status quo. And today, I think a lot of the -- the way in which politics, particularly in the States but also in other countries, is unduly influenced by commercial interests, particularly because they fund the collection campaigns of politicians; they control dominant forms of mass media, and it’s very difficult to persuade those politicians that depend on those sources of support to change a system that they benefit from; and power doesn’t, it’s true, like to give up power easily. But I think it can be done with the right sort of pressure, particularly internal, I think through public pressure and the mobilization of different sectors of interest, and external pressure where it’s necessary. It is possible, but change is painful. Sometimes change involves sacrifice both for the people that want to bring it about and those that don’t, and we should be compassionate towards those groups of society and understanding of those sectors of society that will not necessarily be advanced or benefit from change; and we need to help them through transitions of change. And that applies to environmental problems and social problems. I think of the mining communities that will not necessarily benefit from a change to a new clean energy economy from -- instead of -- from coal and oil and gas to renewables. They need to be helped. They need to be trained to work on these new technologies and benefit from those too. I think it can be done.
Well, in the short term, of course, the [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, in the short term, of course, the terrorists benefit. There’s no doubt about it. They draw attention to themselves and provoke responses from the governments of the countries they target which they actually seek in many ways, I think. Other people who benefit are clearly the people who have an interest in seeking to exercise even more control over populations than they currently do. I think that it’s obvious that state police forces and Secret Services have benefited enormously from the current war against terrorism in terms of increased powers of arrest, increased powers of detention, increased powers of surveillance, increased powers of interception of private communication; and that has to be a source of concern in countries where people value their freedom. And I’m concerned that there hasn’t been sufficient scrutiny of legislation that’s come in very rapidly to try to respond to the terrorist threat from al-Qaeda and others; and, of course, I’m worried, too, that the new-found powers that have been given the police and secret services will be used for other purposes. It has to be a rational fear that people share that the state, when it faces opposition in a determined way -- maybe on other issues -- it will use that power to put an end to it, even when it may be in the long-term interest and the wider interests of society for that source of change to be allowed to express itself or for resistance in a peaceful way to take place. But, in the end, I mean I have to say that the people that benefit in the short term, like I said at the beginning, are the terrorists. There’s absolutely no justification for terrorism in its true form in the sense of ruthless targeting of innocent civilian lives, and they use it deliberately to draw attention to themselves and to provoke the governments of the countries they target into retaliating in a way that actually suits them in terms of restricting freedoms. And I think we shouldn’t play into their hands. We shouldn’t deliver what they want. We should be far more careful about our response to terrorism.
For me, brands are represented by the [...]
Simon Retallack: For me, brands are represented by the world’s largest corporations and, increasingly, the world’s largest corporations have significant power. Whether they have more power than governments or not depends, I think, on the government of the country in question and the circumstance. I can think of many examples in which big global corporations with the big brands have an influence over governments themselves and over consumers that is unrivaled when it comes to other stakeholders in society; certainly when it comes to the influence of civil society groups, for example, which, of course, in a democratic era is a glaring anomaly if you like. And, of course, the problem with it is that corporations, on the whole, have very narrow interests; they are obliged by the system in which they operate to deliver returns to shareholders on a quarterly basis that requires them to maximize their profits. And that’s fine, but they often do so in a way less constrained by government that does not necessarily promote the best interests or the wider interests and, I should say, the long-term interests of the poorest in the world or the environment. And, of course, that’s a problem. There are examples of the big global corporations having used their influence to block progress on social and environmental policy in different countries; and that’s it, so I have to stop.
Oh, gosh, that’s a hard one. It means [...]
Simon Retallack: Oh, gosh, that’s a hard one. It means different things in different contexts, I think; courage, ultimately, it should mean confidence to be yourself, courage to be yourself, to express yourself as you see fit no matter what other people think. That requires courage sometimes; to stand up for yourself. For political leaders, too, it means -- I think it should mean being much more courageous about being true to their values, about standing up to powerful vested interests, particularly commercial vested interests; about saying, “No, I’ve been elected to defend the interests of my citizens, not to promote your interest, your commercial American interest. I’m very sorry; I can’t do what you want me to do.” And courage of leaders of companies to say, “I’m sorry; I know I have duties to my shareholders, but I also have duties as a citizen, as a member of the human race, as a father, as a son, to respect to insure that the work that our company, my company, does respects and promotes the interests of the wider community” and not feel embarrassed about saying that. I think that requires courage. But it helps, of course, to feel -- to be courageous, to feel that you’re not on your own; and that’s why I think it’s important to build movements, movements of people that people can feel they can be courageous together in; a sense of common heroism, if you like. And leaders need that, too, I think, and that’s why, to some extent, the European Union has worked. And we need a global community that extends beyond the European Union and makes people feel it’s safe to be courageous and that sounds contradictory, but I think there’s an absence of courage in politics. It needs to be restored. I hope we see more of it. We desperately need to.
Well, of course, every nuclear bomb is as [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, of course, every nuclear bomb is as dangerous as another nuclear bomb. It kills on a massive scale and should never be used. However, I suppose in the minds of Western politicians, a bomb which they own is seen as less dangerous than a bomb that Iran may own because they assume that – well, for several reasons -- one they perhaps assume that they wouldn’t use that bomb where they worry that Iran might. But actually it’s because the nuclear bomb symbolizes far more than a bomb. It, of course, gives any nation that has it huge power and influence. And it’s doesn’t want Iran to have that power and influence. Of course, there’s a historic, long-established problem in the Middle East with Israel and the Arab states that surround it, including Iran being extremely hostile to the state of Israel; and American politics, in particular, is concerned that were Iran to have the bomb then Israel would be at threat. But, of course, Israel itself has a nuclear bomb; and we know that the Israeli state in the past has not hesitated from using military force to seek to protect itself, sometimes totally inappropriately. So it’s a difficult question of Middle East politics. True. But, ultimately, there is absolutely no difference between an Iranian bomb and a French bomb, or a British bomb, or an American bomb, or an Israeli bomb. We shouldn’t be – if we were to start all over again I think no one would say that it was a good idea to build nuclear bombs. Insane. It’s one of the stupidest things that the human race has come up with, and let’s pray that they’re never used again.
Well, of course, international law has to be [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, of course, international law has to be applied if it’s to be of any practical, immediate use. Law can have symbolic value, and I think there are examples where the existence of a law can help vulnerable parties defend themselves. Of course, you need it to be enforced. And I’m glad to see the development of a body of international law concerning human rights and ethnic cleansing, of course, that is beginning to get enforced. I was delighted to see Slobodan Milosevic put on trial at The Hague; and I think had he not died, he would have been convicted. And similarly, those responsible for other gross abuses of human rights that are being put on trial because of international law demonstrate that there is value in this and there is, to some extent, a level of enforcement. Now there are some countries that refuse to be subject to any international body of law when it comes to their political leadership. The U.S. is a regrettable example. But I think this will take time. The system will evolve and I hope we will see greater teeth given to those tribunals that have the duty to enforce and apply international law.
Well, I’ve already answered this question by [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, I’ve already answered this question by mistake in an earlier session but I might repeat myself to some extent and add something. There obviously is a connection between politics and violence. States, of course, control the armed forces; and as senior politicians throughout history have sought to increase their power, one way in which they can do that is to use force whether it’s to annex other countries, seize natural resources, more land, or even actually to provoke conflict internally in order to increase their power. It’s -- you know, I’ve talked about the way in which politicians in the former Yugoslav republic, Slobodan Milosevic, and his henchmen in Bosnia, as a governor certainly stirred up hatred between otherwise peacefully cooperating nations in Bosnia in order to increase their power. They stirred up historic divisions between peoples, reawakened old memories and provoked antagonism, pointed fingers, and said, “Those people are the bad guys; they’re stealing your jobs; let’s do something about it”; and they go to war. And, of course, we’ve seen something similar in Rwanda; and history is littered with examples of politicians using war to empower themselves. And there are also plenty of examples of people who use violence who are not within the realm of the state to seek political advantage; terrorist groups, obviously today and I don’t think that is a legitimate means of expression. It is totally unacceptable.
Good question. I think anyone that cares [...]
Simon Retallack: Good question. I think anyone that cares about the problem of climate change and global warming should be as critical of practices and policies that exacerbate the problem, mainly by producing mobile energy from burning fossil fuels, wherever it happens whether it’s in China or it’s in Germany. And we have to be aware, I think, that even if we in developed countries take action to reduce our contribution to that problem, if we continue to buy products from countries that do not take action about climate change; in other words, if we buy products that are produced in ways that are energy intensive that do create greenhouse gas emissions, we in our way are continuing to contribute to the problem. There are ways of dealing with that in terms of internalizing the cost of the wider environmental and social costs of products and prices that consumers pay for them. Controversial, but it is possible. How do I think in terms of China specifically? Its own government is aware that it’s industrializing too rapidly; it’s growing too rapidly which is having huge, hugely adverse consequences both socially and environmentally. They know. They are very aware in China of the impact that industrial development is having; their water -- underground water reserves are being depleted, their aquifers, their rivers are drying up. They have massive soil erosion problems, acid rain destroying their crops and their forests. They have regular flooding and big social problems too, and they know that they have to [audio ends]
Yes. I think that some of the -- actually [...]
Simon Retallack: Yes. I think that some of the -- actually some of the same countries that were behind the first wave of colonialism, but also one that came lately to colonialism, namely the United States. Having invented a system of government economically and politically through the institutions of the global economy that make – that do make up a new form of colonialism in the sense that they have devised a system whereby their corporations can go into developing countries and -- actually any country -- but also particularly developing countries which have weaker governments and less wealth and basically get them to produce the things they want on the terms that they want so to pay workers at whatever price they want, to do what they want to the environment in which they find themselves, and extract resources for their own use. Now, that doesn’t require the same sort of administrative colonialism that we saw in the 18th and 19th centuries, 20th century, even. It’s far more sophisticated and actually in a way more intelligent; but its results and its effects can be similar in the sense that developing countries that are part of that system do not function in their best interests. They far too often serve the interests of people outside their country whether its corporations or other governments and that, as we were saying earlier, is part of the reason why some countries that can produce food are still going hungry. It partly explains why some countries that have vast natural resources and mineral wealth do not benefit sufficiently from them. And there is, I think, a case to be made in which big global trusts and actual corporations are the new colonialists. Of course, there are examples of colonialism still. I suppose you could say -- some people say in the case of the invasion of Iraq by the Western powers although I’m not quite sure it fits in the same way.
