Sweden’s Foreign Minister versus Canada’s Psychology Professor – Should Science be met by Political Insult?

In science, it is all about validated facts and reliable knowledge, the so-called Scientific Theory (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory), no more no less. It is not about opinions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion) and emotions but it is rather about facts (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact). Science is the main driver of validated knowledge as being deduced from validated hard facts (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact) and it is the very bases of any healthy democracy. Opinions come and go but the domain of science is always based on hard facts and remains to be an ultimate reference based on neutral knowledge. However, in social sciences there are no absolute global facts as such as human diversity can be quite complex depending on many parameters. In exact science such as mathematics, physics and chemistry facts can be universal, absolutely correct and exact with high quantitative precision which is not the same as non-exact and qualitative sciences that can not be directly measured with calibrated instruments. In the later case observations can be bases in best cases on comprehensive compilation and statistical treatments of intensive arbitrary data.

Both politics and science should inform the public about how democratic decisions are made and how the public taxes are used to settle conflicts and disputes in the society. If both the Canadian professor Peterson and the Swedish Foreign minister Wallström were, as they are indeed, citizens like us they would demand to know what are the hard facts behind their arguments. Professor Peterson did, to a great extent, explain by “validated” science his views, indeed he has, to large extent, the scientific community behind him. The Swedish foreign minister Margot Wallström, on the other hand, did not raise any logic arguments and replied with an insult (https://youtu.be/7dJFa_cgero). The other members of the panel did not share the Minister views. I learned that “To think free is great, but to think rightly is greater”, this statement is written over the entrance of Uppsala University. Free thought and the right to express ourselves freely is absolutely fundamental but does not deserve insulation, it deserves free, ethical and fair debates. In this context, the question is, is the validated, or at least to large extent validated, science of Professor Peterson wrong? If so why? This was never explained by the Swedish Foreign minister and she even went on by insulting the people that listen, including university students around the world, to Professor Peterson. Well, the matter is so simple, if I was a politician, I would require an investigation about the facts stated by Professor Peterson. There are psychologists in Sweden and if professor Jordan Peterson is wrong then why the Swedish minister does not get a second opinion from the Swedish psychologists and just turn this matter to an open academic and social debate? That was much better than acting emotionally as she did. The same applies to Anne Lööf, the leader of the Swedish Center party, where she protested (https://youtu.be/Bv3ZNeoutjo) against Professor Peterson with a short statement by saying “WE” don’t agree with that? We, who is WE? Is it all the Swedish people? It is all the people of the Center Party? Or is it the liberals or the Alliance? This was not enough from her as she did not give any further explanations on why she does not agree on scientific facts and the reasoning of Professor Peterson? Even the host, journalist and leader of the Norwegian TV program, Fredrik Skavlan, did not do any follow-up events to find out which is which and why science and politics are in dispute? Unfortunately, any information that appear on the Internet spreads so fast and any corrections by experts my come with considerable delay. This was also the case here.

The topic of “Equal Outcome” and “Equal Opportunity” is very much discussed in literature and the basic definitions and explanations have been known for longtime (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome). It turns out that there are great differences between the two concepts, i.e. “Equal Opportunity” and “Equal Outcome” in terms of politics (http://www.valuesandcapitalism.com/equal-opportunity-vs-equal-outcome/), i.e. to the left or to the right. As far as I know psychology is politically a neutral science and is always needed in democratic societies, it is the essence of healthy social fabrics. Psychology went through considerable advances, progress and developments and most of the content of modern psychology is still yet unknown to the public. Still the science itself is subject to several limitations by not being an exact science, as is the case in mathematics, physics and chemistry. Human behavior (psychology, sociology and anthropology) can not be modeled or parameterized, i.e. described by mathematical equations. The impacts of the two concepts, “Equal Opportunity” and “Equal Outcome” and their implementation, whether scientifically or politically based, on the society are enormous on several socio-economic and even socio-economic-environment levels. These differences should be explained to the citizens on every detail as at the end of the day the citizens should base their decisions and votes on what is what, why is why and how is how?

Definitely there is a big disagreement between science and politics on the highest levels (https://nyheteridag.se/swedish-foreign-minister-wallstrom-says-jordan-b-peterson-shouldve-stayed-under-a-rock/) though both are related. For us as citizens in a democratic society, we need to know what is the good science (correct and trustful news) and what is pseudoscience (bad and fake news). Science is always the main driver of healthy democracies and both science and politics are very much dependent on each other. Now, if politics continue to discredit science without validated facts then we will be in a very problematic situation for years to come. This will end up with an accelerating spiral of mistrust in science, research and education. It is a green light from politicians to the public to be suspicious about our education system. This is already taking place and it remains to see what type of society would be have in the future? Of course constructive criticism is very healthy for science and there is nothing wrong to question knowledge but this can not be on loose arguments, emotional opinions and definitely not through insulting the scientific community.

