The 'No Future' Generation

The right to complain

“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. …”

These words are attributed to Socrates (469–399 B.C.). Since then and probable even before those times, the complaints about the perceived moral decay of the respective contemporary youth have not ceased.

Simple logic suggests, that moral worth – however it may be defined in the particular period’s context – cannot have been steadily deteriorating over 100 generations. We would have all become anti-social criminals by now. Rather there seems to be something completely wrong with the subjective perception of those elders, who emit the complaints. At minimum they seem to have forgotten that they themselves once were young and full of ideals, desires – and nonsense.

Moreover, do they have any right to complain this way? Can the elder generation or generations really be taken as the shining role model, young men and women ought to follow?

A closer examination rather delivers a devastating picture. Even if we leave the strongmen, which are on the rise around the world aside, if we don’t consider the retro-politics or even paleo-politics reigning is even in major western countries. Let’s take for example a European country like Germany, which is internationally regarded as moderate in all respect, or France which allegedly attempted to re-start. Take Sweden, Canada – not the US. Do their governments really address the long-term sustainability of human life?

Let me be blunt: I doubt that. Those in charge rather desire to be re-elected (in democracies) or stay in power under any circumstance (under authoritarian regimes). I’ll keep this section short as I contemplated about these fundamental flaws before. Maybe they can’t do otherwise. In consequence however their actions are far from being responsible.

They act as if they had no children, no grandchildren, no future.

At least they do not care. They sacrifice the future of mankind recklessly for their short-term gains in the present. For them it may still work out fine. It is the coming generations who will have to pay a terrible price for this.

Need some evidence?

As evidence is abundant that the party eventually will come to an end, I arbitrarily limit the indicators of looming disasters to just seven …

1. Overpopulation

The current world population as of April 2019 just passed the 7.7 billion mark. Until the time of Napoleon, there were less than 1 billion people on Earth at any one time. Since the Second World War, we have been adding a billion people to the global population every 12-15 years. Our population is more than double today what it was in 1970. Global population is currently rising by more than 80 million a year. With a birth rate more than doubling the mortality rate it is most likely to continue rising for the rest of this century unless we take action. The growth rate is expected to flatten out within a few generations, resulting in a saturation of the total global population at about ~ 10 billion by ~ 2050.

Given our actual technological status, our aspirations and even just our physical needs it appears doubtful that mankind can maintain a long-term sustainable existence at this number. Maybe we are too many already.

2. The sixth extinction

Palaeontologists discovered that throughout earth’s history there have been (at least) five mass extinctions, which wiped out major fractions of all life on this planet. At the end of the geological periods Ordovician, 444 million years ago, 86%, Devonian, 375 million years ago, 75%, Permian, 251 million years ago, 96%, Triassic, 200 million years ago, 80%, and Cretaceous, 66 million years ago, 76% of all species were lost. The sixth extinction, this time however man-made, is now in full swing. According to the UN’s Global Environment Outlook 6 since 1970, the vertebrate population has declined by around 60 %. At present, between 25 and 42 % of invertebrates, such as insects, are threatened with extinction. The disappearance of insects poses a particular threat to the growth of new food. But this is not the only threat directly affecting human food supply: One third of the planet's land area now belongs to the "degraded soils" category; in the past 50 years, 40 % of the world's wetlands have disappeared. Warming and overfishing endanger the livelihoods of over three billion people who depend on fish as their most important food source.

So, probably even the rather unpleasant outlook of a planet, whose biomass primarily consists of humans, residing on a huge pile of garbage on a largely devastated planet, is even not pessimistic enough. Rather we ourselves may be affected severely by ignoring the fact that we humans too can only survive as part of a functioning ecosystem.

3. Depleting the planet of resources

The consumption of resources increases in parallel to population growth and exponentially with the much-praised prosperity. It is not only the often mentioned "rare earths" that could become scarce. Agricultural land cannot be increased at will either. A "green revolution" can probably only be repeated once or twice. The soils degrade, are exhausted. Even water for agriculture and human consumption is becoming a scarce commodity. They don't like to say it. But many of these resources are finite. They cannot be reproduced. Technical progress can still push the boundaries a little further, as can be seen from the example of the "peak oil" theory. This however does not change the fundamental problem of finite resources.

Nevertheless, it looks like we have never been farther away from a global management of scarce resources as a precondition for our survival. Rather resource scarcity seems to become a major source of geopolitical risks and resulting conflicts.

4. Economic inequality

Globally the economic inequality of humanity is growing. If not limited at least to a certain degree, it will eventually destroy all social order. Historical considerations teach us that only cataclysmic events like wars, epidemics or revolutions had the power to level inequality again. During ‘calm’ periods like the current century of US American world hegemony the wealth of the economically acting individuals drifts apart again.

Several "tribes" already live side by side in the USA without any contact. Occasionally, they fight each other. This trend will only intensify. It leads towards isolation tendencies. The globalisation of the 1990s is collapsing before our very eyes. It was never to be confused with fair world trade. Rather, it was used as an instrument of domination to implement hegemonic aspirations.

Nevertheless, it has led to interdependence and promoted exchange. Thus, the hoped-for global community is falling apart into increasingly authoritarian power blocs and spheres of interest at a time when community action could perhaps still avert regional and global disasters. This hope now has gone.

5. Climate crisis

Much has been written already on this main topic. It remains high on the list of our major concerns. This it can be handled here just briefly. Even palaeo-politicians like Donald Trump no longer deny that climate change is happening right now before our eyes. That doesn’t mean however that this rather new insight instigates any useful actions to counter the unstoppable change. Quite to the opposite his administration advocates for outdated traditional energy sources at the same time denouncing renewable energy production as ineffective and even dangerous.

6. Growth economy

It is an unquestioned dogma among the members of the ruling classes in all countries I know of that the economy must grow – the more, the better. How long can this go on, infinitely? Maybe we should remind the leading schools of economists that we in the end live on a finite planet. Taking this proposition combined with the outlook of a finally stalling population growth should only leave productivity increase as a remaining driver for economic growth. Raised in an era where infinitely on-going ‘progress’ was our underlying assumption for all further considerations only a few academics so far regard a zero-growth economy as desirable or even possible. However, the outlook of a stationary economy appears to be only a logical consequence, if we seriously pursue the goal of a sustaining human life on earth. I think it is time to demand new sustainable economic models from the scholarly world.