Well, there are different aspects to [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, there are different aspects to freedom: freedom from oppression, from torture, from hunger, from thirst, but also the freedom of self-expression, the freedom to live the life, hold the values, the views, do the things that we choose. And different cultures value different things differently. And it’s rare that we, actually, each of us either have the opportunity to fully exercise our freedoms in every respect or actually exercise, choose to exercise that freedom; and those of us that can, should do it more. And those of us that lack those freedoms, particularly in countries where the dominant culture or the economic system means that some interests are much better represented and influential than others need to pursue a greater degree of mobilization to put pressure on governments and companies and others for change. But, of course, in some countries they do so at their peril. Their own lives are at stake, and I can’t imagine what it must be like to have to fight for your basic freedom of self-expression when we were just born with it. But in the end, those freedoms don’t come from nowhere; they have to be fought for and that’s painful.
Well, mostly it’s up to governments to [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, mostly it’s up to governments to decide using legislation, using the law to protect individuals in instances where the exercise of personal freedom may -- negates their own, other people’s freedom; and it can be a difficult balance, again. Where the law doesn’t decide, it’s up to individuals; and that is often a difficult process. If you think of an environmental problem, like climate change, where individuals have the freedom to move about as they choose, to use cars, to use airplanes as they choose, the government -- at the moment, most governments in the developed world are extremely reluctant to use the power of the law to interfere with people’s freedom of movement. They put tax on transport, on fuel, when it comes to cars, of course, but not in a way that actually stops people using them. With airplanes, they don’t do anything. I mean there is no tax on aviation fuel; there’s no restriction that comes from wanting to combat climate change. So it’s up to individuals at the moment whether or not they choose to exercise their freedom of movement knowing, or at least in a way that they should know and increasingly do know, that when they do that, they have consequences that may be adverse for both themselves, their children, other people in the long term particularly in vulnerable countries that are going to find it very difficult to adapt or protect themselves to the consequences of climate change. And, so drawing the line between the personal freedom and social responsibility towards the common good, when it is up to us, is often mishandled and – I mean I acknowledge we’re all guilty of not fully thinking, not sufficiently thinking of the common good when we do exercise our freedom. We should do… [audio ends]
Unfortunately, I don’t think in the vast [...]
Simon Retallack: Unfortunately, I don’t think in the vast majority of cases that the education system does enable a child to bloom. I think in some countries it’s doing a better job than it has perhaps in the past to make us literate, to read and write, to do math; but to bloom children need far more than that. I think children’s talents need to be nurtured to a far greater extent than they are today in many different ways; and the system that prevails in most countries, if not all countries, is one in which there are too many children in a classroom. I think 30, anything above 30, or even 20 makes it hard per class to pay enough attention to the individual needs of children and to identify how they need to be helped and supported and nurtured. And I think for a child to bloom, they need to be given space and the opportunity to discover what they feel attracted to; whether it’s something that’s academic, whether it’s a sport, or the arts. I think, you know, there’s far too little support in schools today for music, and I think it’s one of the most joyful things you can do as a child is to discover music or drama or painting, anything in the creative arena. And yet it’s crowded out of the curriculum, there aren’t enough teachers for it, there isn’t enough time for it, and all of that needs to change, I think. There needs to be a re-evaluation of just what the education system is for. And I’m thinking, too, if a child is really to bloom in the world, they need to have a better understanding of the way the world works and both politically, economically, and environmentally. We need to do more to inculcate a system or an awareness of other people’s way of life and beliefs and inculcate respect for that. So, I think there needs to be a greater investment in children. There’s no doubt about it. And that means investing in their teachers and giving them space to truly discover themselves and hear their own -- find their own voices, and I hope that happens.
Wealth does not necessarily depend on [...]
Simon Retallack: Wealth does not necessarily depend on keeping the Third World poor. I think we can work hard in ways that enrich us without impoverishing others. If you’re a musician, your wealth does not depend on impoverishing anyone and quite the contrary; there are many, many examples of creative Industries where that’s the case of many different career paths that do not require the impoverishment of other people. How it’s true on the whole that if you look at the global economic system in its entirety and you look at the flows of money between countries that take place today, contrary to what you might expect there is a greater flow of money from poor countries in the developing world to rich countries than from rich countries to developing countries. Obviously, rich countries provide aid to developing countries but, regrettably and this is something that people have been campaigning against for many years now, because of the debt that developing countries owe developed countries they are paying every year vast sums of money to us, to our banks, to our governments, in terms of returns on the loans that western banks have made; so, interest payments and, of course, the payment of the debts themselves. And this, unfortunately, means that developing country governments are not able to spend the sorts of sums they should be spending on their own people, on their health and on their education on social provision, on protecting the natural environment whether its rainforests or other species. And, this I think is ultimately a form of impoverishment. And it’s at the expense of a lot people and in favor of the interest of very few.
Well, I don’t consider any life worth more [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, I don’t consider any life worth more than any other life, and I don’t know people who don’t either. However, it’s true to say that I think there is tendency at too many levels to consider the lives of wealthy, white people in developed countries above those of poor non-white people. There is a residual degree of racism, I think, that exists. It’s reflected in the priorities, I think, of some of our news media when they cover crises in -- that happen in developed countries that affect people, they’re likely to devote more time to that than similar or often far worse crises in developing countries that affect far more people. And I think it’s actually that sort of practice that means we still aren’t fully aware of the consequences of the actions that we take in developed countries for developing countries. I’m thinking, particularly, of the environmental problems. I’m thinking of the contribution we have to problems like climate change in developed countries that affect the poor and the vulnerable far more than us at the moment. You think of hurricane Mitch that destroyed three Latin American, Central American countries, completely; that killed thousands of people. Think of the hurricane that hit [Erisa] in India, unprecedented, record-breaking. Again, killed and injured and displaced thousands of people. And what sort of coverage was it given? Very little. If that had happened in London or New York, you can bet that it would have been on our… [audio ends]
Developing countries need to be able to set [...]
Simon Retallack: Developing countries need to be able to set their own path of development. It really should be up to them. There are infinite numbers of ways of developing. The way that the West has chosen, industrial development, has had terrible consequences as history has shown and the current environmental crisis has shown today and it’s not up to us to impose that on anyone. If developing countries choose to develop in the way that we have, we need to enable them to do so that leapfrogs over the path that we’ve pursued that has led to social and environmental destruction in the past and today. And if that’s going to happen, developed countries should provide support to developing countries to enable them to pursue best practice whether it’s in social terms or environmental terms, and, for example, through the transfer of clean energy technologies. And I think whether it’s macro-finance or micro-finance depends on the instance. I think there have been far too many instances in the past where macro-finances has been provided to large infrastructure projects in developing countries that are totally inappropriate or that lead to massive social dislocation or environmental degradation. I’m thinking, particularly, of huge dams that have been built that have been worthless after ten years because they’ve silted up but have led to the displacement of millions of people and the destruction of entire ecosystems that benefit very few people and, at the same time, have indebted developing countries for generations. Micro-finance does have an important role to play in enabling people to set up their own businesses at a local level to build up strong communities and local economies, and I do favor a greater provision of micro-finance to the world’s poor.
That’s an age-old question. I think women [...]
Simon Retallack: That’s an age-old question. I think women in far too many countries around the world are at a disadvantage still because of the dominant culture and its historical artifact to some extent. We are, still even in developed countries, cultures that give greater authority and, ultimately, respect to men. I’d like to think that in developed countries we’ve made significant progress in the 20th century to address the problem, and I think you can see that, to some extent, in the increased number of women that are represented in parliaments around the world and particularly well developed countries but also in some of the leaders that exist. In Britain we had our first female prime minister in the late ‘70s; and in Germany, too, today Angela Merkel’s the first German chancellor. There are clearly examples of women having broken through barriers and having succeeded in a way that simply wasn’t conceivable before, but these things take time. It’s about changing people’s expectations, about empowering women to rise up through the ranks of organizations in which they work and being treated as equals. I think more needs to be done to enable women to pursue the careers that they seek to pursue in a way that their male colleagues can because they’re not the producers of children whilst, at the same time, insuring that strong family structures are maintained; and that’s a challenge to all countries. But I do think those cultures and religious traditions, too, around the world that keep women at a disadvantage need to think very hard about whether that is in accordance really with their fundamental values, particularly when it comes to fairness because ultimately it’s unsustainable, I think.
Well, I would argue that I think the basis [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, I would argue that I think the basis of any resistance, in the first instance at least, should be nonviolent; and I think there are examples in history, clearly, of the successful deployment of nonviolent resistance notably, of course, by Mahatma Gandhi in India against the rule of the British. At the time people, I think, thought he was unrealistic to hope to achieve the removal of the British in this way, but he proved to be successful. He paid a personal price; he was locked up as were others of his colleagues but in the end he was successful. And I think there are choices we can make about how we resist. At the moment, the problem is that resistance isn’t even, or protest isn’t even, on the radar screen for people on whose radar screen it should be. I think that’s got to be the starting point actually: to get people to care, to get people that can make a difference and to stand up for themselves; and where they can, use the democratic process to affect change, absolutely first and foremost. And a lot of people don’t, and it’s extraordinary that people fought in the past for the right to vote and now huge proportions of our populations don’t exercise that right; and they ought to, particularly the weak and the marginalized, the poor. I mean I can understand why they may not; they don’t feel there’s a choice but it becomes a self-fulfilling problem if they don’t; and it’s not just them, of course. There’s too much cynicism. I can understand, again, why there is; but I think beyond that there needs to be greater articulation of concern by populations in what whatever way they can peacefully through the media and in their own communities to spread the word and from that we need to see new movements built with civil society at the forefront to put pressure on governments to do the right thing for people and the planet .
