Paul Buckingham - Blog Philosophy and life in general

Many people have already decided that 2025 will be a year to be endured rather than enjoyed. After all, we have the prospect of a Trump/Musk government in America, political instability in Europe - especially in France and Germany - with a movement towards the right in general and the facile responses of popularism. And then there is still the war in Ukraine.

Here we have a government that was only elected in July 2024 with a significant majority, but which now has a prime minister with a level of unpopularity equal to that of Liz Truss. We have the possibility of a Nigel Farage revival, with or without the financial help of Elon Musk. There is a Conservative party that is currently without a political programme and with a leader who is incapable of distinguishing herself from Farage.

And now we have a warning from Trump about the UK government's imposition of a windfall profits tax on oil companies with North Sea oil fields (that war in Ukraine again). He added an appeal to the UK to get rid of ‘our windmills’. So, all's well!

Unfortunately, the news, at least what is reported, is rarely encouraging. As a result, we see the world through a distorting lens. Because there are good things too - and not just that, so far, nuclear war has not broken out or that ‘Gavin and Stacey’, the finale, broke records for the number of viewers - 20 million.

We cannot celebrate that the Covid pandemic ‘broke out’ five years ago(!). But we can celebrate the remarkable scientific advances that have resulted from it. As we know, it is now possible to create a vaccine very quickly. In the past there was normally a development period of at least ten years. But, with the regulator's direct involvement with Pfizer to ensure the quality of the product, they created a vaccine in nine months. The vaccine was however a traditional vaccine. Usually a version of the key protein is introduced into the body. But to introduce it, it must first be produced in living cells, which is expensive and slow.

The Covid pandemic however also saw the rapid development of another technology: the use of messenger RNA (mRNA), which can be produced much more easily and on an industrial scale. These Covid vaccines were created in less than a year and beat the previous record of four years for mRNA-based vaccines, set by the mumps vaccine.

These new vaccines have not only saved millions of lives, but also confirmed the potential of mRNA in transforming treatments for a variety of diseases and genetic disorders, including cancer. Today, hundreds of trials of mRNA-based therapies are underway. The discovery of mRNA dates back to 1961. It was discovered that it carried instructions from the DNA for the production of proteins in cells. This raised a very interesting possibility: we could use mRNA to make our cells produce proteins, provided we knew their genetic sequences. The problem is that our immune system considers foreign mRNA as an intruder and quickly destroys it. In 2005, however, researchers found a way to modify mRNA so that it could overcome our defences, creating the basis for vaccines.

This week former President Jimmy Carter will have a state funeral in Washington before being buried in his home-town of Plains, Georgia. He may not have been an outstanding president, but in the period following his presidency he achieved a lot. Not only in the world of diplomacy, for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize, but also for what he did to combat the terrible living conditions in the poorest countries. In particular, through the ‘Carter Center’, with the support of other world partners, he has done much to eradicate Guinea Worm, a very debilitating disease. In 1986, 3.5 million cases of the parasitic infection were recorded worldwide. Preliminary figures indicate that by 2024, mainly due to education in the community about its life cycle, there will only be 11.

But Carter was not the only privileged person to contribute to the well-being of the world. The battle against malaria has been a long one. In the beginning there were attempts to reduce the effect of the disease with education about the life cycle of the mosquito and then there was the provision of chemically treated nets for protection at night. All this was without much effect. The nets were often used instead to catch fish. With the support of the Gates Foundation, however, we have seen intensive research to find a vaccine that could eradicate malaria. And we finally have it. A vaccination programme started in a limited form in 2019 to be sure of its efficacy and safety. But since 2023 we have had a remarkable expansion, an expansion that will continue until 2030. Another triumph for mRNA. And for the rational billionaires and despite the fear created by other crazy billionaires who are against the very idea of vaccines.

And so we turn to our influence on the environment and global warming. Obviously a disaster. At least according to activists and the UN Secretary General. And it is a pessimism that influences many young people to believe that they will die because of climate change. From rising sea levels, fire, global famine or crop failure. Perhaps a fatal heat wave, insect apocalypse or fishless oceans. We should not be surprised if young people are paralysed by anxiety. A large international survey asked 10,000 young people to give their opinion on climate change. More than half think humanity is doomed. Three quarters are afraid of the future. And more than one in three are not sure they want children. Today's young people really fear that they could be the last generation. Indeed, many activist groups emphasise this in their names, for example ‘Extinction Rebellion’.

