Monthly Archives: December 2022

Environment, Government, Politics, Society, United Nations, United States

Globalised food systems are making hunger worse

LONG-READ: FOOD SUPPLY

Intro: Food disruptions from the pandemic to the war in Ukraine show the need for strong local supply chains. Yet the US and others won’t learn

FROM COVID-19 to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine to climate change, it seems all the calamities afflicting the world are converging to make hunger worse. The latest United Nations report on hunger finds the increase in the number of undernourished people globally this year has eliminated any progress over the past decade.

Yet while the world has not seen hunger at these levels for years, scholars have long warned that a catastrophe was looming. The world’s food system is more interconnected and complex than ever, built upon layers of transnational dependencies. It is why a war in Europe can exacerbate a famine in Somalia — a country which imports most of its wheat and saw its supply of bread all but collapse overnight when exports of Ukrainian wheat ceased.

But instead of reducing the fragility of the food system, the latest international efforts led by the United States to end hunger are only exacerbating it — especially for Africa — by globalising the system further. Just this week, US President Joe Biden has promised African leaders gathered in Washington that the United States is “all in” on Africa. But the US needs to make sure that it is “all in” the right way, particularly when it comes to food.

The current crisis began when multiple pandemic-related shocks converged on the system, including lockdowns, a global economic downturn, and illnesses among food system workers, especially factory workers and migrant labourers. Climate change-related weather events, inflation and the Ukraine war have aggravated these stresses, rendering a complex and highly industrialised food system unable to serve the neediest people in the world even as it maintains steady supplies for the Global North.

It is increasingly clear that in moments when the world is under severe stress, globalisation is not a strength but a weakness, not a foundation for the system’s stability but a reason for its fragility. Any calamity anywhere in the world — whether a viral outbreak, drought or conflict — is a shock to the entire system, but one felt most acutely by the most vulnerable people and in the most vulnerable places.

Click Page 2 to continue reading

Pages: 1 2
Standard
Britain, Culture, Government, Immigration, Society

A moral victory for the Anglican Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury

MORAL AUTHORITY

Intro: The message from the pulpit is not just for Christmas

THE GUARDIAN’S editorial on Friday, 23 December, was a necessary narrative on the cruel policies being exercised by the UK Government on refugee rights.

One of the Conservative Party’s reliably belligerent MPs, Jonathan Gullis, took exception to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s excoriation of the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. Mr Gullis discerned a troubling modern tendency to “use the pulpit to preach from”. After a challenging year, the Anglican hierarchy were afforded some light relief with such comments, laughter elsewhere in society no-doubt. The Archbishop, Justin Welby, responded that he appreciated the feedback and looked forward to advice on more appropriate pulpit activity. Lambeth Palace can be forgiven for indulging in some festive humour at Mr Gullis’s expense, as a sobering 2022 draws to a close.

The editorial team rightly point to respect for the late queen’s devout faith which has meant that the Church of England’s established status has never truly been brought into question. In the post-Elizabethan era, however, serious scrutiny now seems inevitable – especially in the context of wider constitutional and House of Lords reform.

That will become a necessary debate for another day. Right now, the presence of the lords spiritual at Westminster has clear benefits. At a time when the government is attempting to sell performative cruelty towards migrants as a form of humanitarian intervention, the Anglican bishops, led by Mr Welby, deserve considerable praise for insisting on telling it how it is.

Earlier this month, the archbishop’s annual debate in the Lords was used by Mr Welby who attacked the “harmful rhetoric” that is allowing asylum seekers to be dehumanised, referring to the inflammatory language of “invasion”, expressed by the home secretary, Suella Braverman. This followed a scathing Easter Sermon at Canterbury Cathedral by Mr Welby in which he denounced the Home Office’s offshoring plans as unworthy of “a country formed by Christian values”.

