Gathering Pace

           For 300,000 years our biggest problems were too few calories and too little information. For about 30 years our biggest problems have been too many calories and too much information. That’s a very sudden turnaround, but with technology speeding everything up, it may not be so long before the next big leap.

          On an individual level, I have both those surfeits under control (as in keeping the lid on a bubbling-over saucepan) and am preoccupied with another human dilemma: how to cultivate a new social life, under lockdown, 400 miles from the one I abandoned three months ago. There are three obvious avenues of approach – neighbours, introductions and chance encounters – and, fortunately, I can report progress on all three. It is too early to call this a network, since it is a random assortment of people with whom I have no shared history and between whom there may or may not be connections. However, one thing is certain: I will have to adopt a degree of flexibility if I am to weave myself into this new cast of characters.

          Take Pete, a man of about my age that I was introduced to. He and I now meet for walks of urban exploration, investigating features such as redundant railways or remnants of long-gone buildings and other historical traces. Only recently have I learned that he has an angle-grinder, which he uses to “liberate” gates that “they” have padlocked and that he considers an infringement of public rights of way.

          Then there is the topically named John Lewis, an ex-Royal Marine Commando, who is engaged on a solo mission to ensure the upkeep of our local park, Mount Wise, (despite the fact he lives miles away) by means of guerrilla-maintenance. He eschews contact with any such organisation as “friends-of” on the grounds that committees are ineffective, whereas he, as a man of action – trained as such at the public expense and steeped in the ethos of self-reliance in the face of adversity – gets on with it. “What about getting the council’s agreement?” I asked. “No Chance! They would prevaricate on the grounds of insurance liabilities, whereas my work actually makes the park safer while they waffle.”

          Then there is Fred, a man who walks his dog regularly around here. I have only spoken to him twice, but he talks at length and with a troublingly neo-liberal take on things. He is especially outraged that the two ex-Admirals’ residences, that sit grandly atop Mount Wise with “millionaire” views, are occupied by Social Services for the care of disadvantaged youngsters. “They ought to be converted to boutique hotels to promote the tourist trade”, says he.

          So, have I fallen in with a bad lot? Well, it is certainly refreshing to come across people with diverse views. As with delving into a newspaper that is not your habitual read, mixing with people who are not your habitual company can challenge your entrenched attitudes. The thing is, I find it hard to disagree with Pete and John over the efficacy of taking unilateral action for the public benefit, just as I cannot disagree with Fred over the need to transition the local economy from military to tourist-based. What prevents me, however, from embracing wholeheartedly any of their stances is the logical conclusions that would ensue. Is it right that individuals should decide for us what is in the public interest? Where is the balance between privatisation of property for profit (and the supposedly ensuing economic bonus of employment opportunity) and utilisation of property for public benefits other than financial?

          These are big questions but, now that we have enough food and information, perhaps we can make some progress towards their resolution? If so, let’s make it quick. I would love to live to see the outcomes.