One of the great iconic events of 20th century Irish history was the Eucharistic Congress of 1932. Apart from its religious symbolism it was also a statement by the newly established state about its independence and its commitment to the faith of the majority of the people. The event was echoed to a lesser extent by the Patrician Year in 1961 when the papal legate Cardinal Agagianian came to preside at the celebrations. The other great religious occasion of the 20th century was the Pope’s visit in 1979. All of these events were welcomed and enjoyed by the vast bulk of the citizens of the republic and as a reflection of this the whole apparatus of the state was brought to bear on them to ensure their success. Times have changed.
Whatever about the first two events we now know that the Pope’s 1979 visit took place in the context of huge hypocrisy by the bishops and the clergy. While the Pope lectured Irish families on the dangers of contraception and the importance of chastity two of the most prominent figures of the visit Fr. Michael Cleary and bishop Eamon Casey had made a mockery of Catholic teaching by fathering children. However worse than that we now know that the institutional Church was at the same time colluding in the cover up of most horrendous abuse of Irish children while at the same time attacking and ignoring their parents as they tried to defend them.
Now there is another comparable Catholic celebration on the agenda, the 50th Eucharistic Congress in 2012 in Dublin. It is proposed to hold it in a diocese that has just been pilloried in the Murphy report. Again the Church authorities will need the cooperation of the State to ensure that the event happens and that it is a success. These are the Diocesan authorities who over decades cocked a snoop at the state by hiding criminal child abuse from the Gardaí and those responsible for the welfare of children. In addition at an international level the Vatican, the sponsor of the Eucharistic Congress, refused to cooperate with the investigation of abuse in the Dublin Diocese. They cannot now expect the State to roll out the red carpet for them
The Dublin Diocese is only one of 26. There is no reason to believe that the situation that prevailed there over recent decades was not repeated in the other dioceses. Clearly the Government believe this to be the case because it extended the remit of Murphy to investigate the diocese of Cloyne. It unlikely that this report will be concluded by the time of the Dublin Eucharistic Congress in 2012 so what more remains to be revealed we can only speculate. It will be held against the background of huge and hidden scandal within the Irish Catholic Church. Resources that could be used to uncover this scandal will instead be used to for a celebration.
The last few weeks have seen apologies and calls for resignations but all of this will do little to assuage to hurt of those abused as children and their families. A huge symbolic gesture is required. None was forthcoming from the religious orders in the aftermath of the Ryan report. Apart from Fr. Michael Mernagh’s personal walk of atonement from Cobh to the Pro-Cathedral none seems to be on the cards from the institutional Church or the host of the 2012 Congress, the Dublin Diocese. While there have been expressions of regret and commitment that this will never happen again none has come from the State either. Cancelling the Eucharistic Congress could be one.
Since the Vatican refused to cooperate with the State in investigating the abuses in the Dublin Diocese the state should immediately cancel all cooperation in the staging of the Eucharistic Congress in 2012. This would say to those abused that at least the country of which you are a citizen is on your side and it would also send a strong message to the Church authorities. The Ryan report mentioned an ‘undue deference’ to the Church. Withdrawing the assistance of the State in the organisation of the 2012 events would give concrete expression to the ending of that deference. If it goes ahead neither the President, the Taoiseach, members of the Government or the Oireachtas should attend any of the events.
But the main challenge is to the Church itself and particularly the Dublin Diocese. The Eucharistic Congress, held every four years, is a celebration of the central mystery of the Catholic Church, the Eucharist. For the local Church hosting the celebrations it is a great honour. By the admissions of many of the bishops and the clergy the Irish Catholic Church and as we now know especially the Dublin Diocese are guilty of the most sinful behaviour. It is appropriate that such a local Church should receive such an honour?