This said, there are still media-based concerns about Professor’s Jordan Peterson political argumentation (https://medium.com/s/story/a-field-guide-to-jordan-petersons-politicalarguments-312153eac99a). What concerns non-exact sciences, they have to be strictly validated and reproducible on several scales and levels as well as over very long periods of time. In this case, human science, they should be done preferably over generations. So, it is healthy to get a balanced debate of what is addressed by Professor Peterson but again through validated facts and fair debates from both sides, i.e. politics and science. Logically the scientific community should be more and more engaged in media debates as this in-fact one of the three duties and tasks of the universities and academies, i.e. research, teaching and outreach activities. Unfortunately, many universities and academies, if not all, are very passive in performing their third duty, and systematically ignore their third task, which indeed counterproductive what regards promoting and achieving sustainable societies. By being part of the scientific community I have to explain what science dedicates without mixing up science and politics. Then the citizens and voters have to take all these facts in their consideration to achieve more sustainable future for the coming generations as well. Very important questions in this context are: Do we need science? If, the political answer is yes, which indeed is, then we can ask is science a bad or a good compass for politics? Would “Equal Opportunity” or “Equal Outcome” be the best for promoting Circular Economy and sustainable societies.

Education Versus Politics – Our collective Suicide

There are no questions or doubts that we have serious conflicts and misconceptions around the world between Education and Politics. These conflicts are deeply rooted in the perception of the role of science and technology as essential and imperative drivers for sustainable developments and promotion of sustainable societies.

On the one side, politicians use (misuse) the outcome of science and technology to achieve, in best cases, short-term benefits not in favor of future generations. Also, politics is imposing restrictions on the mission of science and technology for the sake of improving the life quality of the global citizens. This has been the case for generations as it is evident from the great degradation in life quality on Earth in terms of air and water qualities as well as the accelerating abuse and decline of natural resources. These issues have severe impacts on future generations but also on current populations as well. Meanwhile, politics continue to contribute in the growing failure in education systems, in particular the higher education at universities (https://youtu.be/OReAF9qwMkY; www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6447626326525513728), including the associated mistrust in education to lead to successful long-term careers and real jobs. On the other side, it is also clear from how the citizens trusted, and still do so, that science and technology can bring better future for them, as they still go to schools and struggle day and night to join higher education. Of course, not all but the wealthy and lucky ones who have inherited advantages to support their education and to scape modern slavery of the imperatives of a failing growth economy. The citizens have also no other choice other than to follow political policies and growth economies that fail to meet their needs in particular to deliver security and safety for the future generations worldwide (https://youtu.be/Xwnqy51BJNM; https://youtu.be/GiD04TRwebQ). The perception of science and technology is dependent on what they bring to humanity and the society in terms of socio-economic opportunities with reference to the boundary conditions of life on planet earth, i.e. the environment and climate conditions on local, regional and global levels.

The political controversy on whether or not we need science and technology to run our societies is taking the same route as the classical conflict between the Church and science in the sixteenth’s century that resulted in a trial against Galileo Galilei and led eventually to his house arrest under the rest of his life. At that time, this was considered a generous punishment for his scientific work by being not along the mainstream catholic belief, i.e. that the earth was the center of the universe. The Church at that time was the political power that controlled the society, directed the track of science and even decided its outcome. The popular narrative would say that the Catholic Church feared Galileo’s truth and silenced him. Though all these restrictions, Galileo Galilei continued his scientific work which laid down the foundation for the successful work of Isaac Newton and his findings of a theoretical force (gravity) and a mathematical system (calculus) that when used together allowed astronomers to accurately predict the movements of our solar system. This all together gave us the hope that all natural occurrences are explainable in mathematics. Both Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton contributed in diverting the track of science in hybrid direction orchestrated by Albert Einstein.

These summaries illustrate the powerful role of conservative politics that restricts the scientific endeavors by being the collective outcome of the individual scientific works to the search for truth. But science always wins inspite of all political obstacles and restrictions. For the church to admit Galileo was right was to also say every other scholar for the past 1,500 years was wrong. This is the same for our politicians to admit that all life forms on planet earth are under huge threat. It is to also say that the current growth economy and the associated trends forced by business as usual in production and consumption are all wrong. Politicians even do more serious attacks on science as an excuse to go on with the same failing economic policies. If politicians continue to ignore science, as is currently the case, the mistrust in global education systems will face an increasing spiral of degradation. Also, politicians will force science and technology to proceed in supporting growth economies and halt many efforts to promote and implement circular economies as a consequence of an increasing mistrust in the role of higher education to support rapid transformation to a circular economy based societies.