Well, of course, I think the suffering of [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, of course, I think the suffering of the world has many causes. Drugs can contribute to suffering. There’s no doubt about that, I think, for the users of drugs and people that live with the users of drugs and the people that suffer from the users of drugs in the sense that in many instances addicts turn to crime to feed and support their habits. And there are victims. There’s absolutely no doubt about the drug culture. And the biggest victims, I think, are the users of drugs themselves. I think it is a problem that is hard to change. I think that we need to do far more to think about the drug problem in a holistic way, not just about the elimination of the production of illegal drugs--of course that’s a part of it--or about tougher policing, but about--it’s about understanding why people turn to drugs in the first place. And I think it’s a lot about -- of course, it’s about—escapism, about finding some relief from the stress and strain of modern life and for some people a source of -- I think it’s fake, but a source of –even if it’s fake – spiritual feeling, a connection to something beyond us; and in the past religions used to provide that; now religions particularly in the developed world have declined. It hasn’t happened; and drugs to some extent have filled that void, but it’s no answer. It’s a…[audio ends]
I think every nation that has any [...]
Simon Retallack: I think every nation that has any consciousness at the global level at all has a duty to help countries in Africa that are suffering from the AIDS epidemic. We have a duty both to provide financial support and informational support but also to revise the system currently in force by the World Trade Organization that protects the patents, intellectual property rights, of the manufacturers of the drugs that can help prolong the lives of people that have AIDS. We know at the moment that very few, the handful of companies that make these antiviral drugs, sell them, sell these drugs for huge profits and actually at a very high price even in developed countries. And, there’s no way the developing countries can afford those prices. Yet, developing countries seek to, in some instances, are seeking to produce their own generic versions of those drugs and are being told that they can’t because it would contravene intellectual property rights which exist internationally. I think that has to change. I think we need to think differently about -- we need to devise a new system that rewards companies for innovation in the pharmaceutical sector and others but doesn’t give them the right to perpetually to seek a rent forever on their creation, particularly when we’re talking about the lives of hundreds of millions of people, which is exactly what we’re talking about with AIDS. And unless we change that system, unless we allow developing countries to buy anti-viral drugs more cheaply than they can do today, we will be condemning and we are, I think, already condemning millions and millions of people to death, and a pretty miserable death at that. So our responsibility is huge. I think countries that suffer from AIDS in Africa also have their own responsibility; their own governments need to do far more to, and particularly I’m thinking in South Africa and other countries in Africa, do far more to acknowledge the scale of the problem and to do far more about it internally than they
Yeah, I think people who founded the [...]
Simon Retallack: Yeah, I think people who founded the environmental movement we owe a huge amount of debt to. They're my heroes, I suppose, in a way; people who had the foresight to -- and the wisdom to identify the problems that we are causing to the environment. People like Rachel Carson in her time, Teddy Goldsmith in his time, and countless pioneers today around the world of movements; people that are building those movements for change, I think, today -- to have the courage to start, to lead, to build constituencies, to engage the public, to say, “This is wrong and we need to do this differently, and here's how.” They're my heroes and I think the biggest hero of all in terms of an agent of change, has to be, for me, I think, -- well there are many, but one, I think, and certainly in the last century I’d identify is Mahatma Gandhi; someone who against all odds, really, managed to mobilize people on such a scale, in a peaceful way, to bring about an enormous change in the government of his country, has to be admired enormously, I think, for the courage of his convictions, for the way he led his life according to how he thought other people should live, and the way he stood up for what he believed in and acted fearlessly. I suppose the other people that are heroes to me, the people that can enable us to dream and be inspired, touched, moved; composers, brilliant people, Mozart, Brahms, who take you somewhere else, and the sheer brilliance that they have. Everyone will have their own, but those are some of mine.
Good question. I think it's important to [...]
Simon Retallack: Good question. I think it's important to maintain incentives for innovators to innovate and the argument in favour of patent law is that it rewards the creators of new products of new medicines etc. and that's what they have to have. They have to have rewards in order to invest in the development of new products. However, the problem with the current patent system is that it enables the original producers of new products, new medicines, etc. to -- or new technologies that perhaps provide clean energy, for example, to monopolize the know how behind the production of that product and prevent others from innovating and producing those products in turn. And, of course, the classic example of that is with AIDS drugs in developing countries. Under patent law it's impossible, or very difficult, for developing company governments to produce generic versions of AIDS drugs at a much cheaper rate than the pharmaceutical companies would normally charge on the open market. The consequence, of course, is that millions of people are probably dying unnecessarily because of this. So, I think there is a case and Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank, has recently argued to rethink patent law and instead replace it with a system of prizes that rewards innovators of new technology, of new designs, with prize money so they get something for coming up with the original idea. But after that the design is free; everyone is able to use it. So the maximum social value can be obtained from their creativity. I think that's definitely an idea that needs to be explored because the current system really isn't in the wider global social interest..
I think there is an ecological limit. [...]
Simon Retallack: I think there is an ecological limit. Economic growth is based on industrial development. I think we live -- it's obvious to say we live on a planet with finite resources and a finite capacity to absorb waste. There's no way around that; and if you carry on growing your economy in a way that uses up your natural resources -- obviously we’re seeing that with fossil fuels -- and that uses up the carrying capacity of the atmosphere, for example, to absorb all of our pollution, we will provoke ecological crises of such magnitude that industrial development as we know it will come to an end. And, therefore, there is an ecological limit to this. If we continue along the current path of fossil fuel based industrial development, I think of course there are ways of producing energy that involve renewable forms of energy: the sun, wind, that are infinite in nature. But, nonetheless, those have to be produced and there are other resources that can't be renewed and -- particularly water. We're reducing our supplies of fresh water at such a rate that huge sections of the planet face significant water scarcity in coming decades, unless we realize that we have to treat water as a valued common good that has to be used much more efficiently than it is today. And, therefore, I think we need to readjust our economic priorities wherever we are in -- wherever people find themselves in positions of influence in economic ministries. The objective of increasing economic growth for economic growth’s sake should no longer be the overriding priority of policy here. The policies that should govern or influence decisions should be those that serve the interests, the true interests, of people and the environment; and where they conflict with economic growth, I'm afraid they must take priority.
I think there are two ways to answer that. [...]
Simon Retallack: I think there are two ways to answer that. I think that one of the consequences of having the internet in people’s homes is that with that often comes email. And now that -- We all have work emails. We’re used to people thinking they can email you and get an answer whenever they want and if we don’t answer quickly, then there’s something wrong that we’re doing. And I think it can become a form of tyranny. I don’t think it’s controlled by any one individual, or group of individuals; it’s the system. It promotes a way of life that means you’re never left alone, you’re always on duty, you’re always working. It’s got worse with these little blackberry machines, I think, probably. You’ve got to be highly disciplined to know when to turn your computer off. Of course, once you do that, you’re free, but it’s a hard challenge. We’ve got used to being in constant contact, constantly available. In the past, we weren’t. Even before telephones, it was even worse but it wasn’t that long ago, we didn’t have mobile phones; we didn’t even have fax machines. People couldn’t get a hold of us like that and couldn’t demand instant responses. We had to send post that took days to reach people and we had a more measured, a slower, pace of life. I think things have become so frenetic and in that sense, you know, the internet in our homes is part of a system that makes us live in a certain way. I think it’s not inevitable. We can do something about it. It requires a lot of determination. Turn the thing off. I don’t know whether it’s a vehicle to spy on what we’re doing. I suppose it could be. There are ways of using the internet that I think monitor, that enable people to monitor individuals usage; what sites you visit, and how often, and build up a sort of profile of individual users. And there are no doubt issues to do with privacy that need to be investigated. Both, I suppose, from a commercial perspective and from a governmental perspective. It depends who’s doing the snooping. But, to be honest, it’s an area that I need to know more about to be able to comment more -- further.
I think there's some sense in which we have [...]
Simon Retallack: I think there's some sense in which we have become lazier as a result of new technologies. The classic example of the couch potato; the person that sits back on their couch, uses their remote control, never gets up, has every meal on the sofa watching the television, doesn't even need to get up to change the channel. And I think there's a clear evidence that obesity is on the rise for a whole combination of reasons. Part of it is true is I think, lack of exercise, diet, of course, too; poor diet, fast food, poor quality food. And none of these trends are particularly good in terms of people's long term health interests. So, in terms of the other things that were mentioned -- less curious? That's interesting. I wonder about that. I suppose -- is there a connection between sort of a sense of physical laziness and intellectual laziness? There might be. I don't know. I think it's hard to say. People that can't move because they're disabled don't necessarily find themselves in positions of being uncurious about the world at all. So, I don't know; it's a funny question. But, on the other hand, I suppose there was the great story that was told, you know, shortly after the Second World War about new technologies that they would liberate women from doing housework. Housewives would find themselves with so much spare time they wouldn't know what to do with it because they'd have all these wonderfully newfangled technology. But, of course, we haven't found that. To some extent, new technologies have reduced people's work, but in many ways they haven't. New technologies have increased -- like I was saying earlier, their sense of obligation to work; e mail's, the computer never leaves you. You're constantly thinking about it, constantly working, constantly answering people’s messages, phones, too. They can track you down wherever you are. And, so, it's a complex picture as is often the case.
Well, it's a big question. I think there [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, it's a big question. I think there are different interventions. I think the first step is to acknowledge and set ourselves limits. I think targets to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, targets to improve the efficient nature of water use, of energy use, of generating electricity from renewable sources and doing so at the same time as insuring job creation and wealth creation as social justice. I think we need to consider how to create ecological footprints that are a lot – a lot smaller than they are today, particularly from cities that have a reach that significantly extends beyond their geographical boundaries. And if we're going to build new communities, we must do so in a sense that's ecologically literate. There's absolutely no excuse any more for building homes that do not use energy efficiently, do not use water efficiently, that are based on wasteful practices that are Jurassic, in terms of their out datedness. And the same goes for cities: to design cities for people, not for cars; to design cities so that people live near their place of work, live near their shops and their sources of recreation; to design cities that have green spaces in which people can dream and enjoy their free time. I think we have to empower communities to be able to develop along those lines, and that means developing power downwards to local areas to a greater extent so they can have far greater influence over the development of their own life
Over the common usage of common water [...]
