Is the World Heading for a Dystopian Future?

First Question. Is the world heading for dystopia?

I recall two influential Sci-Fi films that I watched. Soylent Green 1973 (winner of the Nebula and Saturn awards) and Logan’s Run 1976 (winner of a Special Academy Award and six Saturn awards).

Both films are set in a dystopian future of climate crisis, pollution, depleted resources, poverty and overpopulation. In Soylent Green only the elite have a reasonable life with the masses living in poverty. Soylent is a mass-produced staple food used to keep the poor fed. The oligarchical government also run assisted suicide clinics where the poor can volunteer to go to end their miserable lives, thus helping to manage the overpopulation problem. However, Soylent food is becoming ever more difficult to produce in sufficient quantities. The corporate oligarchs find a terrifying solution.

In the dystopian world, created as the result of a dying planet, in Logan’s Run, people are under total state control from birth. People live in sealed utopian cities where they have everything they could need, however only up to the age of thirty. When reaching this age, they undergo “Carousel” enabling them to be reborn and start the process again. But does Carousel really work?

I have always been a serious Sci-Fi enthusiast. I say serious because the vast majority of Sci-Fi, in my opinion, is poor quality. And to be clear I do not mean Science Fantasy which is very popular – people on distant planets having the capability for interplanetary travel, yet are reduced to fighting with swords and riding dragons. No, I have always been interested in serious Sci-Fi containing serious moral and ethical questions. I also much prefer books to films.

Other influential works include: - Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Childhoods End by Arthur C Clarke. The Songs of Distant Earth, also by Clarke, and The Handmaidens Tale by Margaret Atwood.

Azimov whilst a prolific writer, I did not consider the best Sci-Fi writer. I found a lot of his work uninteresting, although his short story “Nightfall” was brilliant and often rated the best Sci-Fi book of all time. Azimov’s Robotics Laws were supposed to set the standards for Robots/computers/AI of the future viz:

The first law is that a robot shall not harm a human, or by inaction allow a human to come to harm. The second law is that a robot shall obey any instruction given to it by a human, and the third law is that a robot shall avoid actions or situations that could cause it to come to harm itself.

So, as we are undoubtedly heading towards a world of climate crisis, ecological/environmental destruction, overpopulation, and an increase in both right-wing, left-wing and religiously fundamental totalitarian governments around the world, with their bigoted and warmongering rhetoric, are there any lessons to be learned from Sci-Fi writing?

I consider Clarke to be by far the best writer. Clarke did not like the epithet of Science Fiction Writer, preferring Science Future Writer. In his book “2001 A Space Odyssey”, later made into the 1968 classic Kubrick film. HAL is a sentient Artificial Intelligence computer. HAL malfunctions and begins to undermine the spacecraft's mission, refuses human orders, and eventually kills members of the crew to protect itself, thereby eventually bringing about its own destruction. Basically, the computer's malfunction causes HAL’s Artificial Intelligence to fail in all three of Azimov’s Robotics Laws.

Clarke is often quoted as penning the following: . . . the time is past for Politics and Religion. Now is the time for Science and Spirituality*. . . 

*Spirituality encompasses everything that we cannot see directly with our eyes, or directly perceive by our other senses, and that we know by our reason - whose effects can be deduced or inferred by our observations - like love, justice, peace, etc.

In fact, whilst Clarke often repeated this quote, it was originally from a speech he heard given by Indian Prime Minister Nehru.

Along with advances in AI that are currently producing hot debate, it can already be seen that ChatGPT has already broken the first law of robotics, in that by producing, and actually in some cases inventing, incorrect information (similar to the initial malfunction of HAL) people and organisations have been misled i.e., harmed.

The fact that a Malwarebytes employee could trick ChatGPT into writing Ransomware, also shows that whilst the AI roughly obeyed the second law, it failed the first law (Ransomware is harmful to humans).

And by these failings, ChatGPT breaks the third law, because it is now being brought under attack itself.

AI was recently used to write a fake “interview” with Michael Schumacher in the German magazine Die Aktuelle. The tasteless article was immediately threatened with legal action and the editor quite rightly sacked.