7. Potential for conflict

As it could have been expected evidence is mounting that resource scarcity drives competition and potential for conflict, as does overpopulation. According to the “The Global Risks Report 2019, 14^th Edition” of the World Economic Forum the geopolitical risks are on the rise. In its foreword it explicitly asks rhetorically:

“Is the world sleepwalking into a crisis? Global risks are intensifying but the collective will to tackle them appears to be lacking. Instead, divisions are hardening. The world’s move into a new phase of strongly state-centred politics, noted in last year’s Global Risks Report, continued throughout 2018. The idea of “taking back control”— whether domestically from political rivals or externally from multilateral or supranational organizations— resonates across many countries and many issues. The energy now expended on consolidating or recovering national control risks weakening collective responses to emerging global challenges. We are drifting deeper into global problems from which we will struggle to extricate ourselves.”

Obviously, our leaders are collectively heading into the wrong direction. They don’t do that just by their own discretion, as we have to concede. Nevertheless, it’s time to mobilize appropriate counterforces.

Where is the resistance?

But where are the young people, who later have to pay the bill?

Do they just let it all happen to them? Or do they even believe the barely hidden agendas of the devious elites? Are they willing to be instrumentalized? Do they still have hope, while should know it better? Or have they already given up inside and just apathetically play their role in the end-time game? Have they defiantly but despondently withdrawn into the cocoon of a small, private life?

One thing can be said for sure: certainly, they are not rebellious.

Of course, there are some iconic exceptions, well-known for a while, pushed by media and possible interested groups. In some cases, they have been awarded prizes, sedated by public honours, inserted as a well-dosed opposition into a likewise well-functioning system. The role assigned to them then is to add credibility to those in charge, to assure all those who maintain their doubts: Look, people, we take you seriously, we listen, you have your important place in society - and then we continue as we did before. Anyway, the show must go on.

Let’s randomly pick and mention a few examples, representing all the others, who didn’t make it into the public consciousness. But even they quickly did or will fall victim to public amnesia.

Malala Yousafzai a prominent Pakistani activist of the Pashto tribe, who engaged for the right to education for girls. In 2014 she was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize, making her one of the youngest Nobel prize laureates ever. Two years earlier she nearly had to pay with her life for her activism, when she was shot by a gunman of the so-called Taliban in an assassination attempt.

Emma González, an American activist and advocate for gun control. As a high school senior she survived the February 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida. In response she co-founded the gun-control advocacy group Never Again MSD. Her touching speech is still or even more worth listening to.

Greta Thunberg, a 15 years old Swedish school girl, was recently in the headlines, when she refused to go to school to get politicians to act on the looming climate crisis. Her actions indeed gained worldwide attention. She inspired school students across the globe to participate in student strikes.

All three selected activists are girls. I am not sure, if this is just a coincidence. Each of them took action for a different reason, targeted different nuisances, calamities, threats. All in common have the limited effect on the course of the world, while global societies are racing with high and even accelerating speed towards the dead end of the road.


One more remark on the last person in the list, who is about to lead an international movement: One may not want to trust the students, who are truanting school lessons, to have a lasting influence on the course of the world. It is well easy to blame them for their actions, to criticise them. They however hold one precious ingredient in their hands: moral legitimacy. Who if not them, who will later have to shoulder the burden of the ‘relentless unforeseen’, has more right to stand up against the prevailing political ignorance?


The stupidest of all objections, which immediately backfired, was brought forward by the leader of the German Liberal Party, Christian Linder. He in all seriousness stated that the protesting students should leave such complicated things as actions against climate change to the professionals. By that he most probably first and foremost meant himself. Let's once again make ourselves clear what distinguishes a professional from the rest of the world: He does his job not out of his own inclination, as an amateur would, but as a profession, i.e. for money.


It is precisely these professionals who have led the world to the edge of the abyss. In their hubris they also have the chutzpah and arrogance to tell us that we should please let the fox guard the chicken - again. How stupid do they think we are? Well, obviously very stupid.

Contemplation

So folks, having read all this, what exactly now should be done, can be done? As giving up definitely is not an option, something needs to be done, some swift and bold actions to be taken. Time is running out, if it isn’t too late already. Should a new political party be founded, one that is better than the existing ones? Should we vigorously funnel our concerns into the established political channels? Should we keep on protesting until those we put in charge finally wake up to reality?


Well, maybe all of that. Of course, corrective actions are necessary, even overdue. But first the world needs to be shaken by clear and powerful message. To do so, we have to agree on the core message. Next we need to spread it globally. “Think global, act locally” to me appears to be more than convenient buzzword for playing bullshit bingo. We should rather take it as an imperative.


There can be no doubt that the current major challenges are global by their very nature. They will affect us globally. They will not be successfully addressed by a single heroic act of a single responsibly acting state or region, but ask for a joint global effort.


On the other hand, the environment for political activities is set up differently according to local conditions. In democracies indeed a new political party could be the vehicle of choice. In countries under authoritarian rule a kind of civil disobedience of the majority would need to prepare the ground for some more enlightened activities.


My advice is twofold:

1^st convene & commit,
2^nd agitate & act

Why should we deliberately weaken our forces by splitting them into several units?
Let me briefly explain, what I mean …
Political day-to-day business can sometimes become stressful and turbulent. The actors, especially when they are still in their initial phase, all too easily experience the pressure of established forces. Occasionally they may tempted to give in, to agree to dirty deals, just to save a tiny bit of their original noble intention, in short: to deviate from the principles they once set for themselves, hereby betraying them.

Also, as mentioned before, political actions, at least nowadays are local by their nature whereas the principles need to be global in order to allow a sustaining life on earth. And finally not only our goals need to be adjusted, the political programs reshaped, our targets recalibrated. The operational mode of performing politics itself needs to undergo a fundamental change in order to better cope with our human weaknesses, which onto today managed to compromise even the noblest intentions. But more on this further down in this text.

So we deem it wise to separate imagination from implementation, principles from politics, and rules from ruling, just like legislation an execution should be well separated in a properly governed state. Principles and rules should better be elaborated and maintained by a separate organization unaffected by the hardships and deceptive temptations of everyday political life.

Convene & Commit

To unfold even the slightest impact, we first need to become many, I mean assemble all those concerned individuals, who consider themselves as world citizens to some kind of group. Let’s call it the world citizen league for now. The sole purpose of this separate organisation will be defining and refining these principles and rules and publishing them. That’s all – nothing more, nothing else.

Second we ought to agree to a few basic principles. Some of which should be unalterable, others, on a lower level, so fundamental that can be changed only through the vote of a overwhelming majority and below those, principles which remain open for frequent discussion and occasional alteration via simple majority.

