Conspiracies: fake and real
I take issue with Natalie Nougayrède’s article (1 January) that references conspiracy theories of hard left and right political parties, claiming they undermine democracy. Just because wild conspiracy theories abound does not mean there are no actual conspiracies. It is fairly well established now that Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction were pure fabrication by George Bush and Tony Blair. Why? To create a useful scapegoat? To gain control of oil supplies? To further the fortunes of the military-industrial complex? To further establish the US as global hegemon? Or some vague combination of the above?
It is also fairly well established that as banks and corporations have grown in size they have grown in influence over our governments, who act more in their favour and less on behalf of the people. Hence governments water down climate agreements and give corporations the right to sue governments, who seek to protect the environment, for loss of anticipated profits. In both of these cases it is the conspiracies themselves that undermine democracy, not theories.
I have little time for theories that cast me in the role of helpless victim of shadowy cabals. I can’t stretch to believing that jet planes are spraying chemicals everywhere. Yet it is clear to me that things are not what they seem. The spin is ubiquitous.
After a lifetime of following events, I still have only a hazy understanding of what is happening. If Nougayrède thinks things are self-evident, how can I ever trust her perspective?
Edward Butterworth
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
• I was surprised to read, in Natalie Nougayrède’s piece, the names of Podemos and Syriza among other groups or regimes that thrive on conspiracy theories threatening democracy.
First, is it sensible to brand them with the far-left label? Certainly if we regard Tony Blair’s Labour or François Hollande’s socialism as leftwing, but we are far from Pol Pot’s Cambodia or Stalin’s USSR.
And let’s look again at their “anti-elite message”. Accusing an oligarchical banking system of southern Europe’s woes, is it necessarily leaning towards conspiracy theories? For instance, Goldman Sachs, the US investment bank, [and others] had some responsibility in the 2008 financial crisis, and reportedly manipulated Greece’s accounting when that country entered the EU. A former high-profile Goldman Sachs employee, Mario Draghi, was appointed president of the European Central Bank. And a former Goldman Sachs adviser, Mario Monti, became Italy’s prime minister.
There have also been other continuous banking scandals, like the Libor and forex manipulations.
How do we know of those episodes? By browsing obscure websites? No, by reading the Guardian.
Marc Jachym
Les Ulis, France
Do we really want to change?
I read Fiona Harvey’s report on the Paris climate deal (18 December) and really wanted to share in the sense of euphoria that is palpable in the article. Indeed, after the catastrophe of Copenhagen everyone wanted this one to go through and yes, it did go through.
But when I re-read the article, the phrase that kept popping out was “not legally binding”. So I really do wonder whether the goal was to tackle climate change or rather to “fudge it” just enough for the leaders who attended to save face.
One key point is that carbon-intensive infrastructure built today will be operating for years.
So surely monitoring this would be the best way to measure the success of the talks? If we take this as true, then Paris has already failed, because such projects are coming thick and fast.
Up until recently here in Cologne, winter temperatures have consistently been in the teens. In Britain there has been extensive flooding and around the world there are ever-more extreme weather events. Climate change is accelerating and the aspirations of those in Paris, with their generous time-frames, are probably nothing more than wishful thinking.
Somehow the agreement in Paris has absolved us and calmed our fears. That’s nice, but I would rather have a solution than absolution.
Alan Mitcham
Cologne, Germany
• It surely was, as Fiona Harvey puts it, a “deal won by marathon skilful diplomacy”. The deal essentially maintains the status quo without the payoffs that some regions of the world demanded, while paying lip service to the fiction of man’s effect on solar global warming.
It was a masterpiece. Our politicians scored again. Now let’s get on with living in a productive society without green distraction.
John Graham
Hoogstraten, Belgium
• I read Sandra Laville’s Kingston Diary (1 January) with outrage. A $600m highway to cut the travel time from the capital to a resort in Jamaica from two hours to one? No wonder China was so resistant at the Paris conference. I am one, among millions, who has solar panels, composts my waste, has an organic garden, darns my cotton socks and uses my car as little as possible. Then I read about the Beijing highway.