Yesterday, an organisation dedicated to ensuring truth in news and journalism reported that it had found and investigated over 50 “news” websites that all had untrue stories. These stories ranged from factual errors and misleading information at one end of the scale to outright lies at the other – e.g., Biden has died, and Kamala Harris is now president. Asked why these sites existed the answer was money – every site was loaded with clickable ads.

The grandfather of AI, Geoffrey Hinton, who worked at the heart of AI development and recently resigned from Google. He has said that the current out-of-control race by mega corporations risks delivering more damage to society than benefits. AI in the wrong hands – bad actors – for example, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and Communist China could create serious worldwide problems.

Sci-Fi books often predicted unmanned AI aircraft bombing both military and civilian targets, and in Orwell’s book 1984, continents were engaged in perpetual war. Today it sounds very much like events in Ukraine. The world’s major governments are investing heavily in researching AI use in military applications in fear of losing armaments advantage.

Back in time when I was a teenager, I remember the pundits saying that computers and robots would revolutionise work. This revolution would result in people having either the same or better salaries and most importantly more leisure time to enjoy life. The reality has been that computers and robots have revolutionised work, but the benefits have all gone to the business owners and fat cats, whilst the ordinary working man has lost out.

Now whilst all this is ongoing, in the background, and not currently getting much news, is the fast-advancing research into DNA Storage. In the laboratory computer code can be transferred from a computer to liquid DNA and stored there, then from the DNA, retrieved as computer code by another computer. The scientists working on this expect that in the not-too-distant future (15 to 20 years) this will become commercially viable to multinational organisations, enabling data currently held in massive storage facilities to be held in storage the size of a suitcase.

See: DNA Storage

Now let’s look at research that is going on in MIT and other places relating to the capture of brain activity – thought processes, memory, neuroscience and how to capture these activities, research involving DNA double-strand breaks and other means. Whilst still in very early research stages attempts will later try to capture thought processes, memories etc., into liquid DNA.

Now you have the potential for thought/memory DNA to be stored (currently under research), DNA code to be captured (long proven), DNA/Computer code to be exchanged via liquid DNA (currently proven and being enhanced) and AI (currently proven and operating, although out of control) and you can see why many people are worried/appalled/terrified of the way this is all heading. I’m one of them.

Add to this the poor state of politics. The UK House of Lords for years was supposed to be peopled by those with specific skills/knowledge. Knowledge not only of politics, but religion, science, ethics, law, economy, biology etc. Now, because of cronyism, places in the House of Lords that are supposed to oversee parliament and ensure that laws are sensible, moral, ethical and fair, are being given to party donors and “friends” who do not have those required skills.

In the USA things are even worse. In 2010 the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections.

While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long had outsized influence in elections, that sway has dramatically expanded since the Citizens United decision, with negative repercussions for American democracy and the fight against political corruption. The result of this ridiculous decision is the current state of US politics, where congressmen and senators no longer put their constituents and the state of the nation first but chase money and kowtow to the country’s oligarchs. 

Akin to this is the fact that the Supreme Court is now no longer independently secular. Partially because of the above law change the Supreme Court is now without doubt subservient to the Roman Catholic Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. How did this come about? See here: Supreme Court - a branch of the Catholic Church

Sadly, following on from this, many of the lower courts are now forging ahead with religiously biased decisions. Add to this the fact that places on US court benches are either voted for by the general public (who have little or no legal knowledge) or are appointed by politicians and you have the current mess.

So, all in all, to answer my question, yes, we are facing a dystopian future with many countries having poor self-serving politics that are heavily religiously and oligarchy influenced or controlled. A climate crisis that is generally being ignored by these same politicians, oligarchs, and religions. A rapidly increasing world population of mostly poor, uneducated and often starving people. A sad situation, overridden by greed at the top of society.

Second Question. Is there a way forward?

I have been interested for some time in Neo-Luddism. Neo-Luddism is today a movement advancing a return to more traditional values in the way people and communities live, with a focus on avoiding destructive technologies, enhancing the environment and creating pleasant living conditions for all. They believe that the view that unbridled technological advancement equates to progress, is a fallacy.