Please, visit my Instagram and follow @sustain.earth

Is Swedish Politics Right, Left, Middle or Nothing at All?

Well, this can be discussed, the short-term and the long-term answers are still unclear (https://www.google.se/amp/s/www.thelocal.se/20181122/timeline-this-has-happened-in-swedish-politics-since-the-elections/amp). Politics is getting more complicated than ever before. Not all political parties have clear and straightforward definitions of what is right, what is left or what is middle. The actual question still remains: is the Swedish politics on the way to take new trends towards the same political structure as in the USA, i.e. two strict block politics either democratic (socialistic) or republican (right).

Just after the September elections of 2018, it may have looked as if there are no middle parties, or middle solutions, but in reality the final outcome of the ongoing negotiations will soon be clear. This will clarify the position of the middle parties and their impacts on the Swedish politics. Indeed, the middle parties (C and L, although they still belong to the right block), in particular C, have actively mediated an agreement between the two blocks, o.e. V, MP, S on one-side and M, L, C, KD, SD on the other-side. But how then it comes that C and L though being in the right block claim mediation by being middle parties? The political parties on either of the extreme sides (V and SD), though the content of their politics is totally different, can’t be compared especially what concerns national conservatism. However, both V and SD have strict conditions to be enrolled in the Swedish politics (https://youtu.be/KWnXc29X_EI
; https://www.svd.se/just-nulofven-forst-ut-att-traffa-talmannen) but in practical terms they have little, or even no, possibilites to take active part in future decisions (https://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/a/bKl4AB/sjostedt-ar-det-sana-som-mig-du-vill-gynna). Although what is going on is the result of democratic elections, the consequences can be counter-productive for Sweden as a whole. Some parties are, more or less, telling the same story “our way or the highway or no way at all”. The strategic question for Sweden now is what type of politics would we expect and for how long? It is unfortunate to have a polarized political situation where the political parties agree not to agree. This is of no ones interest.

Nevertheless, the situation has gradually changed and though the complex situation changes did take place, specially towards collaboration over the political blocks (https://www.svt.se/nyheter/annie-loof-vi-rekommenderar-lofven; https://youtu.be/iDmf6EvUR3Y). After all, there will be winners and losers, there are reflections from neighboring Scandinavian countries that C is a winner by actively “bridging” the gaps, to some extent, between the left and the right blocks. But, the Swedish support to the political leaders in particular C has declined considerably since the September 2018’s election (https://www.metro.se/artikel/nya-siffror-förtroendet-för-politiker-dalar-störst-ras-för-annie-lööf). The outcome of the election results of September 2018 clearly showed that block politics is dead. This has also been told and confirmed by many parties (S, L, C and M) except the far right SD and the far left V. So, now we are left by two alternatives, either to move away from block politics or to go back to block politics forced by far left and far right.

To repeat the elections again will not solve the existing block polarization and will not even give answers in favor of political stabilities as we may get answers clustering around the two extremes and thereby go back to the same dilemma of unstable block politics. Repeating the elections are associated with democratic risks, i.e. to get populistic, or undemocratic, alternatives either to to the left or to the right. In this case, we will put Sweden and the Swedish population in a long-term pendulum that will swing for ever from left to right and from right to left again.

The Nobel Prize and the Sustainable Development Era – New challenges need diverse global solutions

Without hesitation the announcement of the Nobel Prize winners in Economics for 2018 to William Nordhaus and Paul Romer has been received with enormous satisfaction from a wide-range of diverse audiences around the world. Though it is awarded by The Sveriges Riksbank in Memory of Alfred Nobel, commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics, it has given an awakening signal to the global citizen; in particular young and marginalized people in the less favored regions; about the emerging importance of scientific innovation in supporting sustainability: (https://amp.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/oct/08/nobel-prize-2018-sveriges-riksbank-in-economic-sciences-awarded-live-updates; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/08/two-us-economists-win-nobel-prize-for-work-on-climate-and-growth-william-nordhaus-paul-romer).

In the new era of sustainability, more diverse and effective instruments are urgently needed to meet the needs of the ongoing global transformation and to effectively face the huge and accelerating threats imposed on planet Earth. The focus should not only be on us, i.e. what humans can do for each other, but also on what we can do for planet Earth. Though the huge data and research in global change and climate change since the later part of the past century, i.e. shortly after the WW-II, little attention was given for the role of innovation in trans-disciplinary and trans-sectorial sciences and technologies, i.e. what regards supporting all life forms on planet Earth. Though the Nobel foundation (https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobelstiftelsen) has been a dynamic source of inspiration, its support and recognition for the diverse, collective and inclusive benefits of life requirements on planet Earth, per se, was, and still, not clearly and effectively coupled to the individual disciplines of science and technology. Probably this has also, to do with the great lack of interest at the universities and the academies in coupling science and technology to the wider socio-economic-environment sustainability benefits specially on regional and global scales. Trans-disciplinary and trans-sectorial issues within and between science and technology have emerged more and more in the later part of the past century, however the coupling to socio-economic-environment aspects has only grown rather slowly by the end of the past century.