How much carbon will be released in building this road, driving on it twice as fast, flying in and servicing all the people coming to all the collateral resorts? Governments are so quick to uptake tourism projects, when $600m could have made the world of difference for ordinary Jamaicans if it were spent on renewable energy and education.
To quote one of Jamaica’s most famous sons, Bob Marley: Don’t gain the world and lose your soul / Wisdom is better than silver or gold.
Gaynor McGrath
Armidale, New South Wales, Australia
Psychologists also at risk
The optimism expressed on the prospects of employment in a future robotic age (1 January) is fine if one is trying to sugar-coat the bitter pill, but it does not deal with reality.
Future jobs may emerge from a merger of human and artificial intelligence (AI) and those humans with superior intelligence may so survive. But what of those who do not have skills of a special nature?
As an example, in the paper by Martin Ford cited in the article, psychologists are portrayed as a group unlikely to be seriously affected by the growth of AI, due to the assumption that soft skills of social sensitivity and empathy are essential elements of the job. Examination of what a psychologist actually does, however, reveals that automated testing and interpretation and electronic delivery of therapy will reduce the number of psychologists who will be employed. If such a profession is not immune, what picture emerges for jobs without a need for extensive social intelligence?
J Mike Innes
Woolloomooloo, NSW, Australia
What Greeks fear most
Most Greeks with children have the same fears as the Syrians fleeing Syria: having to wait years for things to change destroys their kids’ future (1 January).
Already Greeks abroad are sponsoring the emigration of relatives in Greece with children. The problem is not that Syriza has yet to start vigorously pursuing the tax-dodging rich upper classes, as Euclid Tsakalotas says.
Ask any Greek what fundamentally ails the country, and the first angry peeve is against the public system – to dimosio. All Greeks have horror stories dealing with the intimidating behaviour of public servants. What they want is for Syriza to replace those public employees who bribe, blackmail, hire relatives, evade paying taxes, refuse to give receipts, refuse to accept bank cheques, delay processing forms out of pique, loot public land to build their villas and bend laws to their advantage. They blight the life of those who do not have the necessary connections that the upper classes, and those who work in state services, enjoy.
This rancid public system needs a major cleanup. So far nothing has been done. If the left in general does not get its act together to accomplish this task first, those who voted for Syriza will be the losers.
Merlie Papadopoulos
Montreal, Canada
Briefly
• Oliver Burkeman (1 January) says that “fake corporate chumminess is another fiction” that we need to recognise for what it is. But obsequious salesmen, real or robotic, like the beer ads Burkeman cites that lie shamelessly, have been around a long time. Many of us already filter them from our lives, having learned never to underestimate our ability to spot a phony when we see one. Indeed, filtering and deleting, in this age of the internet, have become essential coping skills for everyone.
Richard Orlando
Westmount, Quebec, Canada
• Excellent piece by Adam Lee (1 January) on people’s “sense of dislocation and worry for the future” that leads to their voting for demagogues like Donald Trump while, at the same time, millions wish to live with hope of a better future. However, the main problem now is where people get their information. There can be little chance of a fairer society when people are fed by a ruthless rightwing press. We have few objective organisations giving honest reporting. I don’t need to name them: they are under attack.
Edward Black
Sydney, Australia
• Re Jonathan Gibbs’ book review of Fifteen Dogs by André Alexis (1 January). Since 1849, the Wheat Sheaf has been a Toronto watering-hole at King and Bathurst – many kilometres from High Park. From what I can see via the “Look inside” pages at Amazon, it’s Gibbs – not Alexis – who is confused. Too much beer, perhaps.
Donna Samoyloff
Toronto, Canada
Email letters for publication to weekly.letters@theguardian.com