Most Neo-Luddite writing today is about big tech and the universality and damaging effects of personal technology – smartphones, apps, Facebook etc., and the dubious uses that big tech companies and governments make of them. Also, the harm created by people’s addiction to this type of technology. 

The books by Cal Newport (Professor of Computer Science at Georgetown University) “A World Without Email” and “Digital Minimalism” amongst others analyse the harm that some modern technology is doing to the state of people’s health, to communities and the negative effects it can have on work, workers health and business productivity, despite the computer industries claims of the technologies essentiality.

However, the Neo-Luddite movement’s history dates to the 1950s or earlier and espoused a return to nature and more “natural” communities. Some of the earlier proponent's thinking was ridiculously extreme and should be ignored. However, I think much of this earlier view needs further consideration and development.

The original Luddite movement gets a lot of misrepresentation. Many today believe that the Luddites were against progress and technology represented by new textile machinery. Machinery that they then attacked and smashed to protect older ways of working.

This belief is erroneous. Luddites often happily used the same machinery that they were smashing. The problem they were facing was not new technology but the way it was being used. Factories and mills were being set up in towns and cities in the first decade of the nineteenth century. These mills were filled with modern textile machines – the same ones that were being used in the Luddite community rural workshops. The problem that arose was that the factories were more efficient by virtue of size and could undercut the prices of the smaller rural workshops. This created a variety of problems. First, the rural workshops became unprofitable and had to close. Now the unemployed rural workers tried to get jobs in the mills located in the towns and cities. Some succeeded, but most did not, because the mills, being more efficient, required a smaller workforce. Add to this, the mill owners who now had the whip hand, reduced wages, and eradicated standard labour practices.

The result was high unemployment in traditional textile and weaving areas, lower wages and conditions in the mills, and depletion of rural communities with the associated knock-on effects. The Luddite rebellions against these early poor industrial revolution practices resulted in riots, shootings, deaths, military interventions, executions and deportations.

It is currently being claimed that AI will result in many thousands of job losses in all areas of employment. Again, all to the benefit of the business owners, fat cats, and oligarchs whilst the unemployed struggle, especially in countries that do not have a viable social security net.

Along with forgetting what the Luddite movement was really about, people in the prosperous West, tend to forget how their countries obtained their wealth. Their historic wealth was built upon conquest, colonialism, exploitation, and slavery. The British East India Company had a private army of a quarter of a million soldiers by the early nineteenth century and controlled two-thirds of India as well as large portions of Burma and Afghanistan, and had a catastrophic influence in China. Through military might they also had great influence in Persia, Egypt and Java. Trading in textiles, tea, porcelain and spices the British exchequer had ten per cent of its income from the company import duties alone.

Forcing Indian farmers to produce opium instead of food crops, the opium was then sent to flood China and undermine the trade-restrictive Qing Dynasty, resulting not only in the Opium Wars but in mass starvation in India. When a famine struck, one million Indians died as a direct result of losing their agricultural produce to opium.

In the Americas, slavery produced massive profits from growing cotton, corn, sugarcane tobacco and coffee. It is estimated that twelve million slaves worked in the Americas in the history of the slave trade.

The Spanish and Portuguese Conquistadores ravaged and pillaged throughout the Americas, Caribbean and Asia, for "For Gold, For God, For Glory". Millions of indigenous people died. France and the Dutch were also colonial powers. 

The world is slowly rebalancing, especially since the economic emergence of China. The Western economies are slowly losing much of their wealth to emerging Eastern economies. This is causing concern, especially for traditional low-paid jobs that are easily exported to low-paid countries. Globalisation in my opinion has too many negative effects particularly culturally – a Starbucks on every corner replacing traditional cafés, McDonalds replacing ethnic restaurants etc. Globalisation of trade, however, can be good for poorer countries providing much-needed employment, provided that good working conditions are established – sadly often not, with a neo-slave trade attitude.

I was recently asked for my opinion on what a good solution would be to help people in remote rural areas of the Philippines improve their lives. Would encouraging these communities to move to urban areas be a good idea?