If the celebrations are anything on the scale of the Pope’s visit what will that say to those who have been so grievously abused? It is ok, business as usual! As the Papal Legate preaches to the faithful what credibility will his words have in view of the Vatican’s refusal to cooperate with Justice Murphy in her work? If and when it happens will there be prelates and clergy on the altar with all their honours and titles who have been the subject of criticism by the Murphy Report or who will be under investigation as enquiries move on to Cloyne.
The Church has no choice. The bishops and especially the Archbishop of Dublin Dr. Diarmuid Martin must inform the Vatican that Dublin, in the current circumstances, is not a suitable place to host such an important liturgical event. It will not undo the harm done but it might go some way to convincing the sceptical that the expressions of regret are sincere. Apart from that it would do the Catholic Church in Ireland no harm to keep a low profile for the next few years.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
So where to now now that Lisbon Treaty has been passed?
Let me declare myself before you read any further. I voted yes to the Lisbon Treaty on both occasions. I was not completely convinced but on balance I was. Most of the arguments made by the No campaigners rolled off me like water off a duck. We were never going to have abortion by the back door. We were never going to be dragged into an unwanted military alliance. The minimum wage was never going to be affected. We were never going to have to adjust our tax rates. I was and still am concerned that the Lisbon Treaty was another missed opportunity to extend democracy within the Union.
Since the Czech President signed the Treaty earlier this week we now we are in a post Lisbon Europe Union and I suspect strongly that the pro Lisbon promoters will now promptly forget some of the serious reservations that were expressed about the Treaty right across Europe. The Treaty was needed to cope with the complexities of an enlarged and possibly even bigger Union. Now it is a done deal the politicians and the Brussels civil servants will be pleased. However Union still has a serious democratic deficit. The Treaty put some mechanisms in place to deal with this but they are difficult to understand and do not go far enough.
All over the Union citizens are concerned that their national identity will be swallowed up by some great amorphous political roller coaster that they will have no control over. I suspect that this was the reason behind the No vote in France and Holland and it is not good enough for the Yes side to say that this was reversed in both countries by subsequent elections. Elections are complex affairs and neither election was fought solely on the issue of Lisbon. The Labour government in the UK baulked at the idea of a referendum even though they had promised one because the suspected, rightly I think, that it would be defeated, just as would have been if put to a the vote in a number of other member states of the Union. If the unease of the people of Europe at the widening and deepening of the Union is ignored then ultimately the whole project will be undermined.
So what is the solution? Well first of all we need to expand the democratic structures of the Union and give the citizens of the Union more of a direct say in the way the Union is run. This does not simply mean giving more power to the European Parliament. A directly elected Parliament as the most powerful institution of the Union would mean the issues and concerns of small countries such as Ireland would be completely submerged in those of the larger countries. The Parliament needs more power but that power needs to be balanced. The Commission needs a complete rethink. Maybe we need each country to elect its Commissioners so that it becomes something more like the US Senate. The Commission bureaucracy needs to be more transparent and answerable although Lisbon goes some way to addressing this. Above all the institutions of the Union need to improve their communications with the ordinary citizens.
Almost as important governments have to start selling the Union to their citizens. No country knows so well as our own how membership of the Union has transformed it for the better. Apart from the economic benefits that have flown from the Union our membership has brought countless social benefits to workers and women, as just two examples. A more open and democratic Union would make this more apparent. Those who campaigned for a Yes vote must not rest on their laurels as they did after the second Nice Treaty referendum. They must now open a debate within all the structures of the Union, the Council, the Commission and the Parliament about how the operation of the Union can make us all feel like European sisters and brothers and not just look to our own narrow national perspective. On the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall it is interesting to remember that the Wall was brought down not by the clever machinations of politicians but by the anger and impatience of the people with an inflexible and undemocratic regime. The edifice of the EU is no so solid that it too could be brought down if the powers that be do not take account of the wishes of the people.
