The tragedy of our impoverished youth.

The State of Society in the United Kingdom 2011, and the Outlook for the World in 3011.

On 8^th August 2011 we were into the third night of riots, looting and wanton destruction in London, which then spread to similar action in other cities, including Birmingham, Bristol, Wolverhampton, Liverpool and Manchester. Nick Clegg, our Deputy Prime Minister wisely stated that the trouble has nothing to do with the (apparently uprovoked) shooting dead of a black youth by police in Tottenham last week. The shooting undoubtedly was the spark that lit the tinder, but this fire has been long set and waiting for a spark.

In the UK now, we have a generation of youth that has had no proper parenting, little discipline in school, lived a life of poverty on benefit, had little education, no participation in sport, sees no role in a society from which it is alien, and has little or no sexual or public moral. They have been educated largely by television and video games, featuring images of wealth and greed, violence and sexual wanton-ness. They have no means nor prospect of a life except upon the meagrest “benefits” that are grudgingly afforded them; that are frequently withdrawn for weeks at a time upon the merest whim, leaving them forced to steal, trade drugs, or into prostitution. Huge sections of our community are placed in this situation because of the greed of others and poor decisions made by successive governments.

What is now happening is no surprise to me, having worked for over thirty years with the highly deprived population living in central Great Yarmouth. Other towns and cities across the UK have raised their youth under the same condition. It has been necessary to put many of our young into already overcrowded prisons for their undoubtedly apalling offences. This will not restore the welfare of our nation. One might as well order them to “eat cake”. Are there any facilities in place to rehabilitate these youths?

What would I now do?

There are a raft of measures needed to both tackle the present youth unrest, and to prevent further greater problems in future. Just imagine a further generation of children brought up to follow on this current disaffected generation. We are currently headed for civil war or revolution in the UK if nothing changes.

I would withdraw all our troops from abroad, to assist the police, and re-introduce conscription for all males under thirty years of age. (This will present huge challenges.) Introduce mandatory sport for all in schools of four half days every week. Introduce sport and music and activity clubs for older youth as part of their benefit package. Stop thinking of the unemployed as “wasters” and “scroungers”. Stop withdrawing benefits from people who are already half starved. (You try living on £64 per week, and then have it withdrawn for two weeks.) Life must be made rewarding for all in society. Organise community work for most of the unemployed, with genuinely useful training classes. (At present there is a system of confrontation in jobcentres, there is little genuine help, and the staff are substantially adversarial, with the prime aim of keeping their computer logs up to date.) At the same time, we must look very hard at ways to increase the manufacture of much more of what we need within our own shores, together with returning us to agricultural self sufficiency, scrapping subsidies to other nations, if that is necessary. We need to encourage couples to properly parent their children, jointly if not always together, and remove the relative economic encouragement to single parenting. Single parents must be supported, but dual parenting must be seen to prosper. We must educate young boys regarding their resonsibilities to children and women. We have to put all our effort towards creating a meaningful and rewarding life for young males, whether or not that includes productive work in the traditional sense. Young men must have a role in society. We will have to introduce positive incentives for employers to train the young in preference to continuing employment in old age. The idea of the employment of all to age seventy and beyond, when the young are in a state of total neglect, is clearly not something to be pursued at this time. Pensions are in disarray, but the basis of the problem is inequality in distribution of wealth. The profits from business must be redistributed across society, and jobs must be created as part of that process. At present, corporations cut jobs all the while so as to increase profit to the few. Governments must collaborate across the globe to effect such changes. Those elected to power need to be less wealthy members of society. To be governed by the increasingly rich as we are, is effectively a return to the Middle Ages .

Since two World Wars, there has been a move toward full female employment, at the expense of employment for our male youth. This has been accelerated by mechanisation of previously manual jobs. We must reverse this trend, encouraging more women to look after children and grandchildren full time, as well as providing a rewarding and meaningful life without stigma for those who either choose or have no choice, but a lifetime out of conventional work.