My answer went along these lines, but was somewhat shorter: -

In the Philippines, most cities already have an excess unemployed/unemployable population. The government says that “visible” unemployment levels are around 4%. Include “invisible unemployment, and this rises to an estimated 10%. Non-government analysis then says between 15 and 20% of employment is “under-employment” (two or more people doing the work of one in other countries; or doing unnecessary jobs, such as security guards – in reality, doormen - on every doorway in the city) takes this figure towards 30%. This excess labour is, in fact, a form of social security. And, of course, keeps business labour costs up, whilst wages are low. 

This situation will persist until there is more “real” work than people to do it. Add to this problem two million Overseas Foreign Workers prepared to work for minimum wages abroad plus a Philippine population doubling time of only 40 years, compared with decreasing populations in most developed countries and the “real work” higher wage scenario cannot happen even with meteoric economic development. The Philippines, therefore, faces a whole series of cleft sticks.

Add to this that despite being called a democratic republic, the Philippines is in fact a theocratically backed oligarchy. This political system is marked by graft and corruption at all levels of government, its agencies and business. Even with a few honest and keen politicians, the government is marked by cronyism and a lack of skills. It is a thorough bureaucracy with little sign of technocrats or meritocracy.

Then add to this the fact that all religions, especially Catholicism, thrive on poverty and low levels of education and you have the current Philippine situation of church and oligarchs in bed with each other.

When I came to work in the Philippines in 1994, Manila was on 8-hour rotational brownouts, and traffic was gridlocked (10 hours from our house to Paranaque and back – a 60km round trip). 

Ramos recently brought to power, signed executive orders bypassing Congress and the Senate and authorizing massive spending on infrastructure. Within months, electricity was back on, the Light Rail Transit 2 project, which had been on the drawing board for twenty years, was started, the C5 major arterial road commenced construction, and telecoms were deregulated, allowing foreign investors to compete with Philtel’s monopoly. Landline phones that used to take 2+ years to obtain suddenly became “Zero Backlog” and were available in a matter of weeks.

And what did the Church, Oligarchs and many of the general public think? Rantings from the pulpit (Ramos was the first non-Catholic President) and cartoon posters going up all over the city showing Ramos in his trademark baseball cap and cigar, sitting atop a bulldozer, shovelling the poor Filipino people beneath it. He was called a dictator and lambasted. Since Ramos’s time, from my observations, the country has steadily slid backwards. 

The Philippines used to be in second position economically in Asia, behind Japan. It is still in second position, but now second from the bottom, just ahead of Indonesia, and headed for bottom place. Why? Because every other country in Asia has had liberal policies to encourage inward investment for many decades. While because of the Church and Oligarchs, the Philippines has restrictive introverted policies that discourage inward investment to maintain the status quo. 

Many of these policies came about through church and oligarch influence over Ramos’s predecessor. Cory Aquino, a devout Catholic, became president following the assassination of her journalist / politician husband and the popular overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos. With no political background, she was easily led and just a figurehead for those behind the scenes. 

There was in the mid-nineties, a popular but misconceived quasi-political movement that believed the “The Philippines can do it alone!” slogan. The belief was that the Philippines could become an Economic Tiger without any outside help or influence. Driven by populism, serious mistakes with long-lasting consequences were made. The “America Out” movement wanted all American military bases in the Philippines closed and the American military totally out of the country. In 1994 the last American base was closed after a 94-year presence, where the American Department of foreign affairs said they had helped establish and maintain peace in the region. The economic effects were immediate. The loss of millions of dollars in direct payments to the government, the loss of thousands of local Filipino support jobs, the knock-on effect of the loss of business to local suppliers, the local spending power of the American soldiers, sailors and airmen etc. The economic losses were huge. There was also the problem of many children fathered with local girls, often bar girls, (the sale of any form of birth control products was illegal in the Philippines until 2014) who were now left unsupported.

Now, almost 30 years later and largely due to the closure of the American bases, there is an Islamic insurgency in the south supported by the Islamic State terrorist group. China is now running rampant across the South China Sea / West Philippine Sea, flouting international law, harassing the Philippines Spratly Islands, and building illegal military bases on many of them. Chinese Coast Guard vessels as well as smaller war ships now threaten Philippine Coast Guard vessels and fishing vessels. Then there is the Chinese military threat to nearby Taiwan. None of this would have happened if the American bases had not been closed. Now the Philippine government is having lots of “unofficial” American support fighting the Islamic insurgency and has just begged the Americans to return to protect it against China.