Simon Retallack: Over the common usage of common water resources -- there are many examples around the world where different -- several countries share a common water resource, often because a major river flows through several of them. You can think of the number of countries that the Nile flows through. And there are rivers like the Nile, obviously on a smaller scale, but also in the Middle East, in Asia, in Latin America where several countries depend on a single river source and there is potential as water becomes more scarce as a resource to conflict. There are -- there is a case that conflict in the Middle East has been exacerbated by Israel’s desire to control the Golden Heights which is an important source to Jordan. But the solution, I think, has to come if we’re to prevent conflict over water resources by jointly negotiated agreements about how to use that common resource so that there is an equitable distribution of that water resource and a sustainable one because no country benefits if a water resource is depleted forever. Rivers can die and it’s in no one’s interest for that to happen. That means negotiated agreements, living within our means, taking urgent action to conserve water, to insure that industries that use water do not do so at preferential rates; that they, too, are made to truly value the cost of water. Unfortunately, at the moment a lot of industries get to use huge quantities of water on cheaper rates than consumers do and, of course, it encourages them to think that this is almost a free commodity, that it’s inexhaustible in nature when it isn’t at all. The same goes for agriculture. There are systems today for agriculture that can use water much, much more efficiently. Drip irrigation is much, much more efficient than traditional – than modern forms of irrigation and those forms of those new technologies need to be deployed on a significant scale.
I’m not sure whether there is a value in [...]
Simon Retallack: I’m not sure whether there is a value in promoting any technologies that cost human lives in the short term. I’m trying to think of an example of a technology that killed people in the short term but didn’t in the long term. I think we have to be very careful when we introduce new technologies to think of its impact in the short-term, mid-term, and long-term. Far too often the long term isn’t thought about, and technologies are introduced because they seem not to have a negative impact in the short term, but turn out over the long run, cumulatively, to have adverse impacts, sometimes on our health, sometimes on the natural environment. You can think of cigarettes. Okay, not a technology, a product, but at the beginning people thought they were harmless. We know now that the more you smoke the more likely it is you might get a cancer. Similarly, when people produced ozone depleting substances, CFCs, that used to be used in aerosols and refrigerators, it took us a long time to work out that it was destroying this protective layer over our heads, the ozone layer which protects us from ultraviolet radiation. And now we know we have a massive hole in the ozone layer and incidences of skin cancer have risen enormously around the world. And I think that means the onus should be on people introducing new technologies to demonstrate that they’ve thought about the implications that these things will have in the long-term and on regulators not to be so dependent on evidence produced by the manufacturers of products who may have a vested interest in justifying their say on the matter, what the impact -- so it’s a complicated, of course, it’s a complicated issue; but I think we should be guided above all by the precautionary principle when it comes to new technologies.
Well, I think one of the problems identified [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, I think one of the problems identified in the question is of real importance, this question of peak oil. This is the problem that experts predict will arise when the supply of oil is outstripped by demand for oil as developed countries’ insatiable appetite for oil continues to grow and appetite for oil -- it booms in developing countries. There is no doubt that demand for oil has increased dramatically and will continue to increase dramatically. The problem, of course, with oil is that it’s a finite resource; that there are limits to its availability and when demand outstrips supply, the price of oil will never return to a low level; it will continue to grow. It may plateau for a while and then continue to grow. I don’t know when that moment will arrive. Several experts in the oil industry and geologists who know about this thing think that we’re very, very close to that point and that point technically is called peak oil. If that happens, the potential -- and I think it’s a question of time -- the potential is for significant economic disruption unless we take steps now to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. The steps that we need to take to combat climate change are exactly the same steps that we need to take to ensure that we avoid the catastrophic, potentially catastrophic consequences that may arise from peak oil and that means using energy much more efficiently, that means developing some alternative renewable forms of energy that we need to deploy rapidly on a global scale. And, I think, the danger is if peak oil happens sooner rather than later we simply won’t be prepared for the transition. I think it’s incumbent on all governments to take steps now to significantly increase the speed with which they put in place measures to encourage the deployment of clean energy technologies particularly in the transport sector and develop alternatives, too, for all the other uses of petrol out there particularly in pharmaceuticals and in clothing, too. So, only if we act now, will we avoid the worst impacts from climate change and… [audio ends]
Television in most countries is owned by [...]
Simon Retallack: Television in most countries is owned by companies that want to make a profit. They need to get advertising in order to cover their costs. Advertisers will only put adverts into channels if they think that a lot of people are watching them; and in order to get a lot of people to watch channels, programmers commission programs that entertain people. And people are increasingly entertained by trivial things. There’s, of course, a well-known trend towards reality television, watching people live in a box, live day-to-day which seems pretty unimportant, but people are entertained by it. It draws viewers, gets ratings, advertisers think they can make -- programmers think they can get more advertising, advertisers think they can sell more products and, hence, the cycle continues. And to compete, public sector broadcasters, I think, increasingly have to, in terms of justifying the fees that they get to cover their costs from the taxpayer, have to attract similar ratings and sometimes offer similar sorts of programs which offer unimportant information. Having said that, I think there is scope for governments to require broadcasters to meet certain public interest requirements -- that require them, I think, to -- should require them to provide some programming that educates people, that informs people, that explains the world to people, that helps explain and encourage them to do something about the world they live in. And where that does happen, I think, TV is an important and invaluable tool. Of course, films are great, too, and it’s important to be entertained.
I think this is happening. In some [...]
Simon Retallack: I think this is happening. In some countries, genetically modified crops are being introduced even though there is evidence around that the long term effect of that may be detrimental to the environment. And I think the reason this is happening is twofold. One, I think, a certain number -- a small number of big agrichemical companies decided several years ago to invest large sums of money in developing genetically modified crops. The benefit to them of developing these sorts of crops is that they can patent them. They can sell seed to farmers every time the farmer seeks to grow crops and require him to go back to the corporation to buy the seed year after year. They can’t save any more. They can’t without paying a fee. And I see the genetically modified crops principally as a mechanism to achieve control over the food system by a few, a handful of corporations. Now, the other partner in this, of course, are governments. Why are they going along with this? Well, that’s more – it’s a bit more mystifying. To some extent, it’s true as with any industrial sector, they’ve applied enormous pressure on governments -- the companies in this field -- have applied pressure on companies to license these crops. They’ve told them this is the future and some governments are easily convinced that any new technology must be a good thing. It sounds modern, and we’ll make money out of it, and we’ll get new tax revenues, and it might create a few jobs as well. And people in government have applied less scrutiny to the development of these crops than they probably should have done. Nonetheless, in Europe some governments have been skeptical, and I think quite rightly so. Field trials in Britain of the environmental impact of these crops have shown that we have reason to be concerned about their impact in that way.
Science is portrayed as an objective [...]
Simon Retallack: Science is portrayed as an objective pursuit. It’s often presented as something that can determine what is right or wrong. Experiment that shows something is either true or it’s not true. However, I think, it’s quite right that we should be cautious about viewing science in that way. I think scientific experiments under conclusions are often based on a set of assumptions that are subjective, subjective in nature that can often be spurious. Assumptions about the way that people interact with each other, the way organisms function, assumptions about the conditions in which they function that make science as subjective as politics in some instances, as policy making. Science does require decisions to be taken about key assumptions. And, in that sense, you know, we shouldn’t treat it as holy writ. It is -- we can question the conclusions from science. I don’t want to belittle the role of science either. I think science is enormously helpful in understanding the way the world works and in understanding how our impact on the world may have unfortunate and unseen consequences, particularly in ecological terms that may be difficult to see in the short term, but over a period of time become highly visible and extremely disturbing.
There are a number of things that people can [...]
Simon Retallack: There are a number of things that people can do. I think the first thing is to appreciate your role in different arenas. I think as an elector, as a voter, as a consumer, as someone that uses energy in the home or in transport choices, we can each make a difference. First of all, I think we must all do our bit to encourage and put pressure on our politicians, our elected representatives to act, to take steps to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels which cause greenhouse gas emissions which causes climate change. And make the switch to clean, renewable forms of energy and use energy more efficiently. That means writing to politicians, telling them that you want to see action on this issue, telling them you won’t vote for them unless they take action on this issue. Wherever you see a politician asking for your vote, ask them, “What’s your plan to tackle climate change or global warming? What do you plan to do about it? Do you think that this is an important issue?” From there, I think, you can do all sorts of things at the community level to encourage action on this, to develop community forms of clean energy: wind turbine, biomass. And I think that we can do a lot as individuals in our homes, too, to take action to reduce our own contribution to the problem of global warming. We can put insulation in our roofs and our walls that dramatically cut the wastage of energy that happens and we can install efficient appliances, efficient energy light bulbs. We can take big actions, particularly, by putting solar panels on our roofs or buying micro-wind turbines. We can buy increasingly our electricity from green energy suppliers. And in the transport sector, we can do a lot to ensure that we either choose public transport when traditionally we’ve used the car, or we bicycle, or we walk or if we have to use a car, we try to find -- I think we should buy the most efficient -- fuel efficient car. Increasingly they’re on the market now. You’ve got hybrid cars like the Prius which you can buy which use much less petrol than conventional cars, gasoline than conventional cars. And when we fly -- if we have to fly -- we can offset our emissions so that the contribution to CO2 that we’re responsible for is counteracted by investments in energy efficiency and in renewable energy projects, but also to avoid flying when we can. When you can take a train, take the train. Flying is the most, carbon intensive form of transport there is. And teleconference if you use – if you fly a lot for work. So take consciousness of your responsibility on this problem and take some action and encourage others to do so, too.
This is one of the biggest challenges, I [...]