Thirdly we should publicly commit to these self-imposed principles and vow to act according to them.

Once we happen to achieve these three stated goals, we will create a voice which cannot be ignored any longer but needs to be listened to.

Agitate & Act

Political activists, pressure groups, parties may then refer to these world citizen principles, incorporate them into their programs and agendas and locally implement them locally in ways which could never be foreseen centrally from a global perspective.

This chapter is deliberately left short as, following the above statement, there is not much we can say here about how to implement these principles in effective action. However the principles themselves will shape the actions to be taken as they not just focus on the political message but gives hints how to run political operations as well.

Principles

Mandatory principles

#1.   Sustainable life

Principle: All our deliberate human activities must integrate into a sustainable model of coexistence with each others and with all other living beings of this planet, which is best suited to ensure a long-term survival of humanity.

Rationale: Ensuring the on-going existence of mankind is the dominating goal. Next to it there can be no other goals of equal rank, but prerequisites and derived goals. An obvious prerequisite is the preservation or restoration of a healthy and sustainably habitable environment. So we have to put an end to all unsustainable economic activity. All other goals are of a lower rank and need to be subordinated to the fundamental ueber-goal #1.

#2: Preserving civil liberties

Principle: We follow principle #1 with the utmost diligence while granting as much of the individual’s civil liberties as possible without being detrimental to principle #1.

Rationale: To stop looting this planet and to eventually repair the damage, that has already been done so far, certainly requires a huge joint effort. It is hard to imagine that all individuals on this planet will voluntarily join any initiative, which intends to take up with this gigantic project. Rather we will have to act globally as a community. This means getting organized and disciplined to a much higher degree than it has ever been done outside of strictly authoritarian regimes. As following principle #1 may be conflicting with following principle #2, our vision of a free and self-determined life will be put to the test. The civil liberties, which we hold deer in Europe and some other parts of the world may well become threatened. We surely must be cautious not to lose too much of what we have achieved in this respect during the last 300 years since the dawn of enlightenment. For this reason, ‘Preserving civil liberties’ is the only secondary goal to stay unaltered under all conditions.

Essential principles

#3: The nation state had its time

Principle: A few supranational bodies need to replace the current multiple nation states. Ultimately one single multi-nation state will remain.

Rationale: Nation states, as we know them, will not be capable to successfully face the current and future challenges. We think, feel and act as world citizens. Facing common challenges, we need to act as one community – the world citizens. In terms of governance in mid-term time frames a few supranational bodies need to replace the multiple nation states, which are currently competing for the scarce resources of this planet. Eventually there will be no alternative to some consolidated world governance, resulting in statehood for a federated United Nations.

#4: Reduce world population

Principle: We need to actively manage the world population

Rationale: The world population number is by far the most impactful key factor for any globally sustainable human life. Several foot print calculations, best expressed in the yearly world overshoot day, as well as simple logic teach us that there will be an upper limit to the number of humans this planet is able to sustainable nourish. Assuming to take the average standard of living and of resource consumption of economically advanced countries as the global standard, simple logic, once applied, tells us that it is too late already, as we are too many by now. Short term goal must be to stabilize world population well below the magic number of 10 billion. On the long run we will be compelled to reduce the total world population again. The maximum sustainable number is still unknown. It is expected however to be considerably lower than the current unsustainable world population. In the end it might be not much higher than 1 to 2 billion heads.

#5: No more professional politicians

Principle: Let machines rule our daily affairs – according to human made principles & rules.

Rationale: Politics is too precious an art to leave it to politicians. While there is much consensus to be found that the much-desired mythical strong leader to ‘pull us out of the morass’ and ‘lead us to the promised land’ will do more bad than good. In states under democratic rule too the elected and mandated politicians after a short while overwhelmingly just care for their own career as political professionals. At best they will be just dominated and, in the end, corrupted by the hunt for voters for their parties and themselves. The temptation of populism is their permanent companion. They fall prey to lobbyists or simply lose touch with the mundane problems of their original voter’s base. In corporate management there is a early movement considering to "get rid of the managers" (e.g. Ricardo Semler, whose TED Talk went viral). Still considered as esoteric by the majority of orthodox scholars they demand to redefine the term “manager”, and question whether the idea of “management” as it was inherited from the industrial era, has outlived its usefulness. As the ‘agent dilemma’ applies to governments as well as to business corporations, the operational acting power needs to be taken away from the ‘professionals’ and rather transferred to systems. Let humans contribute to Meta politics. But let systems rule – not politicians.

#6: Limitation of inequality

Principle: Economic inequality needs to be limited to an upper bound.

Rationale: “All men are created equal” states the US Declaration of Independence. The idea was adopted from European Enlightenment philosophy and likewise found its way into several other constitutions. It is safe to equal "all men" with humanity in this context. Of course, it was never the intention to ‘make’ all humans being equal. Rather the goal was to grant them equal chances. Even equal chances were more of a program, or even a dream than ever reality. For economists inequality is a prime driver of economic growth – the higher the inequality, the higher the growth rate. Indeed, the ability to differentiate from others seems to be a driving force. Leading us humans to undertake great efforts to be different, unequal. However, there are limits to these beneficial effects. One inequality, e.g. measured by Atkinson index introduced by Sir Anthony B. Atkinson rises to a degree where the worlds wealth concentrates in the hand of a few (and we not very far away from this situation), where a few sovereign individuals can steer the fate on the masses, where economic power seamlessly blends with political influence, inequality has the potential to tear societies apart. In economy markets are very efficient instruments - as long as they don’t degrade. They need to supervised and regulated in order not to run astray. Besides that, there are several areas like the infamous ‘natural monopolies’ or limited natural resources, where free markets don’t work at all. In history there are many examples of harsh corrective action taken by states like anti-trust regulations, forced split up of corporations and other measures how to deal with this problem. Likewise, we have to find measures to limit inequality in order not to risk the bloodshed of a revolution. Maybe Tony Atkinsons 15 proposals may give us some guidance.

#7: Steady state economy

Principle: establish and run an economy which can be in a healthy state even with zero growth.

Rationale: economical growth cannot be any longer the underlying paradigm of all economic theories. Our current economy however is structured for growth. When consumption slows in a growth economy, recession ensues. Saying goes that failure to grow causes economic turmoil and unemployment. Surely no one wants that. Population growth is one of the major drivers of economic growth. But world population growth needs to be stopped very soon and rather reversed to a certain degree over the coming decades. Also exploitation of natural resources will soon be limited in either or the other way. Technological progress may still provide growth via increase of productivity and the creation of new markets for immaterial goods. Traditional ‘scientific’ orthodoxy however still has to find ways to deal with the fact that this kind of economy will not very likely resemble the proclaimed growth economy, but rather some kind of stationary economy.