Mayor Lim, a popular limelight-grabbing politician of the time stated to the press that the Philippines, and Manila in particular, did not want or need “White Monkey Tourists.” Lim had a large mouth and a small brain. He was thinking of foreign “lager lout” tourists. Not making this clear, and too arrogant to apologise later. The world’s press picked up the story announcing that the Philippines did not want White tourists who the Malila Mayor racially referred to as “White Monkeys.” Philippine tourism collapsed. The hotels on Roxas Boulevard that used to be full of tourists were empty. Many dozens of coaches that used to pick up tourists from the hotels to take them on city tours and excursions to Taal, Batangas, Pagsanjan and other tourist spots disappeared. American military personnel’s families who used to visit for holidays were no longer here. Tourism has never recovered and is now only a small fraction of what it once was. 

The cost of housing in towns and cities is already skyrocketing because housing needs vastly outstrip availability.

Does this help with the question of how to help rural communities? Obviously not, but it is important background.

So, keeping in mind the above, what do I think about alleviating the plight of poor people in remote communities? 

First, policies to encourage people to migrate within a country would be a mistake. Taking people - especially those without education/skills to towns and cities – would only exacerbate the already overcrowded slum/squatter ghettos, and will surely increase unemployment and underemployment.

Another question is - are these poor people in remote communities happy? You would think not, from an outside perspective, but you may be wrong.

A personal example – although I was raised in post-war austerity, we lived in a pleasant rural town where my father was born. My mother, on the other hand, came from Birmingham, England’s second-largest city and an industrial heartland. Birmingham had two major problems, wartime blitz bombing damage and large areas of slum housing dating from the 1830s. My Great Aunt Violet lived in one of these back-to-back houses in a slum housing area. During school holidays, I would visit my mother’s family in Birmingham. Aunt Vi lived in a house that was a single ground-floor room with a tiny scullery attached. A spiral staircase went up to a bedroom, then continued upwards to a second bedroom. Basically, three rooms stacked. Through a trapdoor in the scullery floor, steps went down to a cellar used for storing coal. There was electric lighting in the main room and scullery only. There was no electricity in the bedrooms or cellar. She had lots of candles. No bath or shower. Communal lavatories across an outside yard.

The Labour government bought all this type of housing from the slum landlords by compulsory purchase and bulldozed the lot. They then built modern tower blocks. Aunt Vi, a spinster in her early 70s, was moved to the 16th floor of a tower block into a single-person apartment. It had a beautiful large lounge diner with a picture window overlooking gardens, a modern kitchen, a large bedroom, bathroom, and central heating – all mod cons. There were community venues, playgrounds for children etc. She hated it! She said she missed the old community spirit, was lonely, isolated, and wished she was back in the old slum housing. She only ventured out once a week to visit the Darby & Joan Club and do her weekly shopping. Oddly she was not alone. Articles started appearing in the newspapers saying how rehoused families hated the tower blocks, and the lack of community. Crime and vandalism that was unheard of in the old slums became rampant in the new areas. By the 1990s, the government had realized that this well-intentioned rehousing program had been a failure. Tower blocks were vacated and demolished, even though the government still owed repayments of the money borrowed to build them. In the same way that wealth does not necessarily equate to happiness, nor do advances in technology equate to progress, governments deciding how communities ought to live, has proved a failure time and again.

Bhutan is a Himalayan country dependent upon agriculture, animal husbandry, subsistence farming and forestry. A relatively poor matriarchal country, but one with a rich culture and a gentle Buddhist belief. It is also a country that regularly tops the list of countries ranked by “personal happiness.” Why change and “modernize” life there, as some politicians want to do?

I remember the old debate about indigenous Amazon tribes. Should they be left alone or brought into the 20th century? In the 50s many said they should be educated and brought into the "modern" world. Today the majority view is that uncontacted tribes, currently estimated to be around 100 tribes should be totally left alone unless their survival is threatened.