Simon Retallack: This is one of the biggest challenges, I think, that we face over the next few decades. I think there is no way to combat problems like climate change, which are caused by our use of energy, than by an equitable settlement at the international level that enables all countries to reduce their contribution to climate change in a fair way. And that means, I’m afraid, that the U.S. will have to take its share of responsibility to reduce its contribution to the problem; and I think there are signs of hope on this. I think there’s much greater action at the state level in the U.S. now -- at the local level, too, to take steps to act on this issue. California very recently agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, in 14 years time. And that, I think, is the first step of a nationwide progress in the U.S. towards capping the United States contribution to climate change. And, obviously, it’s absolutely vital that the world’s biggest polluter, the U.S., which is responsible for 25 percent of the world’s greenhouse Co2 emissions, acts if we’re to persuade the big developing countries to act, too. They will need to act, too, in time. And I think it’s very important for them to understand that this isn’t something that they should fear, but they should embrace because if we use energy more efficiently our economies become more competitive. If we generate new technologies that produce energy cleanly, we are at an advantage because we’ll create new jobs. We’ll create new sources of wealth creation, and it provides an opportunity for developing countries to leapfrog over the dirty phase of development that developed countries pursued in the industrial era to insure that our cities aren’t filled with smog that kills hundreds of thousands of people a year from air pollution; that we don’t have the acid rain that destroys our crops, that destroys our forests, and that we don’t ravage communities that live near fossil fuel reserves, particularly open coal mining. And if we can do that, I think, in an equitable way, in a fair way, we’re much, much more likely to produce a sustainable outcome.
The architects can play an important part in [...]
Simon Retallack: The architects can play an important part in helping societies address key social, economic, environmental problems. Certainly today on the environmental front, architects are capable of building homes that are much more efficient users of energy, of water, produce less waste, that make the most of natural light, that are integrated in their environment in a much better way. And, I think, a lot more action needs to be done to encourage architects to deploy their expertise in sustainable building so that any new homes that are built today are built to the best architectural standards when it comes to the environment. We’re seeing some of that, and it’s beginning to take off. But it needs to be on a much greater scale. Of course, there’s a role for architecture, too, in serving cultural objectives. Think of the number of buildings in key cities that inspire us today: in London, in Paris, in Berlin, in New York. These buildings are icons that help us feel a unique sense of identity with those cities; and politically too, the way that buildings are built can help shape the way that politics is conducted. Adversarial style politics like in Britain… [audio ends]
Well, this will sound hopelessly naïve, no [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, this will sound hopelessly naïve, no doubt; but I would, of course, envision a future in which human beings have learned to live in harmony with other inhabitants of this planet and with the natural world and, above all, in harmony with each other. I’d like to imagine that it’s possible for the human race to develop a sense of global citizenship over time, that we treat each other with the respect, tolerance, and fairness that I think we would like to be treated with – by. I’d also like to see a future in which we are treated by people that lead us, the political leaders that we have with far greater respect than has been the case today. I think I’d like to see a future in which people are far more active in Democratic systems, we participate to a far greater extent in democratic processes and in new processes so that we have a much deeper democracy at work where people have far greater influence over the things that affect their lives. And, of course, I’d like to see a future in which every child is given the opportunity to flourish and develop their own talents and interests and to be given the help they need to do so. And it’s a lot to ask for, but I think that’s what we’re all fighting for, certainly most of us around this table; and it’s a future that I think we’re going to need to build if we’re going to… [audio ends]
It’s -- of course, the ever presence of the [...]
Simon Retallack: It’s -- of course, the ever presence of the mass media is both an opportunity and a problem. I don’t know how you would quantify whether it was more or less of a problem than an advantage. It’s true, of course, today that mass communication provides an opportunity to the people of the world to communicate in a way that was impossible in the past. There’s an opportunity now for people whoever they are, however poor they are, however officially powerless they are, to educate themselves to learn about what’s happening in the world and to build alliances to help bring about change. And that has to be welcomed. The downside of mass communications is that it is controlled to some extent, certainly as far as TV’s concerned, by a limited number of companies that have a particular agenda that isn’t necessarily compatible with the long-term interests of people, collectively. And, certainly, people around this table have – I know Jerry Mander, in particular, has written about the impact that television has on communities, on family life; and others like Helena Norberg-Hodge here also have written about the impact that the mass media has had in undermining traditional cultures. She’s written certainly about the impact that western media has had in India in Ledak; and there’s no doubt that traditional cultures are being eroded by a number of factors, but western media is, I suppose, with its TV programs, the lifestyle it promotes, is one of them. It’s hard for someone who lives in the middle of it and actually who uses mass communication to say that it’s -- to turn against it. I can see both its advantages and disadvantages; disadvantages, also, because it has significant influence to a very few number of big corporate players which is not always used wisely.
Well, I think it’s already happening. I [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, I think it’s already happening. I think for health reasons doctors are able to connect machines to people’s brains to determine brain activity, to monitor how people sleep, etc. I’m not quite sure what the questioner is getting at here. Is it a sort of nightmare, science fiction scenario, in which a human brain is somehow connected to machines in a way that enables machines to think? I don’t know. Of course, that sort of prospect of the autonomous thinking machine is a bit of a frightening one. Machines that read people’s minds? I don’t know. What would be the point of that as well? I’m not sure. Either way, I’m quite happy to keep humans and machines separate, other than where they can have some sort of social -- I’m sorry health benefit in terms of monitoring illness, brain activity, etc., which happens already. I’d be cautious of -- cautious of going too far down that road.
I think governments in the developed world [...]
Simon Retallack: I think governments in the developed world need to invest more funding in education so that class sizes can be reduced, teachers can spend more time with children one on one. That there are more teachers to nurture individual children’s talents where they exist and interests, too, in different areas so that children have a greater sense of choice in terms of what they explore and develop. I think governments can look at the way the curriculum is -- exists so that children have a greater sense of understanding of the way the world works, of the problems and challenges that we face, and some of the solutions to them so that they can be active, responsible citizens in their time. And, in terms of their own lives as future parents, perhaps, too, but also as global citizens and that’s a vital part of education, I think, that probably isn’t given enough time today. I think we shouldn’t see education merely as a means of developing future workers that companies can employ. I think that’s a part of it; but we have to use education in a broader sense, as I said.
Good question. I think one of the [...]
Simon Retallack: Good question. I think one of the consequences of the industrial age is that people have migrated away from living in communities with strong ties - even from living with - in families, actually even living in couples towards living on their own; and I'm sure that people can feel very much alone in cities, in particular, where they're surrounded by people and yet if they don't live with anyone and their families are miles away, the community which they're from is even further away, then they don't have a sense of community around them. They can feel – they can feel alone even though the planet has five or six billion people in it. I think there are greater opportunities today, of course, for people to feel connected to others at the same time through modern technology; but it's very interesting that if it's mediated through technology, it doesn't necessarily make us feel in an emotional sense connected to other people. And I think people need to work harder, funnily enough, in this modern age to feel less alone, to feel connected to people and – and remember that actually they're not alone. What they're going through, there are probably many other people going through it too; and they can make those connections.
It’s a complicated question. I think in as [...]
Simon Retallack: It’s a complicated question. I think in as much as the use of computers and the Internet, e-mail and everything that goes with it, helps facilitate business and the development of new forms of wealth creation. In developed companies, there is an argument to be made that assisting developing countries and people in low-income communities have access to these sorts of technologies will help them find new ways of accessing a wider community of interest in what they do, in what they produce, finding new purchasers of their goods and products and facilitating a much more -- a much more rapid means of doing business. On the other hand, I don’t think that technology, particularly computers and the Internet on their own, are any form of panacea. I think there is far too much simplistic thinking about what computers and the Internet can do. It isn’t some magic bullet. Appropriate social and environmental development requires many different factors. It isn’t always appropriate, I think, to introduce new forms of technology certainly where it’s not welcome and certainly where it doesn’t pay sufficient respect to cultural preferences; and in some instances it’s been pointed out that the critical question is what computers and the Internet are used for. You can do good things; you can do not so good things with them; and its like all technology: it depends what use you put it to. And, of course, there’s a further argument that technology isn’t in itself neutral. Even if you use it for supposedly or ideally good things, it can have an impact on society that you may not initially appreciate. But, I think, where it makes sense, where the resources exist, not as a priority but as an additional benefit to a community, of course, the provision of -- in low income areas, the provision of computers and the Internet can increase people’s opportunities to trade, to communicate, to do business, and that may enable them to promote their level of economic prosperity, but not necessarily so. It may help but it won’t be enough on its own.
Gosh, I don’t know if I have one tree. I [...]
Simon Retallack: Gosh, I don’t know if I have one tree. I love the English Oak. I love the olive tree. I love all trees. What calls me to be bigger than what I think is possible? I don’t know. I think I just have a sense that our generation is faced with a challenge or series of challenges that are unprecedented in scale, and I just have a sense of duty or responsibility to help try to do something about it and help others do something about it. And, I think, what gives -- what’s given me the confidence to do that is, of course, I suppose the upbringing that I’ve had, my parents, the education I’ve been lucky to have. And for that I’m enormously grateful. I don’t know. I always – I think I feel a sense of empowerment, too, when I look back at history and look at what is possible in the face of terrible odds, often. Change can happen. Look at the change that happened in civil rights, in women’s rights, the abolition of slavery, the end of absolute monarchical power, the end of former colonialism. I think, you know, these are massive changes; and people have brought them about, ordinary people acting together, collectively. And I don’t know. It’s a naïve sense, but I think it’s possible for society to change the way we live for the better, but above all we all need to try to do something.
Consumer culture, I think it’s had a – it’s [...]
Simon Retallack: Consumer culture, I think it’s had a – it’s clearly had a huge impact on the way we live. I think it seems to have created a lot of opportunities for people to live in different ways, but it’s had significant downsides too. We are persuaded to buy things we had no idea we actually needed by companies through the consumer culture. We’re encouraged to think, implicitly or explicitly, that unless we consume, we’re somehow failures. We’re bombarded with images of people that are held up as being success stories who live in great houses, who drive fast cars, wear flash clothes, buy the latest technology and whether that’s through adverts, whether it’s through soap operas, whether it’s through the celebration of “the celebrity culture” which grips western societies but makes us feel bad if we can’t consume on that level, so we try to consume on that level. We get into debt. We spend money on things we probably ought not spend money on, and we actually divert ourselves from the sorts of things that might actually stand a better chance of leaving us satisfied in the long run and fulfilling us, both in terms of nurturing and developing our own talents, but also spiritually, I think. We can buy – we can shop till we drop as they say, but does it actually leave us any happier at the end of the day? I’m not sure it does. Of course, the consumer culture has had a huge impact on the way we use natural resources at a frenetic rate. It lies behind the throwaway culture. Consume and throw away. A huge amount of waste arises from it which needs to be eliminated, but it’s a hard thing to change because there’s no mechanism to control the way in which demand for consumer goods is insatiably stimulated.