Since the Czech President signed the Treaty earlier this week we now we are in a post Lisbon Europe Union and I suspect strongly that the pro Lisbon promoters will now promptly forget some of the serious reservations that were expressed about the Treaty right across Europe. The Treaty was needed to cope with the complexities of an enlarged and possibly even bigger Union. Now it is a done deal the politicians and the Brussels civil servants will be pleased. However Union still has a serious democratic deficit. The Treaty put some mechanisms in place to deal with this but they are difficult to understand and do not go far enough.
All over the Union citizens are concerned that their national identity will be swallowed up by some great amorphous political roller coaster that they will have no control over. I suspect that this was the reason behind the No vote in France and Holland and it is not good enough for the Yes side to say that this was reversed in both countries by subsequent elections. Elections are complex affairs and neither election was fought solely on the issue of Lisbon. The Labour government in the UK baulked at the idea of a referendum even though they had promised one because the suspected, rightly I think, that it would be defeated, just as would have been if put to a the vote in a number of other member states of the Union. If the unease of the people of Europe at the widening and deepening of the Union is ignored then ultimately the whole project will be undermined.
So what is the solution? Well first of all we need to expand the democratic structures of the Union and give the citizens of the Union more of a direct say in the way the Union is run. This does not simply mean giving more power to the European Parliament. A directly elected Parliament as the most powerful institution of the Union would mean the issues and concerns of small countries such as Ireland would be completely submerged in those of the larger countries. The Parliament needs more power but that power needs to be balanced. The Commission needs a complete rethink. Maybe we need each country to elect its Commissioners so that it becomes something more like the US Senate. The Commission bureaucracy needs to be more transparent and answerable although Lisbon goes some way to addressing this. Above all the institutions of the Union need to improve their communications with the ordinary citizens.
Almost as important governments have to start selling the Union to their citizens. No country knows so well as our own how membership of the Union has transformed it for the better. Apart from the economic benefits that have flown from the Union our membership has brought countless social benefits to workers and women, as just two examples. A more open and democratic Union would make this more apparent. Those who campaigned for a Yes vote must not rest on their laurels as they did after the second Nice Treaty referendum. They must now open a debate within all the structures of the Union, the Council, the Commission and the Parliament about how the operation of the Union can make us all feel like European sisters and brothers and not just look to our own narrow national perspective. On the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall it is interesting to remember that the Wall was brought down not by the clever machinations of politicians but by the anger and impatience of the people with an inflexible and undemocratic regime. The edifice of the EU is no so solid that it too could be brought down if the powers that be do not take account of the wishes of the people.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Abolish the Senate ........No
First let me declare my self interest. I intend to be a candidate in the next Senate elections so I had a particular interest in Enda Kenny’s intention to abolish the Senate. I think he is wrong for a number of reasons.
First of all it is a simple matter of democracy. Sure the Senate needs reforming but abolishing the Senate would mean that we would have one less institution for the expression of independent views and opinions. What we need is more democracy not less so if Enda Kenny wants to abolish the Senate does he have any proposals for another forum that would provide a platform for views that are independent of political parties?
Secondly it is clear that the Senate needs reform but this is no more true of the Senate than the Dáil. It is clear that both our major political institutions have failed to keep pace with the demands of a 21st century globalised and digital society and economy. The political and public administration systems of the state are essentially the same as when the state was founded in 1922. Both the Senate and the Dáil need to become more open, more efficient in the way they do their business and more reflective of the demographics of Irish society. If the institutions of the Oireachtas need reforming then we should start with the Dáil as that is the more important one.
Thirdly when I first heard Enda Kenny speak about this he suggested that one of the important reasons to abolish the Senate was the cost. It would save approximately €150 million. That is the price he puts on democracy. If he simply wants to save money then one of the things he could look at is the whole system of local government. There are county councils whose populations would not fill a stand in Croke Park and they have a whole sub-structure of VEC’s, library committees etc. Now I am all for more local democracy but why do some counties with tiny populations have a county council and suburbs of our major cities that would dwarf them do not. The county structure is a hang over from Elizabethan administration. Let’s keep the boundaries for cultural and historical reasons but let’s amalgamate all of the smaller ones into more administratively efficient and cost effective units with fewer councillors and at the same time hand over to them more power so that they do not have to be referring back to Dublin and the Department of the Environment all the time. How about that for a piece of political and cost saving reform Mr. Kenny?