Tribes previously contacted have not done well - dying from diseases they have no natural immunity to and suffering severe depressions resulting from contact and cultural upheaval. Early tribes, invaded by Christian missionaries and told to cover their nudity, died from illnesses resulting from constantly wearing wet clothes in a rain forest, previously their skin dried quickly and naturally in minutes - so sad!

A year ago, for some unknown reason, I could tune into a Sky program of documentaries from China dubbed into English. I watched them for a couple of months, and then they became subscription-only. They covered many subjects – autism awareness groups in Beijing, modern Chinese arts and crafts etc. 

The ones that grabbed my attention though, were those relating to stopping the drift of young people from the countryside to the cities. It appears the Chinese government is investing heavily in encouraging agricultural renewal in remoter communities. Depending on what the land is capable of, they are encouraging crop diversity, livestock farming and anything else that can be thought of, including providing expertise and funding for rural entrepreneurship. 

Then ensuring reasonable access to local education (with an emphasis on rural sustainability and ecology), healthcare, water, electricity and transport. This is a government priority to curb the rural drift to the cities because almost half of all Chinese, 500 million, live in rural areas. Many young people had moved from rural areas to the cities “paved with gold.” Then had become disillusioned with the rat race of city life and were moving back, often using the skills and knowledge they had gained in the cities to set up small businesses in their original rural communities.

The UN’s policy on this topic is similar – invest in rural communities and stop the drift to the urban. Involve the rural communities in the decision-making. Ask the communities what their priorities are. Involve them in the decision-making process. Get local buy-in to schemes. Use bottom-up decision-making.

So now to the crux of the problem – money. The Philippines, for many of the reasons stated above, have gone from an economic Asian Tiger to an economic Asian Mouse in a few short decades; and is unlikely to ever have the resources needed.

When utilities – water, electricity, telecom etc., are owned by and provided by the government, for the benefit of all, remote areas should benefit. When utilities are privatised, only areas of high-profit return will get the investment needed; unless subsidised by the government. A cash-strapped and poorly performing economy like the Philippines is therefore hamstrung. There is simply not the money available to help these communities to an acceptable level. If indeed they need help.

Then, what money is available needs to be spent wisely. I read that there is money available for providing solar-powered water pumping facilities for rural communities at an average cost of Pesos 3.5 million each. I must ask the question: Is this a top-down government decision? Have the communities concerned been asked if this is their priority for this amount of spending? Has there been discussion and buy-in? Are there alternatives to what appears to be a hi-tech solution, such as water-powered ram pumps, set up with a backflow of water to the source for pumping water uphill – no other energy source required. Ram pumps can also be set up in series for long slow climbs for about US$200 per pump. A lot of money would be left over for other needs. Maybe some places do need a 3.5 million cost for each pump, but I would think a combination of the many low-tech alternatives would be better and more economical. And bringing water downhill is child’s play.

Involving religious charities and NGOs is a bad idea. The religious charities, whilst no doubt doing some good, have an evangelical agenda as their driving force. I believe these are damaging in the same way that the missionary evangelists of the 17th and 18th centuries were – destroying cultures and beliefs to establish uniform Christianity for their own ends. Going into happy pleasant communities and telling people they could not be happy unless they believe in this or that, and did this or that. Similarly, NGOs, while not having an “overt” Christian purpose, have a subtext of Christianity entrenched within them. This is why they fail so badly when dealing with poverty in Islamic countries. Aid should only be provided via secular government. I recently watched an old 1992 TV program – Michael Palin’s Pole to Pole, where he travelled by land from one pole to the other, much of which was through central Africa. In African countries where there were hardly any roads, no work, subsistence farming and abject poverty, large brand-new Christian churches were being built. Was this the best way to alleviate poverty in those areas? 

As a side issue, Palin travelled through Ukraine – what a beautiful country – so sad to see what is happening today.

It is only relatively recently that people are asking about happiness. The missionaries never for a minute considered that native peoples could actually be happy and content. Consider the Amish way of life – could this not be a pleasanter way of living than being fixated on small screens shooting pixelized aliens?

I remember as a teenager asking the father of a girlfriend what he thought the most important thing in life was. He pondered for a while and then said “Contentment.” I poo-pooed the idea. Almost sixty years later, I now understand his answer.