In principle an individual can understand [...]
Simon Retallack: In principle an individual can understand that they are part of nature, that there isn’t a division between the natural world, other species and us that means that we can see ourselves as being fundamentally apart from the planet. The problem is unfortunately that I think a lot of people do see themselves as apart from nature. That’s why, I think, it’s so hard for people campaigning for environmental progress to build a movement that’s large enough to encourage governments or persuade, pressurize governments to act much more quickly to deal with the ecological crisis that we face today. People, I think, particularly in the developed world, see their prowess in developing technology as a means of insulating themselves from anything that can happen in environmental terms. They’ve built these huge cities, they’ve built these comfortable homes that makes them feel – obviously, we all feel this -- very safe. It’s a false sense of security, however, that we’re luring ourselves into because ultimately there’s no way that we can immunize ourselves however wealthy we are from ecological crises like climate change if they continue unmitigated. And the truth is that in developing countries, I think, where people are a lot closer to nature whether because they’re farmers or because their way of life is very much integrated in a much deeper sense to the natural world, they can see what’s happening; and I think they’re much more aware of the changes that are happening to biodiversity, to the weather, to the climate, etc. And I think it will be -- it is key for us as a species to rediscover our sense of connectedness to the natural world, to understand where our water comes from, what happens to our waste. I mean it doesn’t simply disappear; it has an impact and to understand cause and effect, to understand our role as part of the wider whole. And it’s critical that we rediscover that connection if we’re to take our share of responsibility for -- and acting on the sense of urgency that should exist in us to deal with these ecological problems as they exist today. And it should be a part of everything that governments and schools encourage, I think.
Well, of course, it depends where you live. [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, of course, it depends where you live. In many western cities, water has to be treated many times over for it to be drinkable using various types of chemical and it will never taste particularly nice; whereas, Coca-Cola is promoted by one of the world’s biggest corporates, one of the biggest corporate brands and it makes sure that its product is available in as many places as possible in order to maximize its profits. The problem with our water supplies in increasing numbers of parts of the world is that we are over extracting our underground water reserves so we are treating water as if it was some free commodity instead of a highly valued common resource. As far as underground water is concerned, it takes an extremely long time to renew. We need to inculcate a sense of awareness that the water we drink with, the water we shower with, the water we use to clean our clothes, to clean our dishes, to produce the products that we produce comes from -- in many of thousands of years ago it’s been stored underground in underground aquifers. It’s a precious resource and the water that flows through our rivers, too, is a highly precious resource and not only are we over extracting it, taking a lot more out than is actually replenished, we are also creating climate change that in coming decades-- we’re already seeing now will mean that more water gets evaporated, that rivers that were traditionally fed by glaciers are no longer going to exist because those glaciers will melt and that means that countries like India where 500 million people depend on the glacier fed rivers, like the Ganges, there’ll be huge problems in terms of food production. And it makes it all the more important that action is taken to combat climate change, but at the same time take steps to use water much more efficiently, to take drastic action to prevent passive leaks that take place in water networks, but also encourage all in our homes to use water more efficiently. The alternative is a water scarce world. There is water in the oceans, but it takes a lot of money and a lot of energy to extract the salts and make the water usable and it really isn’t a long-term solution. We’ve got to be much more sensible in the way we use water.
I think we can learn a lot of things from [...]
Simon Retallack: I think we can learn a lot of things from Africa. Many traditional peoples of Africa lived in a way that was far more ecologically intelligent than modern industrial society is. If we look at the bushmen of the Kalahari – Namibia, I think, for example, they're people that have the lightest footprints on the earth. Of course, I'm not saying we should all go live like them, but I think we can learn from the principle that guides them, that accepts that we are one part of God's creation of this earth and we need to learn to live in harmony with it, with other species, with the elements, with the natural world if we want to survive for long on this planet. And that's a principle that isn't unique to traditional African societies but, of course, to traditional societies the world over. And - But it's an important lesson for us to learn, I think. On another front, culturally we have a huge amount to learn from African art, from African music. The basis of jazz as we know it today is from Africa. The rhythm is fantastic that has brought so much joy to people's lives. Think of dance. Think of Latin American music. And it's the influence that's been born from African rhythm, and I think that's to be celebrated and recognized. And I think the resilience of African people is also something to acknowledge and admire in the face of extraordinary adversity over significant periods of time.
I think it’s a difficult balance to strike [...]
Simon Retallack: I think it’s a difficult balance to strike between developing a sense of global community whilst maintaining a sense of local identity and preserving local cultures. I think you can do both as long as -- as I was saying, you know, in previous questions -- that power is devolved to the level that is most appropriate for decisions to be taken, that enables local cultures to be protected; the language, the myths, the traditions where people want to preserve them whilst also celebrating a collective sense of humanity as we were saying earlier, particularly in the face of global problems that need global solutions and that need all of us, wherever we are, to take our share of responsibility for resolving them. And I think politicians when they take decisions about economic and questions of governance need to work hard to make sure that the balance is right between some key choices when it comes to devolving power and nurturing a greater sense of common, commonalities, I suppose, across nations.
Shout them from the rooftops. I think we [...]
Simon Retallack: Shout them from the rooftops. I think we have to. I think that the people that are organizing this project are doing a fantastic job of getting people to listen by putting all of this on the Internet so that all of you out there can hear these answers. We’ve got to use every vehicle available to get the word out whether it’s in print, whether it’s broadcast, whether it’s the Internet, whether it’s films, fiction or nonfiction, whether it’s back to the word of mouth. Just doing your bit, going out there talking to people you know, telling them what you think, urging them to do something, do something with you, building community, building a movement with you to bring about change and getting people in authority, too, to get the word out. You know, it is the people in positions of influence whether it’s political or economic, religious, cultural, have a huge platform from which to influence change; and I’d like to see far more people in those positions use their influence to help serve the interests of humanity in that sense. I think then we can reach a critical mass. When enough people do listen and get on board, change will happen.
It’s very hard to say what’s the most [...]
Simon Retallack: It’s very hard to say what’s the most important unreported story. There are lots of stories that are unreported, and I think they often relate to the suffering either of people or of other species. I think the day-to-day suffering that isn’t shocking enough to get to our front pages in a conventional sense of our newspapers but then, nonetheless, deserves much more coverage. So, you can identify the suffering of any -- a significant number of people around the world that are living in oppressive states or under oppressive regimes that use torture, that suppress people’s human rights. I am constantly reminded of the plight of the people of Tibet under the Chinese rule there. I think the West seems to have turned a huge blind eye to that, and it isn’t much reported these days but it continues. I think on another level, too, we are even more blind and our media spends far less time, still, covering the plight of animals on a day-to-day basis, and the way they are treated in factory farms, in animal experimentation or simply as a result of the destruction of biodiversity, of habitats around the world. We are responsible for suffering and destruction on an unprecedented scale, and yet it barely gets reported. It barely gets reported that we are responsible for one of the biggest waves of mass extinction in the history of the planet. And I think it should be reported more because our future, I think, is inextricably linked to the future of the rest of the planet; and it’s about time we realize that. So I certainly think that the suffering of people and other creatures wherever they live needs to get much more coverage. Good stories, too, I should add because there are a lot of good news stories that don’t make the papers because they seem to be boring, but we’ve got to give people the impression and convey a meaningful sense that an alternative world is possible and that means giving space to the solutions and examples of where the solutions have been implemented. That’s critical and also underreported.
I think in many instances there is no such [...]
Simon Retallack: I think in many instances there is no such thing as right or wrong. I think there are different points of view. People can have a shared experience but have different views about them that may contradict each other. It doesn’t make one conclusion right or wrong. They can both be right even though they contradict each other. In some instances, it’s -- there is one truth, I think, and it isn’t possible for two answers to be compatible; but there are a multitude of viewpoints that need to be respected and far too often, I think, people have been far too confident about their righteousness at the expense of others and that has undoubtedly been true, been a source of conflict, I think, in the past. I think we need to value people’s different perspectives on different sorts of questions.
One piece of knowledge to give the world? I [...]
Simon Retallack: One piece of knowledge to give the world? I think it would be that we know today that we are in grave danger of exceeding the environmental limits of the planet; and that unless we take action now, we are endangering the future of our children and their children, not to speak of the countless other species with which we share this planet. And that represents a greater threat than I think we realize today and a greater threat than our species has ever encountered. And I think we know what the solutions are. They exist and we can act in time; but we need to feel empowered enough to take the measures, to take action into our own hands, to work together to feel that we’re not alone, to have a collective sense of endeavor to address this unprecedented crisis. I suppose another answer would involve me saying--and we know also that if we’re going to have a hope of creating a world in which peace reigns, we need to remember that probably in the end love is the answer, that we need to forgive and insure that we create a world that is one that we would want for ourselves and for our children, their children.
Good point. I think – I think it is true [...]
Simon Retallack: Good point. I think – I think it is true that new inventions -- if you think of what I was talking about for a previous question -- like the e-mail, Internet stroke e-mail and also mobile phones designed to save time. With an e-mail you can get a message to someone across the world in a fraction of the time it would have taken in the past. We, on the other hand, if we aren’t careful, find ourselves trapped in a cycle of being bombarded with messages from people that require instant answers; and we blur the boundaries between--far too often between work and private lives, and we don’t give ourselves enough space. We need to slow down and I’m not sure technologies can help us do that. To slow down, to provide time for ourselves, our families, to develop the things that we enjoy doing most as opposed to the things we feel we have to do requires an act of will on our part, determination to do that. It’s very difficult, and we shouldn’t expect technology to give us an easy way out. In the end, it’s up to us and it’s up to us to switch the wretched technology off if we find it’s intruding and taking over our lives. These things have off buttons, and we can put them in drawers too so we can’t see them; and we have to encourage people we work with sometimes to give us some space, I think, to be ourselves and do what we want.