Fourthly if Enda Kenny wanted to do something positive for the political institutions of the State one of the things he could do is amalgamate his party with Fianna Fáil and finally put an end to Civil War politics. After all there is no particular ideological difference between them. Their difference goes back to the sides they took in the Civil War and in some cases to personality and territorial disputes during the War of Independence. This split has given rise to a political system where party loyalty and political advantage is frequently put before the interests of the country as whole. Individuals of talent and ability have been marginalised by both major parties when they are in government because they were not party people. The converse is also true mediocre people have been promoted because they were loyal to the party. At least the Senate has a few truly independent voices with talent and ability that got there on their own merits without being party hacks.
Without reform the Senate has sat longer than the Dáil, had more real debate and defeated government Bills. All this suggests that it is more of a real political forum than the Dáil. Let’s build on this rather than go along with a headline grabbing suggestion that implies political reform without grasping some of the very stinging nettles that would bring real political reform
First of all it is a simple matter of democracy. Sure the Senate needs reforming but abolishing the Senate would mean that we would have one less institution for the expression of independent views and opinions. What we need is more democracy not less so if Enda Kenny wants to abolish the Senate does he have any proposals for another forum that would provide a platform for views that are independent of political parties?
Secondly it is clear that the Senate needs reform but this is no more true of the Senate than the Dáil. It is clear that both our major political institutions have failed to keep pace with the demands of a 21st century globalised and digital society and economy. The political and public administration systems of the state are essentially the same as when the state was founded in 1922. Both the Senate and the Dáil need to become more open, more efficient in the way they do their business and more reflective of the demographics of Irish society. If the institutions of the Oireachtas need reforming then we should start with the Dáil as that is the more important one.
Thirdly when I first heard Enda Kenny speak about this he suggested that one of the important reasons to abolish the Senate was the cost. It would save approximately €150 million. That is the price he puts on democracy. If he simply wants to save money then one of the things he could look at is the whole system of local government. There are county councils whose populations would not fill a stand in Croke Park and they have a whole sub-structure of VEC’s, library committees etc. Now I am all for more local democracy but why do some counties with tiny populations have a county council and suburbs of our major cities that would dwarf them do not. The county structure is a hang over from Elizabethan administration. Let’s keep the boundaries for cultural and historical reasons but let’s amalgamate all of the smaller ones into more administratively efficient and cost effective units with fewer councillors and at the same time hand over to them more power so that they do not have to be referring back to Dublin and the Department of the Environment all the time. How about that for a piece of political and cost saving reform Mr. Kenny?
Fourthly if Enda Kenny wanted to do something positive for the political institutions of the State one of the things he could do is amalgamate his party with Fianna Fáil and finally put an end to Civil War politics. After all there is no particular ideological difference between them. Their difference goes back to the sides they took in the Civil War and in some cases to personality and territorial disputes during the War of Independence. This split has given rise to a political system where party loyalty and political advantage is frequently put before the interests of the country as whole. Individuals of talent and ability have been marginalised by both major parties when they are in government because they were not party people. The converse is also true mediocre people have been promoted because they were loyal to the party. At least the Senate has a few truly independent voices with talent and ability that got there on their own merits without being party hacks.
Without reform the Senate has sat longer than the Dáil, had more real debate and defeated government Bills. All this suggests that it is more of a real political forum than the Dáil. Let’s build on this rather than go along with a headline grabbing suggestion that implies political reform without grasping some of the very stinging nettles that would bring real political reform
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Time to get rid of the Simon Community?