It is unsurprising, of course, that some Conservative MPs have taken umbrage at the ecclesiastical onslaught, accusing the Church’s clergy of ethical grandstanding. The archbishop was accused by John Redwood of fomenting political discord while offering no solutions. But in his Lord’s speech, the Archbishop of Canterbury explicitly identified the danger of loftily moralising without confronting the complexities that politicians are required to face. The bishops have rightly highlighted the need to expand safe, legal routes and by accelerating the processing of claims. The need to balance generosity and compassion with efficient control of borders has been acknowledged.

Nevertheless, in a certain sense, Mr Gullis’s reference to preaching from pulpits identified something important. The way the Church of England has spoken about refugees has indeed been profoundly moral, in a way that has dangerously eluded the secular political debate. Over the past year – amid arguments about deterrence, logistics, the cost of accommodation and deportations, and the speed of the asylum application process – the humanity of the individuals arriving on our shores has been almost lost to view. The citing of the illegal, indecent squalor at the Manston asylum centre in Kent – and that it should ever have been tolerated – is an indication of where that can lead.

By reminding us that “recognition of human dignity is the first principle which must underpin our asylum policy”, and of the need to “see the faces of those in need and listen to their voices”, Mr Welby’s Lord’s speech highlighted what must be the starting point of all refugee policy. This is not mere naivety, at odds with the real world. It is to ground our engagement with that world on an ethical footing. The Archbishop of Canterbury has performed a valuable public service in pointing that out to a political class that has lost touch with the basics.

Standard
Arts, Philosophy, Science

(Philosophy) Mind and body

PHILOSOPHY OF RENE DESCARTES

Intro: By drawing a distinction between the mind and the body, and prioritising reason over observation, Rene Descartes laid the foundations for modern rationalist philosophy

Cartesian Dualism

DESCARTES regarded the ability to reason as the defining feature of human beings. He believed that we have this ability because we possess a mind, or soul, which he saw as distinct from the physical body. He distinguished the mind from the body while engaged in his “method of doubt”, which was his unique method of philosophical enquiry.

This method of doubt was a sceptical approach, and led Descartes to conclude that our senses are far from reliable. Truth, he decided, can only be arrived at through reason. His claim “Cogito ergo sum” (“I am thinking, therefore I exist”) expressed his realisation that the only thing that he could be certain of was that he existed – that in order to think at all, he must exist. In addition, he realised that he was a thing that thinks – but not a physical thing, for he could doubt that his physical body was real. He concluded that there were two distinct parts of his existence – an unthinking physical body, and a thinking, non-physical mind.

This led Descartes to conclude that there are two different types of substance – one material and one immaterial – in the universe. This view became known as Cartesian dualism. It raised the question of how the two substances interact, which is still debated today. Descartes claimed that mind and body “commingle” in the pineal gland of the brain, but he failed to show how they do so, and for many, including Thomas Hobbes, this failure undermined Descartes’ theory.

In Descartes’ day, sophisticated machines were being constructed – some even behaved like living things – and scientists believed that the world was mechanical, too: animals, the weather, and the stars were seen as machines whose movements could in principle be predicted. Descartes shared this view about everything except human beings: he claimed that we alone have the God-given attribute of reason.

The Pineal Gland

Descartes believed that the mind and the body are two distinct entities, but conceded that there had to be some interaction between the two. In particular, he thought that the mind exercises control over the body. Indeed, our rational freedom – our ability to choose how to act – is a definingly human characteristic.

However, there must be a place where our minds interact with our bodies. Descartes suggested this is the pineal gland, which is located in the centre of the brain. He described it as “the principal seat of the soul, and the place in which all our thoughts are formed”.

Need To Know

. An influential mathematician as well as philosopher, Descartes invented the system of Cartesian coordinates and established the field of analytical geometry.

In a letter to Mersenne (1640) Descartes wrote: “With me, everything turns into mathematics.”

. According to Descartes, the mind, or soul, is unique to human beings. Other animals are purely physical beings, and behave in predetermined ways.

. Descartes’ mind/body dualism is regarded as the foundation of modern Western philosophy. However, in the 19th and 20th centuries, materialism increasingly became the norm.