A final word

As this paper certainly is not the right place to elaborate the complete driving principles, all world citizens should commit to, I will limit its number just to 7. Those are fundamental principles. They need to be augmented further and detailed several levels deeper to eventually result in executable rules. Balancing these often-conflicting basic principles certainly will be a monstrous task. It will require years of work dedicated by a larger group of devoted people.

To act as a community for our future, we must be that community. No one else will. And we have to do it now. The ruling no-future generation will not like it. But there is no time to lose if we don’t want to end as the renowned Australian scientist Professor Frank Fenner predicts “Humans will be extinct in 100 years”.

So, stand up and convene & commit.

Horst Walther (horst.walther@worldcitizensleague.org)

Also published here and here

The political career

"He doesn't bite. He just wants to play," dog owners tend to state about their tail-wagging, four-legged best friends.

Using a similar statement, I like to start my characterisation of contemporary politicians:

"They have no plans to make politics; They only want to advance their careers.”

So, don't worry, things are not as bad as they seem. Despite all thunderous speeches, no harm is to be expected. The political message is anyway crafted just to please the majority of potential voters. Successfully advancing on the career path is the sole criterion.

But a caveat should be expressed here: what is said applies only to organisations in which it is worthwhile, in which there is an attractive career to follow - and the political programme is anyway determined more by opinion polls than by one's own convictions. On the extreme right and left of the political spectrum, things usually look different. Actors here still pursue their conviction, follow their mission - at least at the beginning.

Will this process bless us with the political elite, which we believe we need? Probably not.

Let us postpone for a moment the question of whether we really need a "political elite". But rather contemplate why don't we get it in this way either?

Well, the instinctive, quickly responding jungle fighter is not the same as the far-sighted leader at his lonely hill top. To be able to instantaneously assess every suspicious rustling in the twilight of the undergrowth, in which every newbie begins his or her career, to recognize if a faint shadow hints at a threat, to form tactical alliances for an appropriate time span, in short: survival skills, are essential for the ascent. Otherwise the ambitious newcomer will not survive the first few days in the back rooms of endlessly stretching committee meetings. But do these skills also qualify to lead a government agency, a state?

Of course, a survival of the fittest, a selection most capable is conducted here. Those who win, are not simply dummies - well, in general not. But it is a special selection. Like any other ascent within a hierarchy the traditional political career in this country as in others on its "long march" from the fresh novice to the powerful party leader has to climb through different stages. It goes without saying that the skills required of the candidates vary from level to level. The selection process needs to begin anew at each level, perhaps occasionally resulting in no suitable candidate being available.

Snakes and other reptiles, as well as insects, skin themselves when they want to grow. This is what careerists do in corporate hierarchies. That's what is done in the course of a party career too. They simply morph into a new role, sometimes into a new identity, change their habits, occasionally their environment, dump their old contacts and replace them by new ones. They "acquire" the required optimal skill set for this role. It's all just a question of engineering, of management.

Hmmm, does it work like that? Is it that simple? There is one more thing. At some stage you also have to think about how you will be viewed by the public. In spite of all your qualifications, you have to have to appear authentic. For that you have to be able to show some cleverly designed peculiarities, forgivable weaknesses and personal traits, maybe even a certain folkloric heritage. Because later the people will finally also be the electorate.

But the hard work of the loyal party members at the base must also be rewarded too. Otherwise in the end there might not be any sedan bearers for the powerful. Every pyramid needs its base. So, there are also alternative ways to the top - maybe even without going through 7 moults.

But that's what it's all about, the way up, which many equate with the way to power, power over others.

This machinery has been working like this for a long time. It has already produced entire generations of politicians, including those whose lack of foresight we deplore so much, whose party bickering gets on our nerves, whom we do not trust to guide us safely through the perils that lie ahead of us on the uncertain path to the future.

So if we want a new, a completely different political elite, it seems that it must be created by other mechanisms, perhaps without a classical career.
But is this political elite really necessary? In the digital age, is the professional politician, who is capable of everything, but of nothing else 😊, actually still up to date?

My answer here is a clear no.

Politics is too important to be left to politicians, who - see above - do not want to "bite" at all. We obviously need a completely different system to come to political decisions, to regulate, to govern.

We do not have this system today. Most probably we do have consensus on that. I do not know any consolidated and accepted theories on how it should look like. In the absence of any reliable third party to take the burden for us, inconveniently we have to think ourselves, to stepwise approach the solution ourselves - preferably deductively, top-down.

My thesis is: Less humans - more program, according to the well-known graffito "No power for nobody".

Party programs have been around for a long time. Every party has one. Few voters have ever read one or even built their election decisions on it. In most cases, they are rather vague and kept in a general diction so as not to unnecessarily restrict the political scope of the actors involved. Accordingly, they seldom provide decisive assistance in concrete decision-making cases.

The word "programme" generally has at least two meanings: One is the party program in question. In the context of computers of all kinds it is equated with a deterministic calculation prescription. What would it be like if we merge both variants? I have already thought about this elsewhere. I don't want to repeat them here. Just this much can be said: In the end and in the long run I expect algorithms to be the better politicians.

Will politicians then become jobless? No, they become programmers - party programmers. Perhaps then we will no longer need professional politicians, or at least not that many. Part-time or after-work politicians can also participate in the drafting, voting and extensive testing of the rules. The path to more direct democracy, which delvers rather dysfunctional results when done via popular petitions and similar actions – maybe except in Switzerland (more on this here @ "5. Time for more direct democracy?") - is thus paved by a regulated participation in the body of rules with the help of contemporary electronic communication.

A permanent party conference like a Facebook chat? Yes, why not? Code is law – the Cypher Punk movement has known that for long already.

Die politische Karriere

„Der beißt nicht. Der will nur spielen“, sagen Hundeführer gerne über ihre Schützlinge. 

Mit einem ähnlichen Statement will ich meine heutigen Ausführungen über den Weg von Politikern beginnen: 

„Die machen keine Politik. Die wollen nur Karriere machen.“ 

Also keine Angst, alles halb so wild, nichts wird so heiß gegessen, wie es gekocht wird. Der politische Inhalt wird nach Opportunität zurecht gebogen. Der Aufstiegserfolg ist das alleinige Kriterium. 