According to an environmental data scientist, Hannah Ritchie, however, their position is too pessimistic, too one-sided an analysis. She has written a well-reviewed book, ‘Not the End of the World’, containing the data she refers to and, fortunately, also presented a TED talk last year. She takes the position that we have too melodramatic a view of the world.

Ritchie argues that our apparent abuse of the environment has also provided an important improvement in the living standards of the poorest that would not have happened otherwise. As we know, the world was not very welcoming in the past. Activists talk about ‘sustainability’ and want to have a low environmental impact, as in the past, to ‘protect future generations’. Earlier populations did indeed have a low environmental impact. But the reason for that was their relatively low numbers. And the population was low because half the children died before reaching puberty.

Now infant mortality overall has fallen to 4%. The extreme poverty which was the norm, now affects one in ten people. Literacy and education used to be rare. Now the majority of the world's children can go to school. So the benefit to be derived from going back to the past with its ‘sustainability’ is not obvious. Instead, surely we must take into account the need to continue to provide a better life for all – and that means having the higher environmental impact which brought about these changes.

Obviously we need to combat global warming, but according to Hannah Ritchie's figures, we are making a lot of progress. We have seen here that in 2024, for the first time, the use of renewable energy produced more energy than fossil fuels. Many would say that this was possible because we have exported the manufacture of things to China or India. But again, according to the data, we see that global CO2 production from fossil fuel use is starting to stabilise. And actually, per capita emissions had already peaked ten years ago. Indeed, now average emissions per capita in the world are starting to fall. And so we will soon see a peak in total CO2 emissions.

How come? Because of technological change. There are those who want to avoid technological solutions to combat warming. Why? Because they have an almost religious belief that the moral solution is to use less of the world's ‘scarce resources’.

In fact though, the change in our lives we have achieved has mainly come from technology. And technology offers large-scale solutions to global warming.

I am not convinced that changing direction now would be wise - or even possible.

4 January 2025

Paul Buckingham

	Happy New Year?