Well, it’s undoubtedly true that [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, it’s undoubtedly true that technological development has been driven to a large extent by military and market forces. In a military sense there is one major result of course has been the nuclear bomb and, of course, we all know what the problem is with that. There are, on the other hand, some technologies many people would argue that were driven by military market forces that are beneficial. You know, I think the Internet, it’s true to say, was developed in part because of innovations that the military pursued. It all depends what uses they’re put to. In the sense that investment, a disproportionate level of investment, has been placed in – has been put into developing weapons of mass destruction or, you know, consumer items that are harmful in one way or another to the world, I think, yes, sure, money would have been much better spent helping us protect the planet on which we live. I think it’s absolutely true that we wouldn’t be in the mess we currently are in now with climate change if investment had been placed far earlier into alternatives to fossil fuels to develop energy for our transport systems, for our homes that didn’t produce greenhouse gases that are baking the planet. And we need to ensure that far more investment does go in that direction now that we’re fully aware of the consequences of our actions. And, it’s true too that you’d have to wish that far more money had been placed into the development of medicines that would treat some of the most chronic diseases in developing countries. Far more money is invested by pharmaceutical companies and others in developing western concerns whether they’re superficial or not than those of the poorest people in the world; and I think it’s no surprise, therefore, that some of the most serious diseases in the world… [audio ends]
Well, humans have developed the technology [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, humans have developed the technology to both use and destroy the world’s natural resources. Therefore, it’s incumbent on us, to each of us, to develop a sense of responsibility towards the natural world; and it’s incumbent on anyone that uses a common and shared resource, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the atmosphere, in a way that serves the common interest. And that, in a sense, means that we are all responsible. There are different points of view on this question because, of course, I would find it difficult to argue that we have a right to manage the world’s resources. Of course, we share this planet with other species and they need to coexist with us and we need to give them space to coexist with us. We’re not doing that at the moment. We’re obliterating other species at a phenomenal and terrifying rate through the development that we’re responsible for. But given that we have the technology both to do a lot of good and a lot of harm, it is incumbent on us to use our know-how, our knowledge responsibly, and insure both as individuals that we act responsibly, insure the CEOs of companies that we do our bit to insure that we leave our children with a planet that is worth living on and political leaders do the same. There should be a joint sense of responsibility between key sectors in society that, “We’re in this together, we’ve only got one planet, we’re not going to find one like this; it’s unique in the solar system and if we destroy it, we destroy ourselves.” It’s as simple as that.
I think where indigenous is used in [...]
Simon Retallack: I think where indigenous is used in reference to traditional peoples, I’d like to think that traditional peoples will be given space or should be given space to exist in the 21st century. Of course, the modern world is not exactly the easiest place for traditional peoples to survive and flourish. Quite the opposite. 20thcentury, 19th century is a history, if you like, of the destruction of indigenous, traditional peoples and 21st century it might get harder. But we ought to provide space for traditional peoples if you look at the word indigenous and think – think of it in another sense as meaning pure, ethnic, sort of race -- the existence of pure ethnic races in the 21stcentury well, you know, primary, original inhabitants of particular countries. I think it’s very hard to continue to maintain any sense along those lines. I think people will increasingly, as they already have done over the past several hundred years, intermarry and that’s quite right, too. Cultures become enriched by other cultures and that process will continue. And it isn’t possible anymore, and it hasn’t been for many centuries in Britain, to say here is an indigenous person. They don’t exist in Britain. But where they do exist, in the rain forests of the Amazon or in the Kalahari Desert, those people should be allowed to continue to maintain their way of life and not enough is done today to let them do so.
This is a very difficult question. My [...]
Simon Retallack: This is a very difficult question. My worry is that if you open the door to the use of genetic engineering to modify any characteristic in an unborn child, it’s a slippery slope to all sorts of dangerous manipulations, and unethical ones. Again, I need -- I’d need to know more about the sorts of things that could be done before coming to any sort of definitive conclusions, but I think I’d be extremely cautious about using genetic engineering in this way. Certainly, when it comes to imperfections, there’s no end to it, you know. Where will we be using genetic engineering to decide the sex of children, the color of their eyes, the color of their skin, the color of their hair, and consequently discriminating against children whose parents choose not to do that. It’s a very, very slippery slope and I’d be very worried about being permissive in this field. Of course, if there are congenital defects that can be -- or hereditary defects on a serious, life-threatening scale that can be addressed in this way, they deserve to be explored but I’d want to weigh up the risks very carefully and insure that the most responsible and ethical outcome was insured.
Difficult. Well, I think it’s true that you [...]
Simon Retallack: Difficult. Well, I think it’s true that you can manufacture both truth and invert commas and facts and inverted commas; and if you want to distinguish between the two or if you want to be able to tell what is actually true or not, you need to do some research of your own, I think. I think that with enough rigor and research, you can uncover what is actually true or isn’t. I think an example I’m familiar with is, of course, again an ecological problem of climate change where for a number of years a vocal lobby in the United States has said that there was no proof that climate change existed, that the science didn’t exist, that people who said so were inventing a myth. Now I know from talking to scientists that 99 percent of climatologists, and the most distinguished climatologists in the world, are in agreement that climate change is a problem that is caused by human activities and that unless we act now, we’re going to be in big trouble. For me, that’s fact, that’s a truth. I’ve arrived at that conclusion because I delved myself into the issue. There are also people that, of course, we learn to trust. We can’t have a review on everything that’s based on rigorous research, but, I think, we talk to people we know, we trust, have looked into these things and we accept, I think, their judgment. And everyone, all of you, will have your own view about who you can trust, which sources of information are reliable. I think that’s an important way of distinguishing between what’s real and what isn’t. Of course, using your own judgment and awareness too… [audio ends]
Very difficult question. I suppose children [...]
Simon Retallack: Very difficult question. I suppose children need to be taught the value of compassion, of tolerance for difference, of love. I suppose those are some of the core values that you’d want a child to have: respect for themselves, for their elders, their family, for other people, for the natural world. And I suppose to not just encourage children to understand the value of those things but to feel free to exercise those values, and that’s the challenge. I think a lot of us would like to hold those values and do hold those values but don’t always find it easy to exercise them. I think forgiveness is another one that’s important. And a sense of that it’s our -- that we have the freedom to question, too, I think, authority. I’m not sure parents always value that, but I think it’s another important one. I think values that go beyond the consumerist values that are so prevalent today, to give children a sense of some connection to something more spiritual.
I don’t think it’s possible to identify any [...]
Simon Retallack: I don’t think it’s possible to identify any single subject that needs to be talked about by the arts. I think the arts -- artists, of course, have the right to choose whatever subject they want to write about, paint, compose on, etc.; and it’s, of course, it’s not up to anyone to dictate to artists about what they should talk about. But, of course, from my perspective working on the environment, I’d love artists, particularly in the film business or even in music, to devote their creative energies to spreading a message of concern and of action on some of the big crises that we know we’re facing. I think there are far too few documentaries and films, fiction films, feature films, on some of these problems that we face and I’d like to see more of those. I think it’s beginning to change. We’ve seen the day after tomorrow and Al Gore’s new documentary, but it’s a start that needs to be built on. And musicians, too, reach huge audiences that people like me simply can’t reach -- also need to be talking about these issues, not in isolation but in a way that makes sense to people and appeals to people. I think that’s the key thing.
Lots of things move me, I think. I find [...]
Simon Retallack: Lots of things move me, I think. I find people’s pain moves me, you know, when I see people suffering: mother’s who’ve lost their daughters or fathers that have lost their sons or illness and regret. I think happiness moves me, too; to see the joy that people are capable of, particularly, when people who’ve traditionally been on opposing sides, different countries that have gone to war, people that have hated each other, when they can come together and work together and forgive the past. That’s moving. I’m moved by landscapes, by wilderness, by nature, by the sea. I feel different when I’m in those sorts of places and moved. And I think that’s one reason why it’s so important for me anyways that these places should be protected and preserved. I’m moved too by music. I think we’ve been blessed with the most extraordinary composers that have produced the most extraordinary music that is often moving in a way that actually little else can be. It transports you into another place and that’s something special.
I think there are myths that we can draw on [...]
Simon Retallack: I think there are myths that we can draw on that exist in our cultures that can help us build the sort of future that we would like to see. Every culture is different. Every culture has different myths that mean something to them. I like to think of the myth in British culture of ordinary heroism, the idea that heroic action isn’t confined to extraordinary individuals which, of course, is the norm; but that during times of great crisis and great challenge we can draw on this collective sense of heroism that enables us to feel bigger than we actually are, that makes us feel that we can do something about problems that initially might appear insurmountable. And you can look back in history to the Second World War in the sense that the British had of – of a collective, heroic endeavor to fight off the blitz and the threat of invasion from Germany and under unbelievable hardship. And, I think, in more recent times perhaps we’ve seen something of that in the campaign to alleviate poverty in Africa, Live Aid and the activities that took place last year around the G8 in Britain; this collective sense that we can do big things together, heroic things together and I think we can draw on that myth to help change the world for the better.
It’s true that every technology requires the [...]
Simon Retallack: It’s true that every technology requires the use of energy to produce it. However, I think there’s no question that over the lifetime of a renewable energy technology that it will produce much more clean energy than went into its production. So, I think on an overall basis, renewable energy technologies which – we’re talking about wind turbines, solar panels, we’re talking about new wave turbines, paddle technologies and micro hydro technologies are beneficial. That the energy they produce over 20, 30, 40 years will many times over compensate for the amount of energy that went into producing them. Of course, ultimately, as we move to an almost entirely clean economy, non-carbon based economy, the energy that’s used to produce energy technologies of all kinds will be clean so the problem won’t arise. But I think there are myths over renewable energy technologies that need to be dispelled. One is about this question of net energy, but another is over whether renewable energy technologies are actually efficient. And I think a lot of research has been put into this. There’s no question in my mind that wind turbines are a cost-effective -- can be used as part of a modern energy grid; and the potential for other renewable energy technologies, particularly solar, and the marine renewables is vast. The planet receives far more energy, naturally, than we actually use and it’s time we harnessed it.
You can believe in both. I believe in both. [...]