Aber ein Caveat sei angebracht: Das Gesagte gilt nur für Organisationen, in denen es sich lohnt, in denen sich auch eine Karriere mache lässt – und die politische Programm ohnehin eher durch Meinungsumfragen als durch die eigene Überzeugung bestimmt wird. Am rechten und linken Rand des politischen Spektrums sieht das meistens anders aus. Hier sitzen noch Überzeugungstäter – zu Beginn jedenfalls. 

Erhalten wir auf diese Weise die politische Elite, die wir glauben, zu brauchen? Wohl eher nicht. 

Vertagen wir für einen Augenblick einmal die Frage, ob wir denn wirklich eine „politische Elite“ benötigen. Aber warum erhalten wir sie auf diese Weise eben auch nicht? 

Nun, der instinktsichere, reaktionsschnelle Dschungelkämpfer ist eben nicht der weitblickende Führer auf seinem einsamen Gipfel. Jedes verdächtige Rascheln blitzschnell einschätzen zu können, im Zwielicht des Unterholzes, in dem man nun mal seine Karriere beginnt, einen Schatten als Bedrohung zu erkennen, gleichzeitig aber die richtigen Allianzen – auf Zeit zu schmieden, kurz Survival-Fähigkeiten, - sie sind für den Aufstieg essential. Sonst überlebt der ehrgeizige Neuling schon die ersten Tage in den Hinterzimmern der Gremiensitzungen nicht. 

Aber qualifizieren sie auch zur Führung einer Behörde, eines Staats? 

Natürlich findet hier eine Auswahl der Fähigsten statt. Das sind keine Dummchen, die sich hier durchsetzen – na ja, in der Regel nicht. Aber es ist eben eine spezielle Auswahl. Nun geht die traditionelle politische Karriere in diesem, unserem Lande allerdings, wie jeder andere Aufstieg auch über verschiedene Stufen, der „lange Marsch durch die Institutionen“ vom kleinen Parteisoldaten bis zum mächtigen Parteisekretär. 

Klar, dass die Anforderungen an die Kandidaten sich auf den einzelnen Stufen unterscheiden. Die Auswahl muss oder müsste auf jeder Stufe also neu beginnen, mit dem Ergebnis, dass vielleicht einmal kein geeigneter Kandidat zur Verfügung steht. Schlangen und andere Reptilien, wie auch Insekten, häuten sich, wenn sie wachsen wollen. Das tun Karrieristen in Unternehmenshierarchien. Das tun Parteiaufsteiger eben auch. Sie schlüpfen einfach in eine neue Rolle, manchmal in eine neue Identität, ändern ihre Gewohnheiten, manchmal ihr Umfeld und tauschen ihre Kontakte aus. Sie „akquirieren“ den geforderten optimalen „Skillset“ für diese Rolle. 

Alles nur eine Frage des Engineering, des Managements. Hmmm, geht das so, so einfach? Ach eines hatte ich noch vergessen. Ab irgendeiner Stufe muss man auch an die Wirkung auf die Öffentlichkeit denken. Da muss man bei aller Qualifikation, „authentisch ‚rüberkommen“. Dafür muss man einige, geschickt gestaltete „Ecken und Kanten“ vorzeigen können, vielleicht sogar eine gewisse Volkstümlichkeit. Denn das Volk stellt später dann schließlich einmal auch das Wahlvolk. 

Aber die harte Kärrnerarbeit der treuen Parteisoldaten an der Basis muss auch belohnt werden. Sonst finden sich am Ende womöglich keine Sänftenträger für die Mächtigen mehr. Jede Pyramide braucht ihre Basis. Es gibt also auch alternative Wege nach oben – vielleicht sogar, ohne 7 Häutungen zu durchlaufen. 

Aber darum geht es schließlich, um den Weg nach oben, den Viele gleich setzen mit dem Weg zur Macht, Macht über Andere. 

Diese Maschinerie funktioniert schon lange so. Sie hat bereits ganze Politikergenerationen hervorgebracht, also auch die, deren mangelnde Weitsicht wir so sehr beklagen, deren Parteiengezänk uns auf die Nerven geht, denen wir nicht zutrauen, uns heil durch die Fährnisse zu leiten, die auf dem ungewissen Weg in die Zukunft vor uns liegen. Wenn wir also eine neue, eine ganz andere politische Elite wollen, dann muss diese offenbar durch andere Mechanismen hervorgebracht werden, vielleicht unter Verzicht auf eine klassische Karriere. 

Aber ist diese politische Elite eigentlich notwendig? Ist der Berufspolitiker, der alles kann aber sonst Nichts 😊, im digitalen Zeitalter eigentlich noch zeitgemäß? 

Meine Antwort hier ist ein klares Nein. 

Politik ist zu wichtig, als dass wir sie den Politikern überlassen könnten, die – siehe oben – gar nicht „beißen“ wollen. Wir brauchen offenbar ein ganz anderes System, um zu politischen Entscheidungen zu kommen, um zu regeln, zu regieren. 

Dieses System haben wir heute nicht. Darüber herrscht wohl Konsens. 

Wie es aussehen soll, dazu kenne ich keine konsolidierten und akzeptierten Theorien. Also müssen wir selber nachdenken, uns herantasten – am Besten deduktiv, top-down. 

Meine These lautet: Weniger Mensch – mehr Programm, entsprechend dem bekannten Graffito „Keine Macht für Niemand“. 

Parteiprogramme gibt es schon lange. Jede Partei hat eins. Wenige Wähler haben je eines gelesen oder gar ihre Wahlentscheidungen darauf aufgebaut. Meistens sind sie allgemein gehalten, um den politischen Spielraum der handelnden Akteure nicht unnötig einzuengen. Entsprechend geben sie im konkreten Entscheidungsfall selten determinierende Entscheidungshilfe. 

Das Wort „Programm“ hat im allgemeinen Verständnis mindestens zwei Bedeutungen: Einmal eben das besagte Parteiprogramm. Im Kontext von Computern aller Art wird es mit einer deterministischen Rechenvorschrift gleichgesetzt. 

Wie wäre es eigentlich, wenn wir beide Varianten zusammen führten? Darüber habe ich mir bereits an anderer Stelle Gedanken gemacht . Ich will sie hier nicht wiederholen. Nur soviel sei gesagt: Im Ergebnis und langfristig betrachtet halte ich Algorithmen für die besseren Politiker. 

Werden Politiker dann arbeitslos? Nein, sie werden zu Programmierern – Parteiprogrammierer. Vielleicht braucht man dann auch keine Berufspolitiker mehr, oder jedenfalls nicht mehr so viele. An Entwurf, Abstimmung und den umfangreichen Tests, können dann auch Teilzeit- oder Feierabendpolitiker mitwirken. 