I recently attended the 40th Anniversary Commemoration of the setting up of the Dublin Simon Community in which I had a small part in founding. When I received my invitation I did not read it properly and assumed I was being invited to a 40th anniversary celebration and it occurred to me that there was nothing to celebrate. Why would you celebrate 40 years of homelessness and deprivation? Of course those sensible and caring people who now run the organisation had already thought of that so it was indeed a commemoration and not a celebration.
I cannot speak for everyone but certainly when I got involved 40years ago I never thought that 40 years later not only would there be a need for the Simon Community but there would never be a more crucial need. With Séamus O’Cinnéide I conducted the first census of people sleeping rough and homeless (we counted people living in hostels in the census) in Dublin City. I do not have it immediately to hand but there were roughly two hundred people counted. The surprising thing was that the biggest age cohort was the 15 to 20 age bracket. Most of the people sleeping rough or living in hostels had alcohol or psychiatric problems and most of them were over thirty five.
Forty years on the problem has become bigger and more complex. At first Simon offered soup and sandwiches now Simon offers a whole range of services from helping people sleeping rough to supporting them in jobs and accommodation.
My recollection of those early days is that there were not many people begging on the streets. I recently walked from Grafton Street to the ILAC Centre in Henry Street. I counted 23 people begging on the streets. Allowing that some of them maybe con artists and others may be professionals there nonetheless remains the truth that there are a lot more people on the streets than there were forty years ago. Walk around the centre of any of our bigger cities any night and you will find lots and lots of people sleeping in doorways and under benches. The problem was neither so obvious nor so extensive forty years ago.
Why is this when by any measure our society is much wealthier than it was forty years ago? In 1973 when we joined the EEC as it was our average income was about 65% of the EU average. Recently we were well over 100% and despite the recession we are still up there with the best of them. In the intervening period we have managed to do many things. We have become one of the most attractive locations for foreign investment in the EU because we have a well educated and trained population and we offer some fantastic tax incentives. Though unemployment is now about 12% it was at one point down to 4.5% and there are still millions of people working. We are developing our road network. You can travel from Dublin to Cork in about three hours. I could go on.
So why are there so many more people sleeping rough? Why has homelessness increased? Basically it is a matter of will. With all the wealth that became available to us we choose to use it to give tax breaks, create quangos, employ consultants and reward with high salaries those who were already doing well. Had we given homelessness the same priority that we have given to the failing banks or the building of the motorway network it could have been solved for a fraction of the cost years ago. There is no shortage of ideas. There are enough policies, people and organisations to solve the problem. It will not be solved overnight. There might be a recession now but no better time for planning for the future.
If the taoiseach cared as much about homeless people as he does about bankers and property developers there will be no need for a fiftieth commemoration of the Simon Community. So let’s start planning to get rid of the Simon as soon as possible.
I cannot speak for everyone but certainly when I got involved 40years ago I never thought that 40 years later not only would there be a need for the Simon Community but there would never be a more crucial need. With Séamus O’Cinnéide I conducted the first census of people sleeping rough and homeless (we counted people living in hostels in the census) in Dublin City. I do not have it immediately to hand but there were roughly two hundred people counted. The surprising thing was that the biggest age cohort was the 15 to 20 age bracket. Most of the people sleeping rough or living in hostels had alcohol or psychiatric problems and most of them were over thirty five.
Forty years on the problem has become bigger and more complex. At first Simon offered soup and sandwiches now Simon offers a whole range of services from helping people sleeping rough to supporting them in jobs and accommodation.
My recollection of those early days is that there were not many people begging on the streets. I recently walked from Grafton Street to the ILAC Centre in Henry Street. I counted 23 people begging on the streets. Allowing that some of them maybe con artists and others may be professionals there nonetheless remains the truth that there are a lot more people on the streets than there were forty years ago. Walk around the centre of any of our bigger cities any night and you will find lots and lots of people sleeping in doorways and under benches. The problem was neither so obvious nor so extensive forty years ago.