Capital must be directed towards job creation. This can be achieved by removing taxation upon profits that are reinvested so as to increasing employment raher than purely to improve profit. Profit must encompass the well being of the workforce, not purely the finances of the disinterested investor. The lives of the less well off must be improved as the primary objective. Profits that are merely returned to the wealthy and the speculator, must be diverted by means of tax or other penalties. Every means must be pursued to adjust the imbalances of the current system. A good standard of living for all must be achieved, with education, activity and participation spread across the entire spectrum of the population. A system that promotes benificence can be devised, where the more wealthy citizen can reduce the amount of tax that they pay in relation to every pound that is devoted to good works – a return to some of the best of Victorian values, that now are forgotten. Nowadays we feel that the state is responsible for everything, and individuals responsible for nothing other than their own well being and greed.

The total population needs to be kept at current levels. This would already be so, contraception being widely available, if it were not for immigration policy. Some nations manage this better than others, and we need to adopt the best and most equitable systems. Studies may show, however, that increases in the proportion of of the poor are greater than the rich.

Worldwide, the rich are getting richer, and the poor, poorer. This would have substantially corrected itself, if governments had not intervened in the recent financial crisis, so as to protect themselves. The rich would have lost a great deal by a banking collapse, whereas the population as a whole could have been created more equal, with redistribution of wealth, banks being subsequently set up to serve the people instead of being wealth creation machines for the few. I have yet to hear of anyone going to Parliament who is in dire poverty. The poor need a fair and substantial voice in Government. Most pressing, is this need to correct the imbalance in the distribution of wealth. If this latter is not addressed, then undoubtedly there will be more civil rest and revolution. This is no idle threat or idealistic plea. It is upon us.

There is a fundamental flaw in recent economic thinking. The sacred cow of limiting inflation, has caused there to be no mechanism to correct imbalances. Modest inflation of 7-10% is needed to unlock the money tied up in property. The housing market replaced gold as the foundation of money. Credit was extended with total recklessness and without control. Housing bubbles can be avoided by credit controls. Credit must be regulated by governments again, not left to the greed of bankers. These changes were introduced by the rich to increase their profits. Inflation of the wages of the lower paid must be engineered, whilst greatly restricting the profits of businesses and the rich. Business profits have been excessive, they must be used to produce more jobs and create a better society, not feather the nest of a few. Politicians must dedicate themselves to politics, removed from business interests, both during and after their term of office. Alternatively, those persons must be excluded from politics. Newspapers, television, internet and computer games must be properly censored to prevent bias, corruption, and perversion of the young and vulnerable.

Life today has become too complex for most citizens to cope with readily. This applies to those well-educated citizens, those privileged in their upbringing and with good incomes. Those less privileged are severely disadvantaged. They have become already entirely disenfranchised, separated from the mainstream, leading to anarchy.

It is almost always forgotten that the definition of the intelligence quotient is that the mean of intelligence shall be 100 units. This means that whereas half the population has an IQ over 100, the other half has an IQ of less than 100.

If we consider the brighter half of the population, then we know that we find it difficult to cope with modern bureaucracy. Telephones, Internet, texts and so on may make us more interconnected, but they constantly harass us and we get little chance to relax. Instead of the bank manager putting pen to paper and taking the time to write to us and then having a discussion face-to-face, we are bombarded with computerised mail which no human hand nor eye has ever seen nor checked. Keeping on top of all those small items that need attention just to keep going is a daily chore. In the past we had to worry about where the next meal was coming from, we had little control of how many children would be born; disease and death was not something that we could affect. We prayed to God, trusted in Him, and continued to live relatively straightforward lives.

Even within the best-educated and best provisioned sector of society there is considerable stress and anxiety. Many of us only cope by ignoring much of what goes on. As a result it catches up with us and we are seldom free of stress.

The resources in the world today are easily adequate to support all of humanity. The problem is that those resources are not evenly or fairly distributed. Governments do nothing whatsoever to make life easier for the public - the average citizen. They do not look ahead more than their immediate term of office. Long-term planning has been completely ignored.

Long term planning should address a relatively small number of items, and if these are looked at from a long-term view viewpoint then it is possible to envisage the way to a stable and equitable, more pleasant future.