Der Weg zu mehr direkter Demokratie, der über Bürgerbegehren und ähnliche Aktionen – außer in der Schweiz – eher schlecht funktioniert, ist damit über eine geregelte Mitwirkung am Regelwerk mithilfe aktueller elektronischer Kommunikation geebnet. 

Ein permanenter Parteitag nach Art eines Facebook-Chats? Ja, warum denn nicht?

A case for Meta-Politics

When you want to engage in politics you first need to make decisions, where to position yourself. Are you more inclined to the libertarian side or the authoritarian? Do your principles and preferences better fit to the left or to the right, or even far left or far right? Do you consider any change as inevitable anyway or are you more of a conservative or even a retro-enthusiast? Do you envision religious belief as a driving political force? Or would you better like to keep religion and politics apart? If change, do you envision modest evolutionary adjustments to a societal system, otherwise working fine? Or would you rather advocate radical change even if it requires taking recourse to a violent overthrow of the existing order - in short a revolution?

You have to decide. You have to position yourself.

But will this really be sufficient?

What if you are not just seeking to defend and maximise your personal comfort, your peer group's advantage or just some convenient status quo?

What if you are inclined to pursue your goal in a larger picture, if your time horizon is more secular than quarterly of spanning a legislative period, if you have survival of mankind in mind for example?

Well, yes, I know in times were money talks and great 'unrealistic' visions give way to real-politics and to doing sound business, even voicing such ideas has become unfashionable. Those who don't comply with the imperative of short-term economic 'reason' will soon be branded daydreamers, fantasists or even evil communists. They'll be considered useless for serious business and will be kept out of it. Friends will turn their backs on them, leaving them as bitter lone wolfs. So this is obviously not a viable way and is in no way recommended.

And yet for those who interrupt their rush for a moment, take a deep breath and look around, there are compelling reasons to take exactly this broader perspective.

And if this view still appears a bit fuzzy and unfounded to you, let me entice you phantasy by giving you some insight into the concerns of those whom in the above drafted logic you should admire most, the likes of Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel or Marc Zuckerberg of this world.

The report given by Douglas Rushkoff in "Survival of the Richest", making the point that "the wealthy are plotting to leave us behind" as they are firmly convinced that either of the expectable catastrophes is inevitably looming, is not even the first evidence, that we will eventually hit the wall, if continuing the way as we pursue it now.

Earlier this year already The Guardian's Mark O'Connell wrote "Why Silicon Valley billionaires are prepping for the apocalypse in New Zealand", hinting at an extreme libertarian tract, which inspired the likes of Peter Thiel to buy up property across the Pacific. This disturbing prophecy, written by Jacob Rees-Mogg's father, is predicting the collapse of liberal democracies.

Obviously, then, there is something going on that worries even those, who are otherwise in charge of leading medium to large economic empires and thus decisively controlling the development whose results they seem to fear.

And they are not alone. Besides those prominent danger signals from the corporate top, there are occasionally some experts voicing unease with the imperative of exponential economic growth while at the same time facing the prospect shrinking resources. I have compiled some thoughts on this topic earlier this year.

Without the need of invoking doomsday scenarios it can easily be demonstrated that political positions, as firm as they may appear at a given point in time and as ultimate the stance with which they may be defended, turn out to be rather fluid when viewed over a longer term.

The influence of the respective zeitgeist on the prevailing political views can be nicely illustrated by the example of a particularly broad political trend, Liberalism.

Initially it was about the struggle for civil liberties and against the traditional authorities, who derived their legitimacy from some of God-given, mythical primeval states. But later the orientation took on different characteristics.

Inseparably linked to the ideas of the Enlightenment, the Liberals initially took it for granted that the moral foundations of human coexistence should also be rationally derived from the requirements to a functioning community. They thus stood in stark contrast to the conservative traditionalists. As for those this morality could only be religiously motivated and brought directly from their respective God to us earthworms.

This contrast was later blurred. Whether only religious conservatives became receptive to liberal ideas or liberals without spirituality felt an inner emptiness, in the end Christian conservatives, such as the long-standing German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, for example, were declared liberals (see "Liberalism: The Life of an Idea", by Edmund Fawcett).

Many flavours of this movements later popped up like national liberal, leftist liberals, neo-liberals and several more. Driven by the perceived necessities of a particular period they skewed more to the right or to the left, adopted alien ideas, narrowed the focus of their reflections to the salvatory promise of uninhibited market forces or widened it beyond recognition.

In particular, the attitude of liberals to the eternal dispute over whether more community or more individual freedom was appropriate was subject to constant adaptation to the needs of the times. As the above mentioned Douglas Rushkoff concludes his contemplations with the wise words: "Being human is not about individual survival or escape. It's a team sport. Whatever future humans have, it will be together."¹

The politics to pursue in this sense will always result from an attempt of optimising conflicting interests, counteracting forces and strained resources in ever changing force fields. So how can they ever be as static as the current political practices may appear to the naive observer?

Maybe our political goals are just too fine-grained and / or too short-termed. So, do we need goals at all? Or will some well-crafted algorithms suffice?

Although I envy personalities like Ralph Waldo Emerson, who is quoted with "With the past, I have nothing to do; nor with the future. I live now", in politics it is all about goals. Even the conservative approach of preserving a current situation can be perceived as a goal. So the "The best goal is no goal"-Approach will not be applicable here.

But maybe for the start one goal should suffice as the saying goes "More than one goal is no goal". So let's choose the most eminent one: Survival of Mankind.

This certainly is an inherently genuine goal for all of us and it can be safely assumed that survival on individual level as well as on community level is one of the deeply inscribed purposes of (not only) human life - if not the main one.

One may object that it is so obvious and intuitively accepted by everyone, except maybe some ill-advised suicide bombers, that it is not a well suited goal for a political discourse and pursuit.

That's the point where opinion sets in: I don't believe that. Mankind rather looks like being on the brink of collective suicide as contemplated about elsewhere before. We thus better set this goal explicitly.

Since secondary objectives should be allowed as long as they are subordinate, I would add: while respecting the civil liberties for which our ancestors fought so fiercely.

On the basis of this starting point, we should then perhaps actually formulate carefully selected principles - in other words algorithms - which can lead to further secondary objectives. More on this in my above mentioned contribution: "Let algorithms rule - not politicians!".