Simon Retallack: You can believe in both. I believe in both. I believe in humanity and -- I mean I have two nationalities and I feel rooted to both. I think they’re not incompatible. It’s true that I may be in a minority. I think it’s a success story of the European Union that we’ve managed to achieve the level of cooperation that exists today in Europe between different nations. That’s an example of us seeing beyond our narrow sense of nationality. There are those that say the British haven’t quite got as far as other nationalities in Europe, but I think that as time progresses, we will see more awareness of our sense of -- our collective sense of humanity; that we’re in all of this together, that we have one planet that we share, and that we each ought to see ourselves as partners, not enemies on a traditional, national sort of level. It’s essential that we develop that common sense of humanity if we’re going to prevent conflict, if we’re to solve some of the major social, health, environmental problems of our times. But, equally, I don’t think that it makes it impossible for us to at the same time maintain a sense of cultural identity in the areas -- whether they’re geographic or the nations that we were born into. I think that’s partly what makes up the richness of the world that we live in; that we are different; that we have these different cultures and traditions as long as we accept difference and that we are tolerant of difference and that we welcome difference in others. I think that common sense of respect for other nations, other identities, other ways of life, other points of view is essential as is this, as I said, this sense that we have a common humanity.
Unfortunately, a lot of food that’s produced [...]
Simon Retallack: Unfortunately, a lot of food that’s produced these days is produced from industrial systems of agriculture and the problem with industrial agriculture is that it relies on the use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, so instead of renewing the nutrients in the soil that have -- that exist with organic matter from animal waste, manure, etc., we use chemical inputs. And the result is that we have a severe depletion in the nutrients in the vegetables and fruit that we eat that are produced that way, and they don’t taste as good and they don’t have as much nutritional value in them. And the way out of that problem is to support systems of organic agriculture, sustainable ecological agriculture which replace artificial chemical inputs with traditional forms of nutrients, manure, using crop residues to prevent weeds from developing and insuring that food is produced locally because another problem is that we have supermarkets these days that source the food that they sell from thousands of miles away; and in order to preserve them in a way that looks fresh, they have to put them in deep freeze; they put all sorts of products on them and the result is they don’t taste as good. Whereas food that was produced locally and sold and eaten locally will taste better. It hasn’t had to be transported or bruised or covered in some chemical or put in some deep freeze because it’s not come from so far. And I think we need to do a lot more to support the local production of food. It also makes sense from an energy point of view because it’s insane for us to carry on importing products that we can produce ourselves from thousands and thousands of miles away. It simply can’t make economic sense; and if it does make economic sense today, there’s something wrong with the economic system that makes it look that way. It’s time with all of the ecological problems that we face and food problems too to make sure that the cost of the food that we eat and the fuel that we use properly internalizes its true cost for the plane; and, of course, industrial agriculture is responsible for massive problems of soil erosion, water pollution, and the food that results from that system needs to incorporate the true cost that… [audio ends]
Wow! Well, I doubt very much that God has a [...]
Simon Retallack: Wow! Well, I doubt very much that God has a religion. For those of you out there that are hoping that we’re going to say God’s religion is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, you name a religion; no. I happen to think that God probably does exist, and if he does, he doesn’t have a sort of a prescribed set of principles, a prescribed religion that he would want us to follow. I think God’s created us with free will and it’s up to us to choose how we live and for us to understand how best to live on this planet. And I don’t think any one religion can lay claim to God. That I believe, fundamentally. And I think many people would agree that in the past, it’s been the source of far too much conflict, death, misery; and I’m hopeful that we’re in an age now where, perhaps to a greater extent than before, religious tolerance is far more widespread than it has been. And I hope that continues.
It’s an important question because cities [...]
Simon Retallack: It’s an important question because cities are in danger today of all looking the same. I know towns in Britain today have been labeled clone towns because they all have the same shops and the same sorts of high streets owned by big chains, and they’re depressingly similar. Other countries have succeeded to a greater extent in preserving a sense of uniqueness about them in terms of the city’s that they have and the towns, the villages that they have. I’m thinking of France has done a better job, I think, than we have with fewer chains in the high streets, more locally, individually owned stores; and I suppose in the end the way to do this is to give the power to local authorities that don’t have them and also encourage them to use powers where they do have them to reject applications by chains of shops to colonize our high streets, to say when they apply and they offer the prospect of new jobs or of tax revenue, “Well, hang on a minute; we actually think that the interests of the city are better served by giving that spot to a local store that will create local jobs and preserve, help preserve the identity of the city.” That does happen in some parts of the world, but it could happen more. But it does mean standing up to big commercial interests, and that isn’t always something that politicians feel very comfortable with but they ought to. Otherwise, I’m afraid our cities will become anonymous and that would be a sad thing; anonymous and the same which we should avoid.
I think people should be defined by their [...]
Simon Retallack: I think people should be defined by their race. Of course, people are made up of all sorts of different influences; race is one of them. But much more important is who they are, fundamentally, as individuals; who they are, what they believe, and, more importantly still how they treat other people, I think. What they do. That’s how people should be treated, not by the color of their skin. People should be treated wherever they are as equals and given every opportunity to succeed in life on a fair basis. There shouldn’t be discrimination. An additional point to make, I think, is that people’s sense of cultural identity – I was saying this earlier - is important and that’s fine, and actually people’s attachment to geographical location is important. I feel very attached to the places where I grew up, where my family has come from for generations on both sides. And that’s something to nurture and respect and enjoy, and not be defensive about it, I think. But in the case of America, I don’t think that it’s fair to say that African Americans are just Americans. America is made up of many different nations, and it’s quite possible to have a dual sense of identity, and if people get back in touch with their – if an American gets back in touch with the source of their family’s genealogy, then that’s to be welcomed and respected. If people want to know about where they came from in Africa and they want to nurture that sense of themselves, then they should be encouraged to do so. And I certainly feel both French and British; that’s where I’m from and I know that that doesn’t affect the question of race, but it shows that we can be more than one thing and feel comfortable about that. And, that’s really all I have to say on that issue.
There are any number of different examples [...]
Simon Retallack: There are any number of different examples of books that young adults should read or places they should visit, I think, to inspire them. Everyone has to find their own thing; whatever is most appropriate. Everyone is different. I think it always helps to be moved enough to feel you want to change something for you to experience it firsthand, at least to see it. I think visual indication of a problem is going to be more powerful than a written one. What I mean by that is seeing a problem as it is can be sufficient to move people. I think a sense of empowerment, too, is necessary and that means being aware and feeling a sense of urgency is critical. And undoubtedly role models are important here, and there are role models in history: Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela that people can look up to and be inspired by. And sufficiently I’d hope to become engaged in movements as they exist around the world which seek to bring about change, whether it’s on environmental questions, social questions, peace, and poverty; and to go out and find out for themselves more about an issue because they want to.
Well, again it depends to what use you [...]
Simon Retallack: Well, again it depends to what use you actually put the Internet. It can enhance people’s communities if, for example, it acts as a conduit for information about how to address problems that face communities. Some communities, I think, can act as role models to others. They can show how it’s possible to live in a sustainable way with the environment, how to produce social cohesion, how to deal with problems of crime, how to deal with problems of delinquency, of drug abuse, how to live in harmony with different peoples. And in as much as those role models exist and the Internet can help spread the word about those communities to others that might seek to follow them, I think it’s a good thing; sharing best practice, giving people inspiration too. There is a solution to this problem; I’ve seen it. It helps and, of course, every country’s different; and it isn’t sometimes possible to literally translate one success in one country to another community in another country, but it can at least provide an inspiration and a best set of tools to begin to spread that best practice more widely. I think more generally it helps build, it can help build, it has the potential to help build, a sense of global community that is going to be essential if we want to fully and sufficiently address some of the global problems that we face today.
Wow, it depends what route we go down. If [...]
Simon Retallack: Wow, it depends what route we go down. If we carry on as we are, I see a pretty grim future for cities. Cities particularly, of course, because they have huge populations, use up a lot of resources, are sources of a lot of pollution. You just have to talk to anyone who’s been to Beijing recently to tell you about how terrible the air pollution is there; and unless change happens, that sort of problem is going to get a lot worse. I think, on a social front, too, unless change happens I think cities could be nightmare places to live. However, there are a lot of very enlightened city developers, mayors, architects, out there that understand that it’s time we develop cities differently to take into account ecological needs and social needs. And, if we’re clever, we can redesign our cities in a way that puts people at their center, not cars, that puts green spaces all around us, that insures that we minimize our ecological footprint, that ensures that we build strong communities; but it’s obviously easier to do that when we start building cities or towns from scratch. It takes longer when you’re talking about redesigning existing cities; but if we’re to produce cities that people actually want to live in, we’ve got to do it. Otherwise, people will continue to flee them; and you’ll see urban flight carrying on well into the century and the danger is then that cities will become empty ghettos where only the poorest people that can’t afford to escape will end up instead of centers that as they have been of innovation, of creativity, of enlightenment; and I think we need to do everything we can to encourage the people that control and lead our cities to think differently about future development so that our cities can become places that we actually enjoy living in with clean air, with green spaces, with places to meet, to feel safe, and to bind our communities together.
If everyone on the planet has a car that [...]
Simon Retallack: If everyone on the planet has a car that uses petrol gasoline as its sources of energy, there is absolutely no doubt -- the scientists of the world are convinced that we will destroy the planet with climate change, global warming. Already, we’re on a trajectory where we’re sending dangerous climate change happening in certain parts of the world with islands being flooded, with extreme weather events taking place, with heat waves destroying crops and lives around the world; and the situation will only get worse if we continue to be dependent for our modes of energy production on fossil fuels: coal, oil and gas. Now, it’s not up to us to say to the Chinese that they can’t own a car. I think there’s an obligation on those of us that contribute to the problem here in the developed world to lead by example. If we want people in other countries to use energy in a different way, we have to show how to do it first. We have to show that it’s possible to use energy much more efficiently and to generate it from renewable sources. And if we can do that, if we can show that it’s possible to move around the world in ways that have a much smaller carbon footprint, I think, we stand a much better chance of persuading the Chinese, the Indians, other countries to do so too, not least because we will have brought down the cost of the technologies necessary. It’s possible today to build cars that use energy much more efficiently. The hybrid Prius car that Toyota makes, for example, uses much less energy. In the future we are going to see cars that use hydrogen, but already there are alternatives; bio fuels can be used in cars that don’t pollute nearly as much. And I think those are the sorts of technologies that governments need to support so that the deployment of them is rapidly and urgently escalated and the Chinese and everyone else urged to adopt those clean energy technologies.