Why is this when by any measure our society is much wealthier than it was forty years ago? In 1973 when we joined the EEC as it was our average income was about 65% of the EU average. Recently we were well over 100% and despite the recession we are still up there with the best of them. In the intervening period we have managed to do many things. We have become one of the most attractive locations for foreign investment in the EU because we have a well educated and trained population and we offer some fantastic tax incentives. Though unemployment is now about 12% it was at one point down to 4.5% and there are still millions of people working. We are developing our road network. You can travel from Dublin to Cork in about three hours. I could go on.
So why are there so many more people sleeping rough? Why has homelessness increased? Basically it is a matter of will. With all the wealth that became available to us we choose to use it to give tax breaks, create quangos, employ consultants and reward with high salaries those who were already doing well. Had we given homelessness the same priority that we have given to the failing banks or the building of the motorway network it could have been solved for a fraction of the cost years ago. There is no shortage of ideas. There are enough policies, people and organisations to solve the problem. It will not be solved overnight. There might be a recession now but no better time for planning for the future.
If the taoiseach cared as much about homeless people as he does about bankers and property developers there will be no need for a fiftieth commemoration of the Simon Community. So let’s start planning to get rid of the Simon as soon as possible.
Monday, September 7, 2009
The Commission on Taxation
It would probably take an accountant to make sense of the report of the Commission on Taxation. The Commission’s Report has made many recommendations to broaden the tax base. New property taxes, a carbon tax, taxing child benefit etc. On balance it set out not to increase the overall take in taxes but to swap one set of taxes for another, to lower taxes on anything that encourages economic activity and job creation and to increase taxes on anything that hinders economic activity. What will it achieve? Well I suppose that remains to be seen.
But there are some issues that the Commission did not address and in fairness they were outside their terms of reference. They stressed that they wanted to keep Ireland a low tax economy. There are consequences to this. Many are now having second thoughts about the achievements of our economy during the boom years. We are realising that decisions were made which brought short term benefits but in the long run led us into the predicament we are in now. One of those decisions was to go down the road of low taxation. Low tax means less public services. Public services are not just some abstract economic formula. They are schools, hospitals, childcare and so on. It would have been interesting to have seen a debate in the report about the consequences of a low tax regime and the benefits of increasing tax.
The Commission was also given the task of finding ways to broaden the tax base. They understood this to mean finding new taxes, perhaps broadening the tax bands and reviewing the status of tax exiles. However as far as I can gather from the report there was no consideration to widening the tax base to bring in those who now pay little or no tax, certain sections of the farming community and some of the self employed. There is no doubt that at the moment many farmers are having a tough time and probably do not have incomes that would take them into the taxation system. Fair enough. The same goes for many of the self employed. However there are others particularly in businesses that generate cash that are quite simply not paying their fair share. At the same time they are using public services. Look at those whose children go on to third level education. There are a disproportionate number of the farming community and the self employed compared to the contribution they make to the tax take.
The third issue and probably the most important one is the capacity of the tax system to re-distribute the wealth of society. This was also outside the terms of reference of the Commission. One of the consequences of our recent economic success was a growing disparity in our society. One sixth of Irish children live in poverty. There are huge consequences for unequal societies. Everyone is unhealthier, live shorter lives and suffers more from mental illness and alcoholism and there is more crime. (see The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett). It would have been interesting for the Commission to open a debate on using the tax system to redress inequalities in society.
Having waited thirty years or so for a Commission on Taxation it is a pity it was so limited in its scope.
But there are some issues that the Commission did not address and in fairness they were outside their terms of reference. They stressed that they wanted to keep Ireland a low tax economy. There are consequences to this. Many are now having second thoughts about the achievements of our economy during the boom years. We are realising that decisions were made which brought short term benefits but in the long run led us into the predicament we are in now. One of those decisions was to go down the road of low taxation. Low tax means less public services. Public services are not just some abstract economic formula. They are schools, hospitals, childcare and so on. It would have been interesting to have seen a debate in the report about the consequences of a low tax regime and the benefits of increasing tax.