In detail and at the lowest level, these secondary objectives will certainly feed into day-to-day political business, where they will be able to provide tangible answers to current pressing questions.

However, these answers can then vary depending on the environmental conditions. Not really a new idea - I agree. What is new about this idea however, is rather the transparency, traceability and derivability from unchanged basic principles - without these being influenced by human predilections and propensities:

Meta-politics, in other words.

re-published on:

• Diplomatic Council - Thought Leadership

----------------------------------------------
¹Author of the upcoming book Team Human (W.W. Norton, January 2019) and host of the TeamHuman.fm podcast.

The coming bright dark ages

But you Tiresias, blind old man, perceived the scene, and foretold the rest¹.

McKinsey, well established Consultancy for those who don't shy away from high prices for at times good value, did it again:  Capturing the Zeitgeist in one of their recent surveys about automation. 

1    Lights out on the factory floor

Hello darkness, my old friend - the lights will get out - for good?

Business as usual, better known by those routine-blinded by its acronym BAU, often is characterized by its very purpose to "keep the lights on" - the daily operational business. When the lights go out usually the time of the end has come.

"Are your factories and warehouses operating in the dark? They might be soon." The top-consultants ask their audience rhetorically. You already suspect it: This is about automation, or the upcoming digital transformation, to use the more fashionable term. And of course, in this context, the key and buzz word "disruption" must not be missing, as if it were associated with a positive connotation.

But let's put aside the trenchant irony. Let us close our eyes and imagine how developments may continue and what there will be in for us in the near future.

Will ordinary factory workers soon at their assembly lines be replaced by soulless robots?

2    The robot revolution

An insurgency of subdued robots? No, it's not that kind of fiction - not yet at least. Nevertheless it may be considered as a revolution, taking the first of Webster's definitions, as a sudden, radical, or complete change.

So why, what will likely happen and what exactly is a robot?

Robot - the nearly 100 year old term by the way was coined in K. Capek's play R.U.R 'Rossum's Universal Robots' (1920) and is derived from Czech, robota 'forced labour'.

During the following epoch of belief in progress, the idea of autonomously acting intelligent machines inspired people's imagination. In fiction robots have been capable of independent thought, emotions, even a little cooking and sewing. In practice however the results were initially sobering as scientists found that endowing a mechanical being with even the most basic human functions was and still is a monstrous task.

Although theoretically not impossible, such robotic properties are not required for the more mundane tasks left behind by the segmentation and fragmentation of the work initiated by the 100-year-old scientific management. That movement in the wake of the works of Frederik Winslow Taylor has prepared the factory floor processes well to be performed by still rather dump machines.

In fact, as Gary Hamel states in his landmark book "The Future of Management" that during the century of industrialization we created a work environment in which expected humans to act like machines.

To the extent that machines will be able to take on these simple one-step tasks that we had previously expected people to do, these people could turn to more humane tasks again.

Apparently there is an urgent necessity for that as corporations are desperately striving for innovation requiring the ingredients initiative, creativity and passion, which (still) only humans are capable of.

Therefore, if robots can now solve tricky tasks that even intelligent people often despair of, for example assembling IKEA furniture, then humans will be no longer necessary on the assembly line. At the same time some more human traits are required from us, which some of us might have to re-learn again.

That's true in principle. However the idea, to find its incarnation, needs to undergo some evolutionary steps: The technology must have matured enough to withstand the harsh conditions of a factory floor - as humans can. Then there needs to be a market with some competition, and the robot prices must be such of nature to be able to outcompete us humans on those less inspiring operational tasks.

Well, this is exactly, what the McKinsey survey suggests.

So does this development spell the end of off-shoring? And isn't - for different reasons - globalization on the brink of collapse anyway? Will outplaced manufacturing jobs finally return to their origins?

3    The return of blue-collar jobs - a futile hope

The whole picture, you may have suspected it already, is quite a bit more complex. The job exodus was driven by several factors. One very prominent is the China effect. Bloomberg writes: "Thanks to China's extremely low costs for labour, capital, land and energy, its undervalued exchange rate, and the lure of China's vast domestic market, production shifted to the country en masse in the 2000s; everyone else just couldn't compete."
 
This China effect kept wages low and considerably put otherwise appropriate automation attempts on hold across entire industry sectors. Estimations go that some 5 million US jobs in manufacturing and related activities this way voluntarily migrated across the Pacific towards China since year 2000.

Now, many of China's cost advantages have disappeared. Also access to those billion Chinese consumers, as Joe Studwells excellent research suggests, looks like a fading dream. Other effects being deferred and superseded for the past 30 to 40 years by the massive impact of a major player re-entering the world stage come into view again.

In his 2015 book Rise of the Robots², Martin Ford cites "Seven Deadly Trends" that began in the 1970s-1980s and by the mid 2010s appeared set to continue:

1. Stagnation in real wages
2. Decline in labour's share of national income in many countries (breakdown of Bowley's law), while corporate profits increased
3. Declining labour force participation
4. Diminishing job creation, lengthening jobless recoveries, and soaring long-term unemployment
5. Rising inequality
6. Declining incomes, and underemployment for recent college graduates
7. Polarization and part-time jobs (middle-class jobs are disappearing, to be replaced by a small number of high-paying jobs and large number of low-paying jobs)

He sees automation and information technology as the major drivers. He in particular expects new technologies including narrow AI threaten to destroy jobs faster than displaced workers can be retrained for new jobs, before automation takes the new jobs as well. This includes many jobs categories, such as in transportation, which were never threatened by automation before. According to a 2013 study, about 47% of US jobs are susceptible to automation.

There are contradicting analyses around, trying to explain the obvious and making attempts to predict, what is still hidden deep in the fog of uncertainty. But we can safely assume that the wages will stay low, robot prices will continue falling lower, automation will enjoy a major boost.

4 Meanwhile, the rust belt quietly continues to rust.

Will manufacturing jobs suffer the same fate like agricultural jobs?

Yes, but even more than we have seen so far, as agricultural jobs had been just reduced to that core where sensors, autonomy and some reasoning were still essential. Now however we will have the potential to eradicate the remaining jobs there as well - and so we will do in manufacturing.

With no compelling reason to outsource manufacturing to off-shore locations any longer, manufacturing may return nearer to the markets. The manufacturing jobs however will remain vaporized. While the value creation may return to some extent, it is however not quite clear for whom. Maybe it will be the lucky few, who will benefit in a "the winner takes it all" fashion, not being dependent on blue collar workers like in the past.