The industrial revolution replaced rural communities with urban towns and factories. Workers became little more than unhappy factory robots in the rush to produce and create wealth, with the aforementioned view that “Wealth Equates to Happiness.”

No one ever seems to question the Luddite movement that tried and failed to protect rural communities’ livelihoods. 

Putting all the above into bullet points for a way forward, my view would be:

• Ask the people if they are happy. If they are, to a large extent, leave them alone.
• If they are only moderately happy or unhappy, ask why. What do they need help with; what can you do to make them happier?
• Help communities to organize themselves into local committees. Ask these committees to determine their priority needs.
• Attempt to provide these needs whilst ensuring community buy-in and involvement, whilst at the same time managing expectations.
• Use low-tech, easily maintained solutions wherever possible.
• Education and healthcare may not be seen by some communities as priorities. Try to ensure that both, to some extent, are included as part of delivering their preferred needs.
• Education should include a focus on sustainability and ecology within their community.
• Remember that one size does not necessarily fit all. Needs may vary between different communities.
• The government’s ultimate objective should be to encourage people to remain and thrive within their rural communities. There are no quick fixes to achieve this – it will require decades-long support.
• Avoid letting religious organizations and NGOs have involvement if possible.

Interesting reading: Ferdinand Tönnies Gemeinschaft. A critique of modernity.

An old joke I remember: 

A millionaire goes to a tropical island beach and is annoyed to find a beach bum lazing and swinging in a hammock. They start a discussion. The millionaire says he cannot understand how lazy the beach bum’s life has been.

The bum asks what the millionaire has done with his life.

I worked hard at school, he said. Then went to university, after which I started my own business, worked hard for over forty years, and can now reward myself by being on this lovely beach, swimming in the sea and having a nice barbequed fish that I have just caught.

Strange, said the bum. That’s what I have been doing all my life!

Back to the questions about avoiding a dystopian future. In everything I have read or heard, be it Science Fiction or serious political debate, all dystopian futures contain some or all of the following elements: -

·       A world to a large extent destroyed by climate change or war.

·       An overpopulation level that has contributed to that destruction. Or an under-population level resulting from the destruction through war, famine, or disease.

·       Despotic governments resulting from or contributing to the above.

·       Totalitarian regimes. 

·       Government censorship of information.

·       Government propaganda fed to its people.

·       Religious extremism, theocracy.

·       A dehumanised populace living in fear.

·       Misuse of technology.

·       Misuse of science/biotechnology

·       Oppression of people and injustice to elements of society – racial, women, gays, religions etc.

·       Lack of individual freedoms.

·       Compulsory allegiance to a party.

I’m sure there are more but I can’t think of them.

Climate Change. Currently, in 2023, the world is facing a climate crisis that politicians are too feeble to tackle seriously, oligarchs ignore it or claim it is not true to protect today’s corporate profits, and religions don’t appear to say much about it. However, remember that the “One God” religions all require Armageddon in some form or another.

War. According to the Carnegie Corporation, there are currently 24 military conflicts around the world. Ranging from major international conflicts such as those between Russia and Ukraine, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, through to civil wars and insurgencies.

Then there is the sabre rattling of China over Taiwan and the South China Seas with the concurrent rapid build-up of the Chinese military. Sabre rattling by an unstable nuclear North Korea, Iran and others. Faceoffs between India and Pakistan, both nuclear states etc.

Overpopulation. 2023 will see the population of the world hit 8 billion, and is on target to reach 9 billion by 2037 or 2050 depending on whose analysis is used. Some even say 10 billion by 2100. Others that there will be a peak then a decline – the reality is no one knows.

Famine. It is estimated that in 2023 between ten and twelve per cent of the world’s population is facing serious hunger and malnutrition.

Disease. Statistics are difficult to find, however, the WHO says that 75% of all deaths worldwide are preventable. 13 million deaths per year are from communicable diseases.

Despotic / Totalitarian governments. In 2023, 52 countries are dictatorships, both fascist and communist including Russia and China, and the number is steadily growing.