The Commission was also given the task of finding ways to broaden the tax base. They understood this to mean finding new taxes, perhaps broadening the tax bands and reviewing the status of tax exiles. However as far as I can gather from the report there was no consideration to widening the tax base to bring in those who now pay little or no tax, certain sections of the farming community and some of the self employed. There is no doubt that at the moment many farmers are having a tough time and probably do not have incomes that would take them into the taxation system. Fair enough. The same goes for many of the self employed. However there are others particularly in businesses that generate cash that are quite simply not paying their fair share. At the same time they are using public services. Look at those whose children go on to third level education. There are a disproportionate number of the farming community and the self employed compared to the contribution they make to the tax take.
The third issue and probably the most important one is the capacity of the tax system to re-distribute the wealth of society. This was also outside the terms of reference of the Commission. One of the consequences of our recent economic success was a growing disparity in our society. One sixth of Irish children live in poverty. There are huge consequences for unequal societies. Everyone is unhealthier, live shorter lives and suffers more from mental illness and alcoholism and there is more crime. (see The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett). It would have been interesting for the Commission to open a debate on using the tax system to redress inequalities in society.
Having waited thirty years or so for a Commission on Taxation it is a pity it was so limited in its scope.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Will you remember today
Do you remember where you were on September the 11th 2001 or as we now seem to call it 9/11? Probably most people in the western world and perhaps beyond do. Those iconic images of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers, the smoke billowing from the burning buildings and that awful shot of a man spiralling through the air to his death. It is unforgettable.
But do you remember where you were on the 26th of June 2000? In ten years will you remember where you were or what you were doing today? The interesting thing is that when the history of the 21st century is written the 26th of June 2000 and the 4th of September 2009 will appear much more significant for the future of human kind than 9/11. How many even remember the great massacres of the 20th century (apart from the Holocaust) never mind those of the past few hundred years.
So why are the 26th of June 2000 and yesterday so important. Well on June 26th 2000 the completion of the decoding of the human genome was announced. Admittedly it was a rough version and it was announced then to prevent a private company beating the public consortium to the post and copyrighting it. So much will flow from the decoding of the genome. Even in the last week some Trinity College scientists have announced that they have found some genes that are unique to humans. Over the next decades never mind centuries the ability to manipulate our genetic code will mean that many horrific fatal and debilitating diseases will be cured. But that is the most obvious benefit from the decoding of the human genome. The real achievements are probably beyond our imagination at the moment. Whatever happens there is no doubt it has allowed humans to transcend the laws of Darwinian evolution.
So what happened today? Well scientists in Bristol announced that they had managed to build a computer chip that uses light. It is in effect a ‘quantum computer’, a very primitive one. Quantum computing if or when fully developed will make our current computers look like hot air balloons compared to jet planes. Quantum computing could allow much of what we now believe to be science fiction to become reality. Computers that are millions of time faster and thousands of times cheaper could make many of our technological fantasies come through and transform the world.
When quantum computing and genetic science converge there will be a world that we cannot now imagine and it will be a better one. September 11th 2001 will be a footnote. If you cannot remember the 26th of June 2000 remember today so that you can tell your grandchildren.
But do you remember where you were on the 26th of June 2000? In ten years will you remember where you were or what you were doing today? The interesting thing is that when the history of the 21st century is written the 26th of June 2000 and the 4th of September 2009 will appear much more significant for the future of human kind than 9/11. How many even remember the great massacres of the 20th century (apart from the Holocaust) never mind those of the past few hundred years.
