Many years ago I read a story in I think Reader's Digest about a school principal who was interrupted by a student saying that he had the right to express his dissenting opinion. The principal replied that in his ignorance all the student had to contribute was his prejudice. The panelists managed to express several prejudices without an iota of evidence in support.
Let's introduce the panelists before we critically examine a few of the ideas they paraded as futurism in the guise of snappy sound bites. Facilitated by James Lush, presenter at 720ABC Perth, who did not make any effort to steer the discussion towards relevance, WA or otherwise, the panel comprised Craig Salt of Emotive Earth, Anni Macbeth, Futurist, Elizabeth Shaw of the Perth Youth Advisory Council and Peter Strachan, author of StockAnalysis.
The panelists were asked why it is important they are on the panel and their answers were as follows:
- Macbeth - Futurist, about the future.
- Salt - Sustainability, environment, making a buck.
- Shaw - Diversity of ideas, advocate on behalf of young people.
- Peter - Concerned citizen and former geologist - long time frame, need to get this ('the future') right; Gross National Happiness.
She also said (I think) that some governments prevent access to the internet. I am unsure what she meant - if it is China she is alluding to then it would be simpler to just say so, and to explain the how/what of the impact; if not I have no idea what she was talking about.
Salt asserted that inevitably technology is part of the solution and he specifically mentioned hydrogen-powered cars. He replied to the query as to why these aren't commonly available by reciting the tired old cliche of a conspiracy to suppress the hydrogen economy, allegedly to bolster old-economy profits.
No mention that notwithstanding the discovery of new catalysts for the electrolysis of water it is incredibly energy expensive to produce hydrogen in the first place. In contrast to popular opinion, fuel-cell, hydrogen-powered cars are for the time being an impractical novelty, unless recharged by 'nuclear battery' - much as 'Pious' hybrids satirised by South Park are not so environmentally friendly as generally presumed.
After some misinformation sprouted about corporations allegedly colluding to prevent the wide-scale adoption of hydrogen-powered cars as part of a utopic hydrogen economy, the panelists proceeded to pan directors who pander to shareholder profits over the community and to encourage shareholder activism to remedy this unacceptable situation.
Strachan took the opportunity to paint Buffett or bankers (it was not clear) as acting to the benefit of shareholders over the wider community, relating him as saying you don't want to be reliant on the generosity of strangers, and bankers are pretty strange.
All of which I find very odd because Buffett, his fellow shareholders and their bankers are presumably all acting properly, in the case of Buffett and his colleagues as fiduciaries responsible for other people's investments. Speaking of our local corporations, the shareholders includes all of us by virtue of direct or indirect shareholdings through pension and superannuation funds.
Perhaps Shaw, a law graduate, could have mentioned the responsibility of directors to act in the best in interest of all shareholders, both current and future, and taken the time to explain the meaning of corporate social responsibility, corporate sustainability and the influence of other stakeholders, eg. staff, suppliers and customers; instead of raising the non-issue of the gen-Y contribution to the election of Obama.
Can someone do a little research and confirm if this fact is accurate or outweighed by the swing in the Republican states across all age groups towards change? Again, no analysis was forthcoming of the change to be wrought by an Obama administration, if any, over Bush-era policies.
This assertion was also contradicted by the overarching consensus of the panelists and hand-raising members of the audience that individuals, not governments, would be the agents for change. I find it very odd that even here, let alone the USA, it is conveniently forgotten that government is of the people, by the people, for the people.
Aside from the absence of discussion about the WA context, I was disappointed with the uninformed dismissal of future innovation and engineering as part of the solution to the problems they had raised. Entirely backward looking, the consensus was that the future is bad.
Strachan said he is negative about the future, citing a billion hungry people, impending shortages of oil, copper and other commodities, and asserting that we would need three earths to universally maintain an Australian standard of living.
Irresponsibly, he chooses not to cite statistics of increasing standards of living and decreasing poverty in BRIC and developing economies as a result of globalisation and free trade, and fails to provide any supporting evidence to the contrary.
It was disappointing to hear only trite sound bites, unsupported and unsupportable propositions, no evidence presented or cited, nil reference to history or precedent, nor to the positive impact of technology, innovation and engineering on improving global standards of living.
The reality is that solutions to future problems, themselves largely or even utterly unknown, probably have not yet been discovered. A friend and colleague of mine likes to say that the stone age did not end because they ran out of stones; likewise the oil age will not end because we run out of oil.
I wonder what problems, apart from the prospect of war with the fall of old empires and the realignment of power, were being pondered in the first decade of the 20th century and their relevance today?