	Many people have already decided that 2025 will be a year to be endured rather than enjoyed. After all, we have the prospect of a Trump/Musk government in America, political instability in Europe - especially in France and Germany - with a movement towards the right in general and the facile responses of popularism. And then there is still the war in Ukraine. Here we have a government that was only elected in July 2024 with a significant majority, but which now has a prime minister with a level of unpopularity equal to that of Liz Truss. We have the possibility of a Nigel Farage revival, with or without the financial help of Elon Musk. There is a Conservative party that is currently without a political programme and with a leader who is incapable of distinguishing herself from Farage. And now we have a warning from Trump about the UK government's imposition of a windfall profits tax on oil companies with North Sea oil fields (that war in Ukraine again). He added an appeal to the UK to get rid of ‘our windmills’. So, all's well! Unfortunately, the news, at least what is reported, is rarely encouraging. As a result, we see the world through a distorting lens. Because there are good things too - and not just that, so far, nuclear war has not broken out or that ‘Gavin and Stacey’, the finale, broke records for the number of viewers - 20 million. We cannot celebrate that the Covid pandemic ‘broke out’ five years ago(!). But we can celebrate the remarkable scientific advances that have resulted from it. As we know, it is now possible to create a vaccine very quickly. In the past there was normally a development period of at least ten years. But, with the regulator's direct involvement with Pfizer to ensure the quality of the product, they created a vaccine in nine months. The vaccine was however a traditional vaccine. Usually a version of the key protein is introduced into the body. But to introduce it, it must first be produced in living cells, which is expensive and slow. The Covid pandemic however also saw the rapid development of another technology: the use of messenger RNA (mRNA), which can be produced much more easily and on an industrial scale. These Covid vaccines were created in less than a year and beat the previous record of four years for mRNA-based vaccines, set by the mumps vaccine. These new vaccines have not only saved millions of lives, but also confirmed the potential of mRNA in transforming treatments for a variety of diseases and genetic disorders, including cancer. Today, hundreds of trials of mRNA-based therapies are underway. The discovery of mRNA dates back to 1961. It was discovered that it carried instructions from the DNA for the production of proteins in cells. This raised a very interesting possibility: we could use mRNA to make our cells produce proteins, provided we knew their genetic sequences. The problem is that our immune system considers foreign mRNA as an intruder and quickly destroys it. In 2005, however, researchers found a way to modify mRNA so that it could overcome our defences, creating the basis for vaccines. This week former President Jimmy Carter will have a state funeral in Washington before being buried in his home-town of Plains, Georgia. He may not have been an outstanding president, but in the period following his presidency he achieved a lot. Not only in the world of diplomacy, for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize, but also for what he did to combat the terrible living conditions in the poorest countries. In particular, through the ‘Carter Center’, with the support of other world partners, he has done much to eradicate Guinea Worm, a very debilitating disease. In 1986, 3.5 million cases of the parasitic infection were recorded worldwide. Preliminary figures indicate that by 2024, mainly due to education in the community about its life cycle, there will only be 11. But Carter was not the only privileged person to contribute to the well-being of the world. The battle against malaria has been a long one. In the beginning there were attempts to reduce the effect of the disease with education about the life cycle of the mosquito and then there was the provision of chemically treated nets for protection at night. All this was without much effect. The nets were often used instead to catch fish. With the support of the Gates Foundation, however, we have seen intensive research to find a vaccine that could eradicate malaria. And we finally have it. A vaccination programme started in a limited form in 2019 to be sure of its efficacy and safety. But since 2023 we have had a remarkable expansion, an expansion that will continue until 2030. Another triumph for mRNA. And for the rational billionaires and despite the fear created by other crazy billionaires who are against the very idea of vaccines. And so we turn to our influence on the environment and global warming. Obviously a disaster. At least according to activists and the UN Secretary General. And it is a pessimism that influences many young people to believe that they will die because of climate change. From rising sea levels, fire, global famine or crop failure. Perhaps a fatal heat wave, insect apocalypse or fishless oceans. We should not be surprised if young people are paralysed by anxiety. A large international survey asked 10,000 young people to give their opinion on climate change. More than half think humanity is doomed. Three quarters are afraid of the future. And more than one in three are not sure they want children. Today's young people really fear that they could be the last generation. Indeed, many activist groups emphasise this in their names, for example ‘Extinction Rebellion’. According to an environmental data scientist, Hannah Ritchie, however, their position is too pessimistic, too one-sided an analysis. She has written a well-reviewed book, ‘Not the End of the World’, containing the data she refers to and, fortunately, also presented a TED talk last year. She takes the position that we have too melodramatic a view of the world. Ritchie argues that our apparent abuse of the environment has also provided an important improvement in the living standards of the poorest that would not have happened otherwise. As we know, the world was not very welcoming in the past. Activists talk about ‘sustainability’ and want to have a low environmental impact, as in the past, to ‘protect future generations’. Earlier populations did indeed have a low environmental impact. But the reason for that was their relatively low numbers. And the population was low because half the children died before reaching puberty. Now infant mortality overall has fallen to 4%. The extreme poverty which was the norm, now affects one in ten people. Literacy and education used to be rare. Now the majority of the world's children can go to school. So the benefit to be derived from going back to the past with its ‘sustainability’ is not obvious. Instead, surely we must take into account the need to continue to provide a better life for all – and that means having the higher environmental impact which brought about these changes. Obviously we need to combat global warming, but according to Hannah Ritchie's figures, we are making a lot of progress. We have seen here that in 2024, for the first time, the use of renewable energy produced more energy than fossil fuels. Many would say that this was possible because we have exported the manufacture of things to China or India. But again, according to the data, we see that global CO2 production from fossil fuel use is starting to stabilise. And actually, per capita emissions had already peaked ten years ago. Indeed, now average emissions per capita in the world are starting to fall. And so we will soon see a peak in total CO2 emissions. How come? Because of technological change. There are those who want to avoid technological solutions to combat warming. Why? Because they have an almost religious belief that the moral solution is to use less of the world's ‘scarce resources’. In fact though, the change in our lives we have achieved has mainly come from technology. And technology offers large-scale solutions to global warming. I am not convinced that changing direction now would be wise - or even possible. 4 January 2025 Paul Buckingham
	Home A Point of View Philosophy Who am I? Links Photos of Annecy