Then there will be no more exploited and oppressed working class to stand up and fight for its legitimate interests. Then there may only be left the insiders and the excluded. However, the latter then have the disadvantage that they no longer represent a market with purchasing power. That would be a pretty stupid story then, wouldn't it?

Maybe we may join Franz Kafka, who is (a bit abbreviated) quoted with "There is hope, but not for us".

"Hello darkness, my old friend - I've come to talk with you again". Again? Yes, it's not the first time in history that things for some parts of the society look bleak. Not keeping the lights on on the factory floor needs not to spell disaster for those currently working there. However the solution may not just be left to technology, to market forces or short-sighted economical reason.

Sorry for taking the McKinsey article one step further out of their traditional domain. But solutions may again come from a changed societal paradigm, a new consciousness, which expresses itself - well - in a radically changed perception of the necessary political steps to be undertaken.

Anyway we may conclude already now: The future is not for the faint-hearted.


-----------

¹modified quote taken from "The Waste Land" by T. S. Eliot
²Ford, Martin (May 5, 2015). Rise of the Robots. Basic Books. pp. 29-30. ISBN 0465059996.

TTIP 2.0 - Beware of the undead

Is there a resurrection of TTIP looming? 

On July 26, 2018, the press reported that Trump and Juncker struck a deal. Not sure if it would qualify as an artful one in the sense of the white house matador. Nevertheless hereby the European Union appeared to have won a big trade-war ceasefire with the U.S. for a small price - at least in the short term. 

Bloomberg went on to report that, in return for a pledge by U.S. President Donald Trump to suspend the threat of an extra tariff on European cars, the EU reheated proposals to bolster transatlantic economic ties and threw in a vow to buy more American soybeans. Well, a deal which leaves much to further interpretation and which may only last until Trump's next Twitter rant. 

Unsustainable as this agreement may be, some other, less prominent press release may give us more reason to be concerned: Little more than a year after Donald Trump pulled the US out of the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP), he reportedly had ordered to rejoin the 12-nation trade deal. Should we consider his new effort just as the latest swing of his volatile trade policy? Or is there reason to expect a Deja vue? 

And will this deal possibly breathe ghostly life back into its Atlantic counterpart TTIP, which currently is considered dead as a doornail? And if an arrangement with the Europeans appears to be necessary, are the US considering "TTIP 2.0"? 

The experts were surprised anyway when Trump announced that he no longer wanted to negotiate this "wonderful" instrument of American trade hegemony. Just because it was initiated by his best hated predecessor? 

In the end these treaties, euphemistically declared as agreements to ensure a free and fair world trade, in fact essentially serve US interests. Being instruments to secure American domination, beyond that they are of little use. And certainly they're not fair. Moreover, they are diametrically opposed to values, European have fought for throughout the last 300 years. 

For Europeans these treaties should be considered more of a Danaean gift. Trade agreements of this kind with the USA are merely instruments for the enforcement of US hegemony. The TTIP negotiations have shown that such agreement would have been deeply adverse effects on the sovereignty of European states and would turn out to be detrimental for democracy itself. It would have been so for several reasons. 

The three most prominent are discussed a little further: 

1. The possibility of being able to sue states for real or perceived damages caused by their sovereign decisions (e.g. nuclear phase-out, shift towards renewable energies, bans on driving on combustion engine vehicle in city centres, etc.) would mean that the people can no longer be the sovereign. The sovereignty of the states would be lost, ground-breaking political decisions, which can well be painful but in times of human footprint outsizing the earths capacity by several times appear more necessary than ever, could no longer be taken. According to Steven Hill they represent a leftover concept from the free trade agreements of the 1990s, such as the now discredited North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which ever since has created one uproar after another.
   
   
2. Backroom courts, the so-called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), which are staffed with lobbyists, are clearly a step backwards in time. Why did our forefathers fight so fiercely for separation of powers and legal codification, if we now rather discard them in favour of engaging in a power struggle with the mighty and the powerful? Even the Prussian Civil Code, promulgated before 1800 seems to be more progressive. With TTIP coming into effect, we would have easily abandoned all legal certainty in favour of the right of the strongest.
   
   
3. And finally, secret negotiations are unworthy of democracy. To give a concise example of secretiveness: only parliamentarians and few other selected persons were allowed to view the TTIP text which was subject to the lengthy negotiations, in a specially secluded reading room under supervision and for a maximum of two hours. In addition there was also the obligation of confidentiality - a one sided one. While the EU published its proposals, the US insisted on keeping its positions secret. This might be common bad practise. However to my opinion it violates fundamental principles of even an outspoken representative democracy. It undermines its credibility and gives room to suspicion that lobbyists dictate the rules.
   
   My radical demand in the sense of the Hamburg Transparency Act and beyond is: everything what politicians do professionally, must be totally transparent to the public. It should be permanently streamed on the Internet. However, their private life needs special protection.
   
   Today it is rather the other way around. Political egocentrics make themselves look ridiculous by publishing home stories, paparazzi hunt ministers in bathing shorts in their backyards and family members must serve to raise the reputation of politicians. But most of their work takes place behind closed doors: This is the wrong approach and must be corrected. 

So what is the recommendation? Is there a fix? First let's agree on the fundamental paradigm that a global free and fair trade is desirable and would be a major achievement, once implemented. Attempts had been made, e.g. with the latest round of trade negotiations among the WTO membership, also known as the Doha Round. Although hardly free and never fair, the Doha Round marked a step into the right direction. Exclusive bilateral trade agreements are in no way a match to an inclusive global trade framework.

However there are dark clouds at the horizon. While global growth is approaching 4% this year, it's most robust in eight years, few countries are finding the budgets and political will to make use of this recovery to implement reforms. Reforms however were necessary to improve infrastructure and welfare policies in response to fears about sluggish productivity and wage growth and the impact of automation.

Rather time may be running out, as forces shift to an adverse scenario: Geopolitical risks have helped commodity prices recover, assisting some countries but at the expense of others. Global monetary conditions are tightening, catching several countries wrong footed. Rising tensions reduce the trajectory of world trade as new US tariffs and retaliatory actions take effect. There is a substantial risk that disputes could escalate into trade war.

While these effects may have an eroding effect on the authority of the WTO, there might be no other long-term beneficial choice. I would like to close my contemplations by citing an unsuspicious expert and free trade advocate. Jagdish Bhagwati, Professor of Economics, Columbia University who jokingly suggested cloning Angela Merkel, to become a German export item to at least 10 other countries, opposes TTIP in favour of rejuvenated WTO.

With regard to his first proposal, I would prefer not to comment. However, I can only agree with his position on the second point.