Dangerous revolution
What cloud cuckoo land do economists inhabit? Larry Elliott’s article Ready for another revolution? (29 January) is just the emperor pretending he’s not wearing the same old nakedness. His Industrial Revolution 4.0 – based on driverless cars, 3D printing, smart robotics – ignores the fact that untrammelled industrial and technological growth are not only primary drivers of climate change and environmental devastation, but are cannibalising and debauching our entire planetary life-support system.
Earth’s wellbeing, hence our own, depends on the resilience of an intricate web of interlocking, inter-active ecosystems, many of which are already tipping into irreversible damage. The others are eroding.
Ecology is the study, economy is the law, of the household. The real revolution would be the marriage of these currently opposing poles, the creation of an economic paradigm rooted in moral, social and ecological accountability, and mandated with bequeathing a thriving, exquisitely beautiful planet to all our children: whale calves, spawning tadpoles, sapling oaks, human babies, fledgling eagles.
Annie March
West Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
• I read Larry Elliott’s piece on the fourth industrial revolution and couldn’t help feeling apprehension. Yes, the wave of further automation involving robotics described by Elliott is highly probable.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement that this is “about what it is to be human” goes to the heart of the matter. I recently re-read EF Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful, where he exposes humankind’s desire to eradicate work as a false quest by describing the act of making a shirt: This should provide a) a proud livelihood to those processing the material, b) a stimulating act of creation for the tailor and c) satisfaction to the purchaser, who would possess an article of beauty. These economic steps do not simply allow workers to earn money but also provide essential cohesion to society.
But what are we left with following the fourth revolution? Even if it provides us with leisure time, what remains of our pride as human beings? We will have become slaves to the very machines created to serve us. And the energy needed to power these “smart machines”? Where will that come from?
I see us charging on into this particular “brave new world” and being consumed by our own hubris.
Alan Mitcham
Cologne, Germany
The debate over therapy
In response to Oliver Burkeman’s article about the effectiveness of psychoanalysis versus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (29 January): after more than 30 years of practice as a psychologist and observing the changes in the dominant models of therapy over the years, I have come to a similar conclusion: we don’t really know what works. The complexity of human behaviour, thought and emotions, together with the working of unconscious processes, makes measuring outcomes and effectiveness extremely difficult. Therapy remains as much an art as a science.
Essential variables are the presence of a dedicated therapist and a client committed to change. Burkeman writes of the “dodo-bird verdict”, which suggests that the specific type of therapy makes little difference.
However, CBT is not just about getting rid of unwanted thoughts. When CBT is combined with Mindfulness meditation (MCBT), it can be very helpful. There is increasing evidence for positive outcomes with MCBT, but it may be another dodo-bird therapy. In its favour are that is more accessible and less expensive than analysis, and less likely to create dependence on the therapist. Also, MCBT practitioners are keen to research the process of change using brain imaging.
We eagerly await the development of better therapies for our clients.
Margaret Wilkes
Cottesloe, Western Australia
• I have experienced both CBT and analysis. To use a motoring analogy: for me CBT is like a get-you-home service, as it deals very well with one specific situation. But to get to and address a more generalised and deeper-lying anxiety, I found analysis to be more like a garage major service in that it covered a much wider spectrum of situations.
It isn’t a case of which is better, they each deal with different circumstances and should be regarded not as competing but complementary.
Mike Burnett
Sydney, Australia
Zika virus emergency
Having become accustomed to hospital-based hi-tech diagnosis and treatment of non-infectious diseases, we should remember that the main reasons why expectation of life at birth has doubled over the past century are prior developments in public health.
The obligatory inoculation of children has saved many thousands of lives. The recent emergence of the Zika virus in South America (5 February) may be compared with rubella infection, causing only mild illness in adults, but tragic consequences for infants developing in utero.
Widespread public health measures must be instituted, such as mosquito control, avoidance of travel to affected areas by pregnant women, and availability of contraception. In the meantime, urgent research for a Zika vaccine is needed.
Bryan Furnass
Canberra, Australia
• The Zika virus is likely to spread to all countries of the Americas except Canada and Chile. The virus is linked to microcephaly and mental impairment in babies. Women from several countries across the Americas have been advised to avoid getting pregnant until the virus is better understood.
The problem is that most Latin American countries are Catholic. Modern contraception and abortion are difficult to obtain, so women cannot make the choices they need to make to avoid giving birth to a child with microcephaly.
Who will care for these poor babies? My son is a special needs teacher and he has been assigned just one adolescent boy this year because the boy’s needs are so great. Will poor countries have the resources to address similar needs of microcephalic children? Not likely.
As a matter of urgency, the Catholic hierarchy must change its outdated views and allow both modern contraception and abortion so women have the means to choose whether they have children or not. This is a terrifying disease and it must be taken seriously.
Jenny Goldie
Michelago, NSW, Australia
Britain’s global status
I read Matthew d’Ancona’s definition of Britain’s place in the world today: “closely allied to the US; an EU member state; and an independent nuclear power” (22 January).
I might downrate it a little to read: “economically dependent on the US; a non-committed EU state; and a nuclear power subject to the US”.
It all depends on your view of the world (a proud Brit or a realist), but one cannot be a committed EU state without adhering to the euro and having a say in its stability, nor can one be an independent nuclear power if you have to check with the US before deploying a weapon. Being economically dependent on the US is simply a fact of trading life.
One also might inquire why d’Ancona omits the rest of the UK from his calculations. Nor does he give any credit to Britain being a leader of a Commonwealth of Nations, as I might for historic reasons.
The UK is more important than the writer implies and for totally different reasons.
John Graham
Palo Alto, California, US
Briefly
• As an American subscriber to the The Guardian Weekly, I am often amused by the discovery of incongruities between our English and yours. But the headline in the story about a jail in Riyadh – “Pot plants and lilac doors ...” (29 January) particularly intrigued me and I was fascinated to learn, on reading the article, that “pot plants line the corridor”.
I think that’s very considerate of the prison authorities: the guards and the prisoners can then avail themselves of the pot plants and smoke joints to pass the time.
Leigh Dolin
Portland, Oregon, US
• Miss Piggy of the Muppets must be delighted by their being picked up by the elitist and expensive HBO channel after toiling for so many years on public television, or PBS (29 January). No doubt this is some consolation after her messy divorce from Kermit the Frog. Glamour never comes cheap.
Richard Orlando
Westmount, Quebec, Canada
Email letters for publication to weekly.letters@theguardian.com