Mind And Soul

For Descartes, the mind is the immaterial part of our being – the thinking thing that has the ability to have ideas. It is not located in space, and can doubt everything that it perceives – even the reality of the eyes through which it sees.

Because the mind is immaterial, it is not subject to physical decay. It is therefore eternal, and synonymous with the immortal soul or spirit. For Descartes, dualism was compatible with religious faith.

The Immaterial and Material World

Descartes defined the immaterial world as being the world of ideas, thoughts, and the spirit. It is composed of an immaterial substance that cannot be experienced by the senses, but which we have access to through reason, or rational thought.

Conversely, the physical world is composed of a material substance, which we experience with our senses. It is unthinking and mechanistic, and is governed by the laws of physics. Our physical bodies consist of a material substance, and without our immaterial minds we would simply be unthinking machines.

Two Worlds

Descartes accepted the prevailing scientific view that all material things are mechanical. However, he believed that the immaterial mind is a uniquely human, God-given attribute, and that its ability to reason enables us to gain knowledge of immaterial things such as God, mathematics, and various physical laws.

THE BODY AS A MACHINE

THE mind/body dualism of Rene Descartes sparked a debate through the 17th and 18th centuries. The question of how two substances (material and immaterial) interact is still debated and researched today. But foremost among those who rejected Descartes’ theory was a British philosopher, Thomas Hobbes.

Physicalism

Hobbes (1588–1679) was a contemporary of Descartes’, and closely corresponded with him about mathematics. However, he differed from Descartes about dualism. He did not accept Descartes’ idea of an immaterial substance, which he considered a contradiction in terms: a substance by its nature must be material. Following that belief, he argued that if there are no immaterial substances then everything must be material – a view that has since become known as physicalism.

Hobbes took a particular interest in the natural sciences and was influenced by the ideas of Galileo. Like many other thinkers of the time, he thought the universe behaves like a machine, and so is subject to physical laws. The movements of the planets and other heavenly bodies are explained by these laws, which apply to all physical objects. If, as Hobbes believed, humans are purely physical, then we too follow the same laws, and are effectively biological machines. Even our minds, Hobbes argued, are physical: our thoughts and intentions are not evidence of some immaterial substance, but the result of physical processes in our brains.

Hobbes’s concept of a purely physical universe was a radical departure from conventional thinking at the time, especially since it denied the existence of an immaterial God. However, it provided a counterargument to rationalism and paved the way for a distinctively British empiricist approach to philosophy.

Mind-Brain Identity

Hobbes did not distinguish between the substances of mind and body: he argued that there is only physical substance, so the mind and the brain are one and the same thing. This means, in effect, that the thoughts and feelings that we experience are physical events in the brain, which are prompted by information provided by our senses. These thoughts and feelings are not made of some form of immaterial substance, but can be understood in terms of physical processes. This idea was reformulated in the 20th century as the mind-brain identity theory.  

Cogs in the machine

For Hobbes, physical laws govern the universe, which is made of many component parts, each of which has its own function, and is governed by physical laws.

The natural world forms one such part of the universe, and within it plants, animals, and humans each play their part. Humans have organised themselves into societies, and these in turn are governed by laws.

Biologically, each human being is a complex machine, composed of numerous functioning parts, all of which are controlled by physical processes within the brain. The brain itself, according to Hobbes, is controlled by internal and external stimuli.

Hobbes’ Theory – In Summary

The body

Our bodies are biological machines and are governed by physical laws. We have physical needs, which prompt “vital” movements, such as the beating of our hearts. However, even our most “voluntary” movements are physically predetermined.

Society

Hobbes believed that humans are selfish and exist only to satisfy their individual physical needs. To avoid chaos, we organise ourselves into societies and submit to the rule of law, which serves as a kind of personal protection agency.

Nature

The universe is purely physical, according to Hobbes, and operates like clockwork according to natural laws of motion. The natural world we live in is a part of that universe, and it and its component parts are similarly machine-like. Everything is predetermined, leaving no room for free will, nor for the mind as anything other than the operation of the brain.

Standard