...so I am quite taken with the idea at the moment that every step forward is a step backward, and every added convenience creates the phenomenon of inconvenience in ever increasing amounts for us. I saw a piece on Newsnight the other evening in which the case was being put for the removal of traffic lights altogether from junctions in the UK. The idea has been piloted in Sweden where it works very well. Essentially instead of traffic lights and yellow boxes and road markings, the rules are simple: Only go when your route is clear, and pedestrians have right-of-way over all vehicles. The idea is that people being drivers are just like people being pedestrians, and fully able to avoid bumping into eachother and letting other vehicles pass if it is not safe to do anything else.
The bigger idea, and one that I am keen on at present, is that external control infantilises us, in that it removes our motivation to internalise discipline and caution and patience, and take and own responsibility for our own choices and actions. If there is no traffic light ahead of me, I will not speed up in an attempt to get to it before it turns red; if there is no mechanical controlling device at a junction, I will slow down for it, and scan the other roads leading into the junction cautiously before I pull out. And if I do not, I may be killed.
Remove risk, and you remove the host of skills, psychological developments and behaviours that are generated in order to mount an effective response to the existence of those risks. I can keep my child 100% safe if I lock him or her in their bedroom for the first 20 years of their lives, but the day they leave - or break out - their vulnerability, naivety and weakness will do for them within 24 hours.
Similarly, it is slowly emerging that our attempt to minimise risk and maximise safety though pumping our foods full of artificially added vitamins and dietary supplements, and generating media campaigns warning against the dangers of fats or salt etc is having the exactly opposite effect on our dietary health than intended. We die later than we used to, but almost always from a diet-related illness - heart problems, cancers, diabetes - while obesity is becoming a norm.
Another example: as I was playing my Xbox the other day, I noticed that the design of the game requires that I wait and watch a 20 second film sequence before I can begin to play each time. I noticed that I was incredibly frustrated and angry at having to wait each time. Then I remembered the 15 minute wait to upload programs via a magnetic tape recorder on my ZX81 on the early eighties. I realised that I minded the 20 seconds in 2008 much more than the 15 minutes in 1984. The added convenience of things taking less time seems to come with the hidden price of increased expectation and impatience, such that, as the things get more 'convenient', I find myself experiencing the frustration and anger of inconvenience much more often and intensely. Then I thought of the children my friend Zuni and I had walked with in Ladakh in the Himalayas, whose walk home from school every evening took them an hour. Not one of them complained about the length of time it took to get home every night - that particular frustration was simply not a part of their lives. My journey home in London takes me about 20 minutes, and - unless I remember to meditate - is a constant experience of frustration and impatience, as I know it is for most other road users. Stay stationary for 20 seconds after a traffic light has changed to green in London and see what happens, if you doubt me.
So. Half the journey time, double the anger and frustration. What is 'convenient' about that? Less and less is demanded of us every year, and with it our ability to rise to challenges continues to erode, and our expectations of 100% safety and 100% convenience rise up, and torture us. People in London are more scared of crime in 2008 than they were 20 years ago, while, as a result of the surveillance culture, cameras on every street, DNA testing on arrest, mobile phone tracking and internet monitoring, crime rates have fallen sharply in the same time. More fear, less crime. And the criterion which effects whether we have more or less policing and surveillance is not the crime rate, but the levels of fear of crime, as this is a democracy and thus people's perceptions are far more significant and instrumental in effecting change than facts.
So lets extend the graph in order to make a guess at what the future will be like. As crime continues to decrease, thus becoming a phenomenon that people are less and less accustomed to encountering, fear of it will continue to increase. We will continue to be informed of every single interesting or frightening crime that takes place via our all-pervading media no matter how far from our own homes and lives they are,, and will therefore continue to demand more and more protection against it. Pretty much the rarest crime at present is terrorism. Which of you have been a victim of it? How often is the crime committed in this country compared to, say, 30 years ago? How many hands would you need to count the incidents on your fingers? So, slowly, the protections will close in around us - iris scans, ID cards, cameras, road markings, road bumps, traffic lights, email monitoring, centralised databases, data-sharing between the world's secret services, and as the net closes in our fear of the things it is there to protect us against will increase. I do not posit anything sinister on the part of our governments as this future is built; they are simply doing what we want, attempting to address our growing, inexplicable fear and anger.
We will continue to increase the percentage of our lives spent sitting in front of electronic entertainment devices, as will our children, and thus our craving for entertainment will continue to grow unabated, as are bodies grow fatter and less and less serviceable for physical activity. We will strive ever harder in our schools to make the information that it is imperative that our children learn 'entertaining' for them, as education increasingly finds that it has to compete with entertainment-dedicated industries, and continue to shake our heads in concern that our children do not seem to be engaged or interested in any activities that do not derive from or move toward the media. Our frustration and anger that all our needs are not met immediately will spiral. Take a Londoner to India and expect them to wait an hour and a half for a meal in a restaurant, and watch them.
Eventually, as inevitably happens in human societies, someone cynical will find themselves sitting atop this new society and decide to misuse the people in some distinctly non-democratic way. What will happen? What has often happened historically when some despot begins to commit atrocities against the people? Rebellion? Revolution? How will this express itself? Will it be in the form of rioting? Or armed struggle?
The people will be too fat and scared. The mechanisms which have been put in place to prevent anti-social behaviour, crime and terrorism are the same mechanisms which will be more then capable of suppressing rebellion. In fact, if one wished to permanently prevent a society rising and overthrowing its leaders and ruling class, they are exactly the mechanisms which one would seek to put in place.
We are fat, unhappy, frightened, frustrated, addicted to entertainment, poorly educated, physically weak, increasingly isolated from eachother, dying in ever rising numbers as a result of the diet we are fed, infantilised by the mechanisms of control that we have demanded surround us, alienated from the our own subsistence, distanced from the natural environments that created us and more vulnerable to being misused and enslaved by the powerful few than at any time in human history.
So. Lets look at banning traffic lights.