Surely there are few in the world today who do not see that the current situation is both undesirable and in the long-term, untenable? Surely there are few that would not wish to look for a way to make our great-grandchildren's lives better?

In the future, the population base needs to be stabilised. This clearly will not happen in the very short term. There is however, every hope that it will do so largely of its own accord. The population in the Western World has already stabilised, the birthrate is now in decline. This is due to a number of factors. Contraception has paid a big part, combined with changes in society that have led women to work as much as men, delaying the onset of their familes. The average child is now being born much later in their mother's life. Women in general, excepting the very poor, are delaying the birth of their first child. In some cases this actually leads to infertility and some difficulty in conception. The result in any event is that the overall birthrate in the West is down to around 1.8 or 1.9, whereas 2.1 children per mother are needed to maintain the current total number. Rates vary in different countries but the overall picture is that the population in the western world is actually in decline. Governments have in some cases counteracted declining numbers by allowing immigration. They have permitted the movement of large numbers of workers, because they have felt in particular, that the labouring workforce needs to be replenished. This has certainly happened within the European Union where there are some quite big migratory trends. Nevertheless the overall situation is that population numbers are in decline. In the Far East the population continues to expand despite some efforts to limit it. There is no doubt that countries in the East are being westernised and increasingly industrialised. Many women are now working there in factories and offices who were previously employed upon the land as they were in former centuries in the West. We can therefore expect that as the Eastern countries become industrialised, they will in turn delay having children and the birth rate will fall. Merely witnessing the inevitable industrialisation of the East, is likely to be sufficient. It will not be necessary to impose any artificial constraints. Once women have their independence, and actively limit their families, they will not wish to return to their position as in former times. We can therefore expect that even within 50-100 years world population will substantially cease to expand.

It is inevitable that modernisation will eventually encompass virtually all, if not all, communities in the world. This process will happen quicker in some countries than others. Some isolated places may well continue to have primitive societies for many centuries to come, but it is impossible to envisage that in say 1,000 years the process would not be complete. In particular it is exceedingly unlikely that the benefits of modern medicine would not be extended to all, even the most primitive societies, within that 1,000 years. I take the period of 1,000 years as being that which in most people's eyes would be sufficient for such change to be inevitable, whatever the circumstances. Very likely such changes will be considerably quicker.

If we go forward to a time when all societies in the world have the benefit of modern medicine, then even the most primitive society cannot be provided with such care and assistance, medication, surgery and so on without change occurring in other ways within their society. It would be hard if not impossible to envisage an entirely primitive “stone age” society having all the benefits of modern medicine and yet having no interference of any other kind to their means and mode of existence. Firstly the medical care needs to be paid for in some way by someone, and secondly in order for it to be provided, then there have to be providers. Those providers inevitably come from more “advanced” societies and bring all of the trappings of those societies with them including new diseases as well as their whole way of life. If we see the provision of good medical care to the entire globe as being a good thing, then perhaps we should consider at the same time that the loss of the simple way of life is conversely a bad thing. The ideal would be if we could maintain a simple way of life and a fully supportive society such as remains with those population groups that are not interfered with and have not become industrialised. Then combine that with the best benefits from the modern Western society. Could this ever be achieved? Perhaps we also need to abolish the "Rat Race" of western society.

Let us first consider how we would wish the world to look in 1,000 years. Taking such a long-term viewpoint, then any changes exclude any of our immediate descendants and make us completely removed from the process of change. Only once we have considered how we would wish things to become ultimately, can we then determine a possible method and rate of change.

I shall list the features of our future utopia:

1. Good Health

2. Equal opportunity from birth

3. Peaceful living

Put like this, surely this aim should be possible to achieve!

In 1,000 years!

In order to realise the aim of equality and equal opportunity, we must first recognise that all are not born equal and will never be born equal in terms of absolute health. Maybe in 1 million years we may be able to tinker with genetics sufficiently to give all a completely healthy start but for the moment we need to accept that even in 1,000 years, eugenics and genocide are not something to be contemplated. We must accept that God has ordained that humankind will be of infinite variety and find ways in which we can best live with His intent. If we except biodiversity as being a good thing, then surely the severe imbalance between those born with or easily able to acquire massive assets and conversely those who are condemned to abject poverty is something that is intolerable. Not to be within the scope of our aims for society.