Censorship. Censorship is on the rise around the world and almost always by governments. Books are heavily censored or banned in many communist countries. Similarly, newspapers are heavily controlled or closed. TV is state-controlled. Internet and foreign broadcasts are blocked. Even in Western democracies such as the USA books are being banned from schools and universities by right-wing politicians, and often at the behest of fundamentalist Christians.

Propaganda. Propaganda is being increasingly used, mainly but not exclusively by totalitarian regimes, for two reasons. First to manipulate the beliefs of their own people, and secondly to undermine foreign countries – propaganda wars - to influence the people of “ideological enemy countries" through fake news, internet hacking and such like. Propaganda wars are increasing exponentially.

Theocracies. There are currently six theocracies in the world – Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Vatican City and Yemen. These theocracies are also totalitarian regimes. However, there is a lot of theocratic activity in the background of many supposedly democratic countries – the USA and the Philippines being examples.

Dehumanised people living in fear. So many people under despotic governments are afraid to speak out, discuss or publish their views. Many of those brave enough to do so can expect to spend decades in prison on trumped-up charges. Others are executed or assassinated. Putin has ordered the deaths by assassination of 38 of his critics and 21 journalists in the past 3 years alone. China “legally” executes critics on trumped-up graft charges. Both, along with many other authoritarian governments, jail their opponents for long periods of time. Putin recently jailed a critic of the Ukrainian war for 25 years.

Misuse of technology. Fake news on the internet is everywhere. Countries are hacking each other’s politics, spreading lies to their own and other countries' populations, intending to undermine opponents and weaken economies. Brexit was a classic example of a country being fed lies by both its own Tory political party and extreme right-wing organisations supported by money fed to them by Russia. It was successful and has badly damaged the UK’s economy and international reputation. The same playbook was used to get Trump into the Whitehouse.

Misuse of science/biotechnology. The misuse of science for military purposes is as old as history itself. The misuse of biotechnology is more recent – germ warfare. Germ warfare was tried by Germany in WWII on a small scale unsuccessfully. There are international treaties banning germ warfare, however many countries continue to develop and hold stocks of biological weapons.

Oppression of people and injustice to elements of society. Racism is prevalent worldwide, mainly in Western developed countries. Often the result of a hangover from colonialism and slavery. Misogyny, rampant in Theocracies, is also prevalent in other societies, often resulting from the influence of religion, especially Catholicism and Islam. Differences between religions, and even within a religion are also a constant cause of conflict and are often used by political actors to stir up hatred and descent. Religions also primarily cause problems, disharmony and even hatred in society over sexual relations, sexual orientation and the insistence on strict codes of adherence to the religions' sexual/moralistic related beliefs.

Lack of individual freedoms and Compulsory allegiance to a party. In communist countries, the lack of individual freedoms reigns. In Russia only by being a member of “The Party” can you expect to promote your career, and have access to other government facilities/programs. Not being an active party member excludes you from many aspects of life. Freedom of speech in all Communist and Fascist countries is not tolerated. Women’s freedom to control their own sexual reproductive choices had long been opposed by the misogynistic Catholic Church and some Protestant Denominations. These freedoms, where won, are now heavily under attack by self-serving politicians backed by the machinations of the Catholic Church.

So, currently, all of the elements for heading towards a dystopian future are there, currently globally by climate change and overpopulation, whilst growing in all other areas.

Can a dystopian future be avoided? Yes, by brave public pressure. Along with a total reorganisation of world politics, economics and economies, and total secularisation.

“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing.”

Edmund Burke c. mid-18^th century.

Will a dystopian future be avoided? No, because throughout history, humankind has shown itself to be self-serving with a view of today rather than tomorrow. Politicians only have a viewpoint of doing what is necessary to win re-election in 4 to 6 years’ time. Oligarchs and mega-corporations only look as far as the next balance sheet, stock price and shareholder interests. Religions live in an afterworld of paradise and believe that if needed God will intervene to correct human misfortune.

There will always be people of conscience who will fight against the dystopian tide. Will they win? In all the science fiction that I have read these brave people who stand up to dystopia always lose. Another interesting point is that they always either escape to, or operate from, remoter rural areas, where unlike urban areas control of people’s behaviour is more difficult.

Ho hum.

Charles.