It is very clear from the will of Alfred Nobel that the Prize should be given to anyone that have made mankind the greatest benefit within the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and peace “utdelas som prisbelöning åt dem som under det förlupna året hafva gjort menskligheten den största nytta. Räntan delas i fem lika delar som tillfalla: en del till den som inom fysikens område har gjort den vigtigaste upptäckt eller uppfinning; en del den som har gjort den vigtigaste kemiska upptäckt eller förbättring; en del den som har gjort den vigtigaste upptäckt inom fysiologiens eller medicinens domän; en del som inom litteraturen har produceradt det utmärktaste i idealisk rigtning; och en del åt den som har verkat mest eller best för folkens förbrödrande och avskaffande eller minskning av stående arméer samt bildande och spridande av fredskongresser“.

The distinct definition and conservative classification of science and technology into individual and separate disciplines, e.g. physics, chemistry (and to lesser extend physiology or medicine, literature and peace) is of considerable importance for the advances within these disciplines themselves. Nevertheless, it has definitely caused greater gaps between the expectations of common people around the world what concerns achieving sustainable societies and the current achievements in science and technology. Planet Earth is our generous home and has to come in the first place what regards “mankind greatest benefit”. No one of us would like to go to a home that has restrictive boundaries for healthy life and in many parts of the planet even not fit for living at all.

But what is/are the problem(s), the market?, the economy?, the management?, planning?, ????. Since the early history of the Nobel Prize there have been many advances in science that promoted innovation in technology with further positive feedback on science and visa versa. This has promoted strong but yet narrow coupling to engineering and industry with only huge benefits for market economy “growth economy”. There has been little, or even lack of, attention to the health and the wealth of planet Earth in general. In this context, the Nobel Prize and other motivational instruments around the world, including the education and the research systems and the supplementary management infrastructures around them, have not been supportive enough to counteract these trends that caused more and more degradation in the health of planet Earth. Alternatively, the world community has not developed timely solutions, diverse and effectives instruments to meet the existing vacuum in innovation, inventions and employment that the world is currently dreaming about. The journey of science and technology has supported primarily the market economy “growth economy” rather than promoting science and technology to empower sustainable developments in general, i.e. to achieve appropriate and coherent coupling of science and technology to the “socio-economic-environment” requirements of future sustainable societies (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/; https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/envision2030.html).

Though these trends and obstacles there have been positive (but still limited) developments on personal, collective and organizational levels including few ones from the Nobel-foundation related groups (http://nobelsustainability.org/; http://np4sd.org/; http://www.climateaction.org/news/nobel-family-members-establish-the-nobel-sustainability-growth-fund; https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2004/summary/; http://businessworld.in/article/Nobel-Prize-For-Sustainability-And-Global-Green-Investment-Bank-Announced-Mungo-Park-Chairman-Of-Innovator-Capital/12-03-2018-143141; http://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5541/303.2.full; https://www.kth.se/blogs/studentblog/2017/10/nobel-prize-for-sustainability/; https://www.origingreen.com/en/sustainable-sourcing/; https://protix.eu/press_and_media/katerva-nobel-prize-sustainability/; http://www.nobelprizedialogue.jp/tokyo2018/; https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-nobel_prize_dialogue/npd_tokyo2015/index.html). This gives much pleasure for anyone of us who have followed the long journey of how sustainability emerged from the dark ages of the unconscious era of being in war with planet Earth, to be a central dream for many of us. It is indeed a long way to see how the role of science and technology has evolved from being focused on internal science and technology issues to the wider benefits for the human being by recognizing the imperatives of achieving and promoting sustainable life on planet earth.

While we are celebrating the Nobel Prize winners in the memory of Alfred Nobel, we ought to be reminded that we need many generous entrepreneurs like Alfred Nobel who can put more efforts to support the innovations and inventions for making our planet Earth Great Again. For several reasons the selection mechanisms of the Nobel Foundation what regards the Nobel Prize have its own technicalities that cause limitation to deal with what is addressed here. There are, still considerable needs for more effective and diverse innovative platforms to push forward and strengthen coupling science and technology with the basic sustainability pillars for future generations to come.