We can more easily imagine the converse: How the world will look in 1,000 years if no changes are made and no forward planning is adopted. For all of us, the difficulties of modern living are becoming increasingly obvious. In 1,000 years (unless something is done) there will undoubtedly have been an outbreak of nuclear war. That war may be short enough, it may be localised or not. Nevertheless it appears inevitable unless forward thinking and changes are made globally. The gap between rich and poor is accelerating and increasing. Within Western Societies the gap between rich and poor has not only become extreme it is accelerating,. There are signs that this is leading civilisation in a downward spiral. It is hardly necessary to give examples of people who are being paid millions for doing no more work than anyone else. At the same time there are millions of people who are getting less than enough money to survive on. Millions are having great difficulty accessing services and are unable to live a contented life.

People in different countries and societies have entirely the same human body whatever their colour or ethnicity. All babies are born completely innocent and completely vulnerable. Difficulties and imbalances are only imposed by those who are already in power, the grown-ups. If all babies born were given a fair, equitable and good upbringing, then matters would soon be put right. This unfortunately is not going to happen given the current circumstances. Most people already in existence are only largely interested in themselves and acquiring more wealth and power for themselves. At whatever level they may be in society this is nearly always true. Very few are totally content with their own existence. Certainly those at the top and those with great wealth very rarely do anything for those less fortunate. They spend their entire lives acquiring more. Politicians are elected on promises of improving our lot, but never look to the future and only short-term change is undertaken, which in the longer run is more often detrimental than good. If we continue to muddle on the way we are, then life is only becoming more and more complex, more and more regulated. More intolerable.

Stability is necessary in the long-run to produce the kind of world in which we would like to live. Adam and Eve, at first had the perfect life. They lived in a world of plenty with no strife, no war, no disease, no inequality, in total accord with nature. They lived in harmony with their environment. They did not seek to effect change or to dominate anyone else. Unfortunately the world did not remain like that, yet when born into the world, we are as innocent as Adam and Eve. It is only those already in power, who precede us, who spoil it all.

Stability of population size is one key. Constant increases and changes in populations put great pressures on society. All those empires that rose and perished have sought to grow and grow, then outstripped their resources. In order to provide a fair and equitable and pleasant society we must have stability of population. It is clear that with the advent of birth control, something that has only been available to humankind for some 60 years, it is now possible to foresee the day when world population will stabilise and begin to shrink. This is already taking place in the West, it is only a period of time unspecified when this will apply globally. This change is inevitable. We do not have to impose any Draconian measures to ensure that stability of population is achieved, we merely have to give people the opportunity of a fair lifestyle and the means for them to limit the number of their children. At present we find that the more affluent families who have more interests and activities outside of childbirth, already limit their family size and delay the onset of the first child birth to a time when they naturally have become less fertile. This has meant that this is the reason why the western population is already declining. The poor on the other hand have nothing in their lives except very basic living and they have not altered their way of life in the same way. They also are currently encouraged to have more children because their social payments are tailored to the size of their family. It is clearly necessary to amend this, to make their lives better and to take them out of the baby trap. So, in the short term we need to look at improving the lives of the poor so that they will not see the necessity to have as many children or conversely see the advantage of not having so many children. If that latter statement is to be true then there must be an advantage for them not to have as many children, whereas at present they continue to have as many children as they can reasonably manage. The less affluent countries in the world will clearly go through these changes in due course. Whereas we may think that there are measures needed to push the process forward, in reasonable time this will happen anyway.