So why are the 26th of June 2000 and yesterday so important. Well on June 26th 2000 the completion of the decoding of the human genome was announced. Admittedly it was a rough version and it was announced then to prevent a private company beating the public consortium to the post and copyrighting it. So much will flow from the decoding of the genome. Even in the last week some Trinity College scientists have announced that they have found some genes that are unique to humans. Over the next decades never mind centuries the ability to manipulate our genetic code will mean that many horrific fatal and debilitating diseases will be cured. But that is the most obvious benefit from the decoding of the human genome. The real achievements are probably beyond our imagination at the moment. Whatever happens there is no doubt it has allowed humans to transcend the laws of Darwinian evolution.
So what happened today? Well scientists in Bristol announced that they had managed to build a computer chip that uses light. It is in effect a ‘quantum computer’, a very primitive one. Quantum computing if or when fully developed will make our current computers look like hot air balloons compared to jet planes. Quantum computing could allow much of what we now believe to be science fiction to become reality. Computers that are millions of time faster and thousands of times cheaper could make many of our technological fantasies come through and transform the world.
When quantum computing and genetic science converge there will be a world that we cannot now imagine and it will be a better one. September 11th 2001 will be a footnote. If you cannot remember the 26th of June 2000 remember today so that you can tell your grandchildren.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Back to school with a bag of books?
School is back and we have another of the perennial education debates. This one is about school books. The government has abolished the school book grant for most schools and parents are again complaining (and rightly so) about the cost of books and the changing of curricula so books cannot be passed on. Most homes in Ireland have a computer of some kind. Most children have a Gameboy or something similar in addition to a mobile phone and an MP3 player. Is it not well past the time when schools moved into the 21st century and books were produced in digital form so that they could be stored on a digital device? Could home work not be done on a computer and emailed to the teacher? One of the biggest educational software companies in the world, Riverdeep (http://web.riverdeep.net/), is based in Dublin. Commission them to design a digital education system.
When we had the funds we should have invested in our education system instead of big motorways that are mostly empty. Broadband is (are) the motorways of the future and most children are more than comfortable using digital technology. So it is there we should be investing. It is not too late to start and evidence has shown that investing in education more than repays itself. Lets soon see the day when instead of a school bag pupils will go to school with a notebook and a folder of CDRoms. While I think of it why go to school? Go to your room boot up, log on and start learning!
When we had the funds we should have invested in our education system instead of big motorways that are mostly empty. Broadband is (are) the motorways of the future and most children are more than comfortable using digital technology. So it is there we should be investing. It is not too late to start and evidence has shown that investing in education more than repays itself. Lets soon see the day when instead of a school bag pupils will go to school with a notebook and a folder of CDRoms. While I think of it why go to school? Go to your room boot up, log on and start learning!
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
NAMA
Today 46 economists wrote about their concerns about NAMA in the Irish Times and the Minister for Finance's chief economic advisor answered them. I had the feeling of being a medieval peasant looking into to the runes while the local wizard gave his interpretation of what they meant. There is no doubt that the banks are in dire straits and that something needs to be done. However the people (economists) who a few short years ago were extolling the virtues of the free market are partly responsible for getting us into this mess are now offering us advice about how to get us out it. In the general population there are a reasonable amount of left wing people but amongst the legions of economists a left winger is as difficult to find as hens teeth. This says to me that economics is by and large not particularly scientific but an ideologically driven view of the world. If that view of the world contributed to the mess we are in then I am not reassured that it will get us out of it. At best it might bring us back to square one and that square will be a long way back. Maybe what we need are some views coming literally and metaphorically from the left field. Remember the days when they would send for the men in the white coats if you suggested nationalising the banks and now such bedfellows as Davy Stockbrokers and the International Monetary Fund are suggesting that we should consider that as an option.
I once asked a prominent Irish academic what would people in 200 years time think bizarre and strange about our current beliefs and he instantly shot back 'Economics. It's the astrology of the 21st century' . Time to move on to astronomy.
I once asked a prominent Irish academic what would people in 200 years time think bizarre and strange about our current beliefs and he instantly shot back 'Economics. It's the astrology of the 21st century' . Time to move on to astronomy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)