Immigration-Integration Dilemma: An Inconvenient Truth in Swedish Politics

Since the end of the Second World War WW-II Immigration-Integration politics have been of importance for Europe especially during the early stages of the internal collective focus on building up a strong European economy. During this period, the foreign labor felt appreciation from the employers and the state by being an important part of an ongoing collective movement that will allow them to build their individual economies and to improve their future as well. Most of the foreign labor during this period came from other parts of Europe with great excitement and motivation to improve their economies and social status. A small part of the foreign emigrant came for the sake of education with great motivation to improve their own Career-Development-Plans. Later on, for the sake of creating social European integrity and during the formation of the European Union 🇪🇺, it was where most of success, or failure, in the integration process took place. Meanwhile, as Europe started to become economically strong and focused on the internal issues to form the European Union, the demography of the foreign labor and emigrants changed and shifted dramatically as a consequence of attitude changes in the labor market in Europe. Much sharper competition on jobs with new reforms of the immigration policies oriented more and more meet the new condition in the labor market. Along the way of these periods, there have been great variations in how individual countries in Europe succeeded in integrating foreign workers in their labor, social and economic structures (https://www.economy.com/dismal/analysis/commentary/258390/Europes-Biggest-Challenge-Since-World-War-II/).

Generally speaking, successful integration requires workable policies on anti-discrimination, family reunification, equal access to education, political participation, permanent residence, and above all, labour market integration. Other essential issues that were, and still, rarely considered include inclusive social participation and interaction in cultural, tradition and folklore activities. The last mentioned ones are typical engagement in free time, weekends and vacations where most emigrants, in countries with less successful integration, feel very much isolated from the rest of the society. The language that most emigrants acquire (especially during the first years of residence) is, not seldom, limited to integrating them in the labor market, as is the case in Sweden during the past decades. Here the state or the employers have, because of budgetary restrictions, very little resources to offer in this respect. Putting language learning and linguistic developments in practical and real social communication situations are, also, very important and can even be of central importance. Humans have natural explicit needs to express and understand feelings and to support social thinking and problem-solving for developing and maintaining relationships. This is where understanding and using the language is imperative to enjoy the deep social, cultural and folkloric roots in any society. This is how to turn “workers” to “citizens”, no one would really appreciate or like to stay a worker, a machine or a robot all his/her life. These are simple facts in sociology and psychology. This is the very reason why most foreigners/emigrants feel outsiders in new cultures even after relatively long time of residence. This can end up in gradual transformation of early stage cultural chocks of individuals to permanent and collective social trauma. It is, also, the core reason of the social segregation that took place in some places with minority groups in Sweden, in particular Malmö, Göteborg, Stockholm and Uppsala. This represents also obstacles and difficulties to enjoy working by being an essential path for complete social integration (sometimes understood as assimilation) and not only a wheel in the machinery of production and economy.

This said, the only way of integrating immigrants is that officials should recast the short-term threats into long-term benefits. It is a political and economic minefield and though immigration could stop the population decline of many European countries, including Sweden, integrating foreign workers will be costly, politically and socially sensitive. However, simple economic facts and basic rules of entrepreneurship tell us as that no gains without investment and the outcome and gains are always related to the level of investments assuming that proper planning, careful, tight and continuous management actions are being applied (https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/sites/futurium/files/jrc107441_wp_kancs_and_lecca_2017_4.pdf).

Ideally, there should be no marked difference between the unemployment rate of foreign-born and native-born workers, nor in their wages. This is true only in the Czech Republic, and to a lesser extent in the U.K. and Ireland. However, the unemployment rate of foreign-born workers exceeds that of native-born workers in nearly all EU states, especially in Sweden, Spain and France. In 2014 and beyond, Sweden had the widest gap between native and immigrant joblessness rates among OECD countries. But Sweden’s generous social policy, originally designed to help immigrants integrate, is partly to blame for widening the gap. The gap between domestic and foreign workers’ wages in Sweden was the second highest in 2014 after Luxembourg and still. While, Cyprus, Germany, and to a lesser extent the U.K. and Finland successfully integrated foreign workers into their labour markets, Greece, Spain and Sweden struggled. Indeed, the lack of political action by all political parties and for very longtime have caused draining on public funds and worsening social tensions.

Another aspect that did not get enough attention by Swedish politicians is proper management of the inflow of migrants as decisions should be driven by the structural requirements and the underlying needs of the host economy and, labor conditions as well as the social fabrics. Unlike the U.K. and the industry-oriented Germany, Greece, France, or the Nordic countries are, however, struggling to integrate emigrants into their service-driven economies. European leaders are focused on migrant quotas, but the social and economic integration of those already present is urgent. No simple and common solution fits all countries “one-size-fits-all”, but job-finding assistance, language and social programs would help (https://www.economy.com/dismal/analysis/commentary/258390/Europes-Biggest-Challenge-Since-World-War-II/kr).

Following the political debates in Sweden during the past decades and the culmination of the political situation that resulted in the emergence of “extreme” right, the Sweden Democrats SD, as a major political party with 20% of the Swedish population (about two millions of people) is a simple reminder of what needs to be done. During the same period the Immigration-Integration policies were being, and still, debated by all parties but with insufficient actions and measures to deal with the core reasons of the pile-up of the impacts that caused the emergence of the “extreme” right. Whether or not there are direct or indirect reasons for such shift (https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/forskare-alliansen-och-finanskrisen-orsak-till-sds-framgang/; https://www.dn.se/debatt/repliker/sds-okning-drivs-av-invandringsmotstand/) there remain urgent and serious needs for collective political actions and solutions. So far, all political parties including SD are in agreement for partial solutions, i.e. increase of the number of police, that will not necessarily result in the final solution the Immigration-Integration dilemma in Sweden. There are much more to be done. Flighting “fire” 🔥 by increasing the number of “firemen” 🚒 will not simply remove the core reason for the existence and expansion of “fire”. At least the Immigration-Integration issue should be appropriately and carefully assessed and detailed on the national level with active involvement of research councils. So far, research councils have passive involvement thus leaving the politicians and policy-makers to act more or less randomly without clear and validated data of the underlaying reasons. Another important aspect is how to effectively involve emigrants in finding the best practices for long-term and secure Immigration-Integration policies.

This said, globalization and the UN-SGD are calling for strong partnership that can be developed in sustainable manner when all Immigration-Integration policies consider win-win “employer-employees-citizenship” appreciation. These issues will remain to be central and imperative in national and global socio-economies, they are without hesitation the core of any future healthy and wealthy sustainable society.

Planet Earth – Current Politics Is For Adults Only. Not for Children and Youth

There are no guarantees that life on Planet Earth would or can offer any good living conditions for the years beyond 2050. It is highly risky future for current children 👶 (definitely unborn children) and youth to have safe and secure life, as their parents so far enjoyed on Planet Earth 🌏. Not to mention elderly people that have served their societies, yet they have to pass away with the same “business-as-usual” politics.

The 15-year-old Swedish girl is on strike from school for the climate (https://www.google.se/amp/s/www.thelocal.se/20180824/meet-the-15-year-old-swedish-girl-on-strike-from-school-for-the-climate/amp) as many other young people around that are doing the same (https://www.google.se/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/us/politics/zero-hour-climate-march.amp.html) as they feel marginalized by business-as-usual politics. So far world politicians have excluded and eliminated children and young people from having a decent and fair future. All politics around the world are so far emanated from well established economic systems that are not suitable for a healthy and wealthy Planet Earth 🌏.

Many protests have taken place and will intensify and continue, here are some few examples (https://www.nrdc.org/peoples-climate-march; http://thisiszerohour.org/the-march/; https://peoplesclimate.org/actions/pledge/; https://peoplesclimate.org; https://www.campaigncc.org)

Fifteen-year-old Greta Thunberg describes herself as a “climate radical” and is protesting outside Sweden’s Parliament along with families and children that feel marginalized by politicians. These are the future victims of politics that contributed in deteriorating the quality of life, in all its forms, on Planet Earth.

Coming Soon: Making Planet Earth Great Again Is A Matter of Empowering It. The Dilemma of World Leaders Is How? They Keep Failing As They Fight Over Consuming Its Resources!

To make the best sustainable benefits of Planet Earth 🌏 not only for us, but also for future generations, puts world leader in a deep and continuous dilemma. We can not afford repeating our failures, it is definitely not about putting counties in competitions against the rules of healthy and wealthy Planet Earth. It is certainly not about making single countries Great Again over night. It is rather to have a global brain with unified strategy and goals to promote and implement innovative, collective and sustainable approaches for empowering our living conditions.

Politics and Management of Planet Earth – Enslaving OR Empowering the Planet

A very basic phenomena in many elections around the world 🌍 is the struggle between the left, the right politics and anything in between, on political power and the associated manipulations with arguments to get the votes 🗳. The economic issues are always of central importance in all global elections. On the other-side it is interesting to know how the political, and thereby socio-economic-environment, ideologies of different parties are being perceived by “WE THE PEOPLE”, especially in the short time window where all the competing parties are actively engaged in a common public debate, i.e. just before the end of the voting period. Another very strategic question, not yet central in many elections or even absent, is the impacts of political systems and debates therein on the public what regards Planet Earth itself. Indeed, Planet Earth 🌏 and its subunits have no possibilities (tools or means to empower it legal rights) to vote and the only means is to actively illuminate all the critical and central issues, about the natural functioning and metabolism on Planet Earth, to the citizens. In principle, such possibilities/rights are delegated to someone else, but is it delegated to the politicians? or to “WE THE PEOPLE”?, this is not clear or even unknown. Another issue is the quality, transparency, the will and knowledge of the politicians on the one hand and the political maturity and the socio-economic-environment awareness of “WE THE PEOPLE” on the other.

In any case, in political elections someone else is taking decision or has the VETO, on behalf of the Earth. As we are in the geological era of the Anthropocene we have to re-consider the role of politics on Planet Earth and its performance in this regard as this on the long-run will have serious impact on all future generations. This is logic as we are getting more and more dependent on a Planet Earth and not the reverse. A degenerating Planet with declining resources in terms of quantity and quality. Let us analyse these issues.

The functioning and metabolism of Planet Earth, or the Earth’s system, as a unique organism in the solar system, can be understood (on its own merits or alternatively with consideration of the interference of humans) in several ways depending on how it is divided into subunits, subsystems or sub-spheres (all of these involve climatic zones with geographical boundaries and thereby counties). Before doing this, we must appreciate the imperative importance of the solar radiation 🌞, in particular the “sunshine”, i.e. the light 🌈 and the heat 🔥from the sun, for planet Earth.

From the biodiversity point of view, The Earth, as it is, is mainly composed of living things with essential biological processes. Without living things our planet could be anything else, of an empty physical space (as other planets), other than a home 🏡 for living things. We would even not have realized its and our existence, as we wouldn’t be here in the first place. Yet, we wouldn’t exist if there were no living things other than us. So, the diversity of living things is a pre-request for our survival. As our survival is dependent on other living things then we can at least appreciate that other living things need each other for their survival as well. Now let us examine the other needs of living things, i.e. the biosphere. First of all our biosphere is ruled by several boundary conditions that are primarily driven by what we have around us in terms of quantity and quality as well as the processes regulating, or being involved, in their functioning, metabolism and ecology. The living things, as they breath, need air but not any air, it must be of the certain suitable composition and quality that can support the life of the living things on planet Earth. That is what we know as the atmosphere and it has really what is needed for all living things (in particular oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide) providing that its composition and quality are kept within the requirements to support and sustain the life of the living things. As the atmosphere has active interactions with other sub-spheres, subunits or subsystems of the Earth, therefore, there are no guarantees that its composition will remain optimal for living things in particular with consideration to the enormous interference of humans through manipulating all the existing natural resources on planet Earth and beyond (think about colonisation of space and intensive use of airplanes). This however, has contributed in changing the atmospheric composition is such away that the temperature of the Earth is increasing and started to surpass what can be considered for safe living on the planet. Also, the air quality available for world population is not any longer as good as before and for some parts of the world, in particular cities, it is getting worse and unacceptable.

The living things on Earth need water 💦(hydrosphere) as it is the essence of the generation, regeneration and the diversity of living things. The underlying process for life on planet Earth is photosynthesis (whether on land or in the aquatic systems of surface and marine waters). Water and carbon dioxide are the basic components for the generation and regeneration of living things on planet Earth through photosynthesis and by being fueled by the sun ☀️ . Yet, other elements/compounds must be available in water in particular nutrients but with appropriate amounts, not too little and not too much. Fortunately, water is a perfect carrier for such elements “trace elements” and the balance between the atmosphere and the hydrosphere (including global exchange processes of carbon dioxide) was so far appropriate for healthy photosynthesis on land and in aquatic systems. However, water is also a solvent for other harmful elements/compounds, so water through its journey in global environmental systems can be also a source of threat as well. Water like air, in this sense, needs to have certain content of life promoters, i.e. nutrients, to support and sustain life. The hydrosphere (including surface water, groundwater and the ocean 🌊) as the atmosphere has been exposed to serious degradation in quality because of the severe interference of humans with both the atmosphere and the hydrosphere through the three main revolutions, i.e. agricultural, industrial and rechnological. This has loaded, and for some regions overloaded, both the atmosphere and the hydrosphere with several pollutants and waste remains. The water cycle, in variable degrees and scales, has also started to deviate from what can be considered safe for our living.

For several reasons we need land (lithosphere) for our living, where else can we live? The survival of living things, in particular humans, need healthy ecosystems with suitable and appropriate living environments on the first hand. Modern urbanization including the vast expansion of cities that have developed very rapid on the expense of natural ecosystems such as forests, river and lake catchments, islands, oceans and marine coasts. Though cities are important form of living yet they generally need to be up-graded to fulfill modern sustainability requirements in terms of supporting the economic, environment and social needs of the citizens. In many parts of the world cities are either over-aged or mainly built (modern cities) to serve mostly (and in best cases) working and economic needs of the citizens with little consideration to the environmental and social needs of well-balanced mix of people of different ages, interests, origin and requirements, and in particular to support the diverse needs of families. This however, evolved with heavy price of mental instabilities, stress, segregation, social isolation, limited mobility, insecurity, loneliness, lack of transparency, ……….. etc. Most seriously is the growing lack of multi-layered integration of rural (villages, desert 🐫 and agricultural communities) and urbanized areas (cities and industrial centres) though the considerable advance of technology in particular transportation and ICT. The land, also, provide several other basic services, i.e. the same way ecosystems provide services, for humans. Mining, for example, of natural resources is among these services which also developed in such a way that it can produce enormous amounts of diverse waste and pollution. This is of course, in addition to draining the Earth in unsustainable manner, from its natural resources. In several parts of the world, the living conditions of the communities that are dependent on mining for their living are indeed not acceptable. Agriculture and land-use consume over 70% of our freshwater resources, yet food is becoming insufficient for the growing world population, also climate change and global warming can hit hard and further worsen the situation.

With this said, the political debates around the world are very much similar in one sense. In terms of sustainability they show how politics failed to manage Planet Earth and the needs of its future inhabitants. The situation as we have it today on Planet Earth, on any level from individuals to countries is to forget about the future generations, live now and take a “selfie”. To avoid to take responsibility for what went wrong or can be a threat for future generations and just blame it on others: it is simply not our failure; it is someone’s else. The same story we hear everywhere and at anytime. The politics now is about putting our world, including the global population, in competition (for more consumption) to see who is the best to make himself, a group of people, a piece of land, a culture, an ideology or ……. or …….. Great Again and for some populations it is to re-invent a future that brings back the Great distant past Again. This is done, unfortunately, with little consideration to the consequences to the rest of the world. “FIFA” did it good, again and again, and made our world happy, let us have politics a la FIFA’s model. Nature played it good according to Darwin, so if FIFA’s model would not work, let us do nothing and let the “natural selection” fix it all and for ever. In the world of politics, it would not work these ways, would it? It is getting confusing and the world politicians are in despair what to do, or precisely what not to do, as the problems we created for Planet Earth are by far much complex, larger and deeper than we can ever imagine.

The arguments of the coming politicians, or on their way to enter politics and take over, are the ones that say “those before us were not good and we can do it better”. It is all about new experiments of the same old versions but with different facade, who knows. We can only judge by the outcome after they leave the political theater and by that time it is late or even too late, this is how the state of Planet Earth as we have today developed.

What politicians did so far is to Take power over the citizens for the purpose to represent them. To represent them for whom? and for what? Is Planet Earth existing in the political equation of affairs? Take over our fate, Take over the management of all the natural resources on Planet Earth that were the result of billions of years of evolution with arguments to create jobs and multiply the economic gains. But this has resulted in an accelerating deterioration and degradation of Planet Earth. Has Planet Earth ever existed in any political managent model? , i.e. including Taking control over national capital and wealth and Taking decisions to shape the future of all coming generations, to form new pathway of competition for more consumption (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot). All of these created more and more barriers, frustrations, caused degeneration of planet Earth and stripped it out of its natural resources. At the same time degraded the quality of all life forms on Planet Earth. Humans on planet earth are reproducing themselves and generating new copies of the same old ones with politics that support and promote these trends. More of the same with increasing numbers where the typical route of success is to do like others, be part of a main stream culture to consume more and carry on to produce more and more waste and pollution.

The collective global results and the overall sum of all political transformations over the past generation, regardless how, where and when they were originated, developed and performed have definitely resulted in a major trend towards complete consumption of all the natural resources on planet Earth including enslaving its population.

We need a political well to empower Planet Earth against deteriorating the living conditions and the quality of life on Earth. Yes, it is probably late but definitely not too late as much of the human achievements on Planet Earth are indeed reversible with the help of innovation. It is all about one goal and one mission that can be summarized in one word “Sustainability” no more no less.

The final question to politicians (including capital based policy-makers, is: would the management of planet Earth empower OR enslave it? Is current and future politics and associated economic policies, are still tuned for an ever increasing unconditional consumption. If so who would promote and implement the UN-SDGs, if not how would the UN-SDGs be promoted and implemented? The UN-SDGs are currently looking like a huge vessel in a stormy ocean with little fuel and unorganized staff with no pilot on charge. It is hoped that the passengers on the vessel “WE THE PEOPLE” will anyhow and by any means navigate it peacefully to its final destination. May be or may be not who knows, those who constructed the vessel “THE POLITICIANS and CAPITAL OWNERS” are not actively and promptly prepared to revise and restore whatever goes wrong which unfortunately resulted in what we have today.