Population size and the lack of further growth will mean that we can look at every aspect of life in a new way. Taking housing needs, if the population is kept stable then we can ensure that our descendants are well housed and this will change the whole outlook of society. At present those people in the middle classes spend their entire lives trying to pay for a house. A huge part of their salary is dedicated to merely paying the interest on their house. Nearly everyone pays for their house two or three times over during their lifetime. Most of their lifetime salary goes on this one acquisition. If we see that all the money that they are paying in interest over and above the acquisition of the house goes to a bank and is then distributed only to a few rich persons, we can see where the major source of inequity is. If the population remains stable, it will be possible to arrange a method of passing on the home from one generation to another in a fair and reasonable way, to ensure that everyone is reasonably and fairly housed; that everyone has a warm and comfortable home, and that the very few do not become rich simply from that means. Furthermore if the population is not expanding, with new housing having to be constantly created, then the source of wealth and its generation can be detached from where it is at the moment. Since ancient times the basis of wealth has been invested in gold. In prehistoric times, Gold was often woven into treasures (Torqs) that were kept in a bank by burying them in the ground. Later gold was kept in conventional bank vaults. In the last century the "gold standard" was abandoned, thinking that this would save the effort of transporting large consignments of bullion backwards and forwards between countries. A hugely stabilising influence was lost, fluctuations between currencies introduced, greatly to be multiplied by the introduction of computers to banking in the early 1960's. Since then "property" or "real estate" has become a substitute for gold.

If the population is kept stable, then housing and buildings can be equitably distributed. The population can be housed without the need to buy and sell houses frantically. Housing-stock can be improved to a state where it is fit for the purpose, properly insulated and maintained. Given enough time there is no reason why, with a stable population, the housing-stock cannot be brought up to a universal standard. It can then be universally distributed, and not held by just a few. We can look at how this might be achieved.

When we look at population, land usage, land ownership, housing and so on, we tend to be constrained by our knowledge of how things are at present. In order to improve matters, we must think "outside the box" and take ourselves forward 1,000 years. At the same time imagine that we start from scratch as if we were Adam and Eve with new babies. Thus we can look at the whole world as if it were underpopulated, examine the resources that we will have, consider how we think the world ought to look, how we want it to be, consider where it should be populated and how those populations should function on a national, international and personal level. Only if we take ourselves forward with a clean sheet, can we begin to arrive at the solution. If we then take the solution and work backwards to the present we may be able to get ourselves forward in a new way. If on the other hand we persist in taking the present forward, then it will only continue to disintegrate. Anarchy will ensue, with multiple, unending wars, just as now.

So now imagine that we have gone forward to that time. The population has stabilised. Indeed the number of humans upon the earth has decreased, and shrunk by perhaps 50%. We surely wish for that society without war, with no significant armament, and without serious crime. We would like everyone to have an equal opportunity and to be comfortably housed. We do not need excessive luxury, and would rather that there is no-one who has excessive luxury, such as the sportsperson or chief executive officer of today. There will always need to be an incentive to work reasonably hard, but excessive reward is not helpful to society as a whole. We need to be kept rewardingly occupied. This we know, cannot not be entirely in the way that it has been in the past. We already have a situation where relatively few people need to be employed to produce our food, since we have much mechanisation in that process, although, as with many things, distribution of food is uneven and unfair around the world. Likewise it is hard to see how we each individually need more and more personal items such as new mobile phones, gadgets, and other consumer goods. There surely will come a time when this continual replacement and acquisition becomes superfluous. If wealth is fairly and evenly distributed, there will be the ability to share the toys and gadgets fairly. We will certainly wish to continue producing all sorts of items to enrich our lives. With a fair distribution of wealth, housing and so on, then culture, sport and leisure activities that enrich our lives can be available to all. All can participate in some way or other. There are few, if any people, who do not have some talent or other. Even those who appear the most impoverished and appear lacking in any skill, in reality do have abilities, which remain un-nurtured because of lack of opportunity. It will be important that everyone should be able to find their own level, to be active and lead a rewarding life. If no-one is rushing around just trying to acquire somewhere to live and spending their life trying to pay for it; if everyone has a reasonable dwelling, is kept warm and is reasonably fed without struggle or strife; has access to what medicines are required, then there appears to be little need to fight. Just possibly, wars can be totally avoided. Extremism is born of inequality. If we could have a truly fair society globally, with resources fairly apportioned, the sons and daughters of Adam could return to the Garden of Eden.

Mark Rumble M.B., Ch.B., M.A. 10.8.11