THE INDIVIDUAL. Historically, the notion of being an individual is a modern phenomenon because as humans throughout history, we have lived in more or less collectivist forms of polities, communities and social organizing. Questions about our existence, feelings and lifestyles are something we deal with daily. In the book “We are all individualists” (“Vi är alla individualister” in Swedish), liberal opinion-maker and philosopher Jesper Ahlin Marceta writes about why Sweden is a very individualistic society and about the role of liberalism.
.

What does it mean to be an individual? Humans think about existential questions daily and self-reflection is something that we can develop through education and exercises. For example, according to the Taoist philosophy, a smart person understands and knows others while a wise person understands and knows oneself.

My own individuality developed to a large extent through the experiences of the war in Bosnia almost 30 years ago. My memories entail moments such as listening to Neil Young’s “Keep on rocking in the free world” and the Belgrade-based punk band Partibrejkersi, whose members actively opposed Serbia’s dictator Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s.  They were singing about the importance of being honest, free and unique as an individual. These occasions were very important for me in order to deal with a post-war environment characterized by authoritarian values, hateful behaviors and social mistrust.

Discussions about who we are and how we should behave are important around the globe. One outcome is the establishment of the new philosophical movements and initiatives, such as metamodernism, based on the arguments that our values and behaviors are characterized by how humans shape our social world and how our experiences shape us.  The recent development in Europe regarding debates about migration, identification and community has also resulted in many new books being published on topics related to human morality and psychology. Based on some latest experiences in Sweden, my latest reading is “We are all individualists,” written by Jesper Ahlin Marceta, one of Sweden’s foremost liberal thinkers and member of the liberal magazine Liberal Debatt.

The book targets everyone who wants to understand what Sweden is, has been and can become as a society when it comes to dominant norms, values, and behaviors. Ahlin is an author who makes his arguments based on empirical evidence and research from various fields, which makes the book a mix of history, philosophy and psychology. The reader will become acquainted with concepts such as idiocentric and allocentric personality type and how it reflects on everyday life.

Ahlin’s work can be described as a Sweden-focused discussion regarding communication and stories characterized by the “Brexit and Trump” era. The book is also about the history of liberalism as well as other ideologies. The author writes about the meaning of individualism throughout history; an important reflection as liberalism, individualism, and globalization are criticized for making people angry, authoritarian and atomized through “destroyed” democracies and communities.

By establishing his counter-arguments on an impressive amount of research, Ahlin shows why many critics of liberalism and individualistic lifestyles, such as the social-conservative academic Patrick Deneen, get wrong in their reasoning. Another strength of the book is that Ahlin masters the meaning of different ideologies by pointing out the differences between liberal and socialist individualists. It is worth mentioning that despite his affiliation to the right-wing and market-liberal think tank Timbro, Ahlin advocates more cooperation between liberals, progressives and left-wingers by writing about the history of ideological and political compromises related to Sweden`s development during the 20th century.

At the same time, when it comes to making compromises, there are also parts of the book I find uncomfortable. Because Ahlin is doing something radical and new in the Swedish debate about ideas, and more precisely when it comes to the debate within the liberal community in Sweden. Partly, Ahlin takes a stand against neoliberalism, which he believes has focused too much on the market, money and materialism instead on topics regarding community and identification. Ahlin also takes a stand for “liberal nationalism“, turning the book a kind of a cold shower for many liberals, especially those who during the 1990s and 2000s, advocated in favor of globalization, European integration and liberalization processes.

From my point of view, in a modern world, it is impossible to make a political defense of the individual’s uniqueness and plurality in the universal sense by demanding that “everyone” must have a special loyalty to a certain nation, even if it is done with a reference to liberal values. The book does not really address the fact that the advocacy of the mix of liberalism and nationalism is nothing new in modern times and that similar ideas throughout history have contributed to repression, distrust and even wars. In addition, the case in Sweden is that several right-wing opinion-makers have already invoked liberal-nationalism by stating phrases such as “Sweden should become like Denmark” – a society that has become less open, liberal and tolerant in recent years.

I expected to find in the book relevant academics and opinion-makers such as Clara Sandelind, who has written about the problems concerning the mixture of liberalism with nationalism and what it means regarding policies for migration, identification and freedom in relation to global problems and challenges. Therefore, the book lacks deeper, more complex and world-conscious answers about how liberals should act and organize themselves and how liberalism can be renewed. It is already the fact that Sweden as an EU-member state, functions as a transnational state and in some respects as a cosmopolitan state as when it comes to refugees and human security.

After all, nationalism neither inspire nor enable people to cooperate as world citizens by creating new stories and institutions and empathy and solidarity worldwide. However, the book is an important read for those who want to understand how Sweden’s development during the 2020s may look like, why individualism is still important and why the liberal state and society model is so far better compared to others.

The post Being an individual yesterday, today and tomorrow first appeared on Opulens.

DECENTRALISATION. Cryptocurrencies are often criticised for having a negative impact on the environment and climate. This is particularly the case with Bitcoin in relation to carbon emissions and ecological footprint. Despite such problems, in the future different cryptocurrencies will be able to contribute to climate transformation and greener economic interactions.

One of the latest examples of a larger purchase of Bitcoin is the case of  Tesla, owned by Elon Musk, buying Bitcoin worth of 1,5 billion American dollars. Criticism towards Tesla is that a company promoting climate sustainability and fossil-free energy is investing in a cryptocurrency that is increasing  Tesla’s carbon footprint. While Musk is positive towards Bitcoin, another famous worldwide businessman Bill Gates has proclaimed himself a “Bitcoin sceptic” and criticised Bitcoin’s impact on climate. 

Concerning this development,  questions have been raised within academic institutions and crypto-currency communities. Should cryptocurrencies be banned or taxed? Or if there are better and more climate-friendly alternatives? Regardless of one’s opinions, here are some of the following facts and figures to be considered when it comes to criticism against cryptocurrencies concerning the environment and climate. 

For a start, banning cryptocurrencies is hard and more or less impossible in practice. Facebook is banned in China but still being used among millions of Chinese via an alternative, and thereby illegal, methods. Bitcoin mining is already prohibited in Venezuela, and the government opposes Bitcoin itself. But governments who have made such decisions and policies are very inefficient in implementing them. 

Another idea is to tax cryptocurrencies with a special carbon tax. The idea of a carbon tax for crypto may sound suitable and progressive, but the similar principle could then be applied to paper money and e-mails, or even on Instagram stories and Zoom calls. After all, much of the Internet traffic is used for emails, and trees have to be cut down for printing paper money. 

The main criticism regarding Bitcoin is that its blockchain system for computing, verifications and transactions consumes enormous amounts of electricity. This process is more famous as  “mining” where many computers verify every transaction through interactions and mathematical methods. For example, according to the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance,  Bitcoin currently uses more electricity than the entire countries of Austria and Greece combined. 

A perceived problem is that when the price of Bitcoin rises, miners can use their higher revenues to reinvest in more mining machines and computers, increasing both their profits but also their overall carbon emissions. It has been estimated that one Bitcoin transaction generates around the CO2 equivalent to around 700 000 – 750 000 swipes with a Visa credit card. 

Most Bitcoin is mined in China, where despite claims of renewable energy,  the mining process often is supplied by coal power. Some US states as Washington, known for low electricity costs in the country, have created a higher cost electricity tier for some miners living and working there after their mining process led to overwhelming local energy grids. Others as the Candian province Quebec, has issued a decision to prevent new mining within the province.  

Crypto indeed has problems, so what is the solution? For a start, an important insight is that not all cryptocurrencies are the same. For example, Seeds is designed as a “cryptocurrency for the climate” and to facilitate a “regenerative civilisation”.  The SEEDS community is using Seeds to enable and reward projects regarding food security and social wellbeing. 

Another solution is the “proof of stake” system which is different to Bitcoin’s “proof of work” (mining) system. A Proof of Stake cryptocurrency networks and communities as Seeds and  Tezos do not depend on electricity costs. Instead, they depend on direct economic incentives where the stakeholders can be rewarded and punished for their performances as validators. Thereby, cryptocurrencies as Tezos are using a computing and verification system that is less damaging when it comes to climate change. 

In Bitcoin’s defence, it should be said that not all studies about Bitcoin’s impact on climate change have been reliable in the end. For example, one study from  2017 “predicted” that Bitcoin energy usage would lead to a global energy shortage in 2020! However, the promise of Bitcoin becoming “greener” has also not been realised. Instead, Bitcoin is less green and climate-friendly today concerning overall numbers of transactions, energy consumption and sources of energy. 



If Bitcoin is going to be a part of the solution instead of being part of the problem, the alternative is to become greener when it comes to energy usage, something that Bitcoin users and miners have the responsibility for. This could be achieved via decentralised democratic community-based decision-making where different ideas and proposals should be discussed and decided. For example, if the proof of stake system should be used. 

Despite negative and valid criticism regarding climate and environmental aspects, cryptocurrencies are here to stay as part of the overall decentralisation process. Even on a more sustainable and regenerative planet, people will still need to trade and interact with each other. Therefore, our planetary future depends on that more cryptocurrencies can operate on an eco-friendly basis. 

The post Are cryptocurrencies good for the planet? first appeared on Opulens.

DEMOKRATI. Boken The Tribalization of Europe. A Defense of Our Liberal Values av Marlene Wind är ett välkommet bidrag i diskussionerna om Europas utveckling. Winds budskap är att historiska lärdomar är viktiga för att motverka opportunism och populism.

The Tribalization of Europe. A Defense of Our Liberal Values av Marlene Wind
Wiley

Hösten 2018 åkte jag Uber-taxi i Barcelona i samband med deltagandet i en sommarskola för basinkomstförespråkare från hela Europa. När jag och chauffören åkte förbi en demonstration frågade jag honom vad det handlade om. Chaufförens svar var att medlemmar ur den katalanska “communityn” var i konflikt med de som inte vill att Katalonien bryter sig ur Spanien.

Själva ordvalet “community“ och att chaufförens engelska hade en urdu-brytning påminde mig om tiden när jag bodde i Indien och läste om kravaller i storstaden Bangalore. Det var en konflikt som pågick mellan kannadafolket och tamiler. Hur kunde sådant ske i ett land som historiskt haft en stor kulturell mångfald tänkte jag? Tills jag insåg att liknande saker sker i Europa och att människor kan bruka och missbruka sina identifikationer.

The post Det populistiska hotet first appeared on